Marine Strategy Framework Directive : review and analysis of Member States’ 2018 reports : descriptor 1 : species biological diversity.
Date: 2021-04-12
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: EU Member State, biodiversity, directive (EU), disclosure of information, environmental monitoring, environmental research, marine ecosystem, marine life, protection of animal life, research report

Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

Review and analysis of Member States’ 
2018 reports Descriptor 1: Species 
biological diversity 

Assessment (Art. 8), Good 
Environmental Status (Art. 9) 
and Targets (Art. 10) 

Andreas Palialexis and Simona T. Boschetti 

2021 

EUR 30664 EN 

 
 
 
 
This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It 
aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a 
policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission  is 
responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used 
in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenc ed source. The 
designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part 
of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation 
of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information  
Name: Andreas Palialexis 
Address: Via E. Fermi 2749, TP 270, I-21027 Ispra (VA) - Italy 
Email: andreas.palialexis@ec.europa.eu 
Tel: +39 0332 78 9206 

EU Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC124085 

EUR 30664 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-34256-4 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/27700 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

© European Union, 2021 

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse 
of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under  the Creative 
Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed 
provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any  use or reproduction of photos or  other  material that is  not 
owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

All content © European Union, 2021, except: cover page, Yiannis Issaris, 2014. Source: www.yissaris.com 

How to cite this report: Palialexis Andreas and Boschetti Simona T., Review and analysis of Member States’ 2018 reports Descriptor 1: Species 
biological  diversity,  EUR  30664  EN,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  2021,  ISBN  978-92-79-34256-4, 
doi:10.2760/27700, JRC124085. 

2 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IDA D1 species 

Contents 
IDA D1 species .................................................................................................................................. 3 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 8 

1.  Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................... 11 

1.1 

Results of Art.8 analysis.................................................................................................... 11 

Consistency, comparability and adequacy of reported criteria elements and features 

assessed at EU and regional level ............................................................................................. 11 

Extension in use of MSFD Criteria (primary and secondary) reported at EU, regional 

and (sub)regional level............................................................................................................. 16 

Legislation related to marine mammals at EU and regional levels ............................. 20 

Marine mammal parameters and threshold values ................................................... 22 

1.1.4.2  Threshold ................................................................................................................. 28 

Consistency of spatial coverage and assessment period ............................................ 32 

Date when GES is expected to be achieved ............................................................... 33 

Analysis of the integration methods across parameters and criteria ......................... 36 

1.2 

Results of Art.9 analysis.................................................................................................... 38 

GES determination levels .......................................................................................... 38 

Comparability with legislation related to marine mammals at different scales .......... 40 

Analysis of adequacy of GES ..................................................................................... 40 

Consistency and adequacy of reported GES spatial coverage (when relevant; regional, 
national, MRU) ........................................................................................................................ 40 

Justifications for delays in setting EU/regional thresholds and non-use of criteria ..... 40 

2.  Marine reptiles ........................................................................................................................ 41 

2.1  Marine reptiles result of Art.8 analysis ............................................................................. 41 

Consistency, comparability and adequacy of reported criteria elements and features 

assessed at EU and regional level ............................................................................................. 41 

Extension in use of MSFD Criteria (primary and secondary) reported at EU, regional 

and (sub)regional level............................................................................................................. 42 

Marine reptile parameters and thresholds ................................................................ 44 

Consistency of spatial coverage and assessment period ............................................ 45 

Date when GES is expected to be achieved ............................................................... 46 

Analysis of the integration methods across parameters and criteria ......................... 47 

2.2 

Results of Art.9 analysis for D1 marine reptiles ................................................................. 49 

GES determination levels .......................................................................................... 49 

3 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. 

Seabirds ................................................................................................................................... 51 

3.1 

Seabirds results of Art.8 analysis ...................................................................................... 51 

Consistency, comparability and adequacy of reported criteria elements and features 

assessed at EU and regional level ............................................................................................. 51 

Extension in use of MSFD Criteria (primary and secondary) reported at EU, regional 

and (sub)regional level............................................................................................................. 59 

Seabirds threshold values and parameters reported ................................................. 66 

Consistency of spatial coverage and assessment period ............................................ 70 

Date when GES is expected to be achieved ............................................................... 71 

Analysis of the integration methods across parameters and criteria ......................... 78 

3.2 

Results of Art.9 analysis for D1 seabirds ........................................................................... 81 

GES determination levels .......................................................................................... 81 

4.  Cephalopods ............................................................................................................................ 86 

4.1 

Cephalopods results of Art.8 analysis ............................................................................... 86 

Consistency, comparability and adequacy of reported criteria elements and features 

assessed at EU and regional level ............................................................................................. 86 

Extension in use of MSFD Criteria (primary and secondary) reported at EU, regional 

and (sub)regional level............................................................................................................. 88 

Cephalopods’ thresholds values and parameters reported ....................................... 90 

Consistency of spatial coverage and assessment period ............................................ 91 

GES achievement or date expected to be achieved ................................................... 92 

Analysis of the integration methods across parameters and criteria ......................... 93 

4.2 

Results of Art.9 analysis for D1 cephalopods .................................................................... 94 

GES determination levels .......................................................................................... 94 

Justifications for delays and no-using ........................................................................ 96 

5. 

Fish .......................................................................................................................................... 97 

5.1 

Fish results of Art.8 analysis ............................................................................................. 97 

Consistency, comparability and adequacy of reported criteria elements and features 

assessed at EU and regional level ............................................................................................. 97 

Extension in use of MSFD Criteria (primary and secondary) reported at EU, regional 

and (sub)regional level........................................................................................................... 113 

Threshold values and parameters reported ............................................................ 124 

Consistency of spatial coverage and assessment period .......................................... 129 

GES achievement or date expected to be achieved ................................................. 130 

5.2 

Results of Art.9 analysis for D1 fish ................................................................................. 132 

GES determination levels ........................................................................................ 132 

6.  Results of Art. 10 analysis ...................................................................................................... 136 

4 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.1 

Analysis of D1 ecosystem components ........................................................................... 136 

Number of targets reported and their distribution across MS per region and 
subdivision ............................................................................................................................ 137 

Assignment of targets to GES components and parameters .................................... 138 

Quantification of the status of the targets .............................................................. 139 

Evaluation of the targets according to their capacity to be quantified. .................... 140 

Overview of the link between reported targets and measures, and reported targets 

and related indicators. ........................................................................................................... 140 

Analysis of the content of the targets reported, to provide an overview of the level of 
specificity where the targets were set. ................................................................................... 141 

The reported assessment periods for the targets. ................................................... 142 

6.2 

Findings and Recommendations for D1 Art. 10 ............................................................... 143 

7.  Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 144 

8.  References ............................................................................................................................. 147 

List of abbreviations and definitions .............................................................................................. 149 

List of figures ................................................................................................................................. 150 

List of tables .................................................................................................................................. 151 

9.  Appendix ............................................................................................................................... 155 

9.1 

9.2 

Appendix 1 ..................................................................................................................... 155 

Appendix 2 ..................................................................................................................... 164 

5 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Foreword 

The  Marine  Directors  of  the  European  Union  and  all  EU  Member  States  have  jointly  developed  a 
common strategy for supporting the implementation of the “Marine Strategy Framework Directive” 
(MSFD), 2008/56/EC, amended by Commission Directive (EU) 2017/845 of 17 May 2017. 

The European Commission Joint Research Centre is delivering thematic technical reports to support 
MSFD  implementation,  such  as  guidance  documents,  technical  background  reports  and  analyses 
related  to  EU  Member  States  reporting.  These  thematic  reports  are  targeted  at  experts  who  are 
directly or indirectly implementing the MSFD and support the further development of the Directive. 

The JRC's technical report series “Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Review and analysis of EU 
Member States' 2018 reports”, analyse, from a technical point of view, the MSFD reports submitted 
by  EU  Member  States pursuant  to  MSFD  Article  17. The  analysis  includes the  Good  Environmental 
Status Assessment  (Article 8),  the  determination  of Good  Environmental  Status  (Article 9)  and 
the Targets  setting  (Article 10). The  outcome provides  information  for  the  further  development  of 
the policy implementation, supported by the EU Member States through established MSFD Technical 
Groups and Expert Networks.  

6 | P a g e  

 
Abstract 

The report analyses the information provided by the European Union’s Member States (MS) for the 
species theme of Descriptor 1 (D1) – species groups of birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods 
(relating  to  Descriptor  1)  –  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD).  The  reported 
information by the MS follows the MSFD Article 17 requirement to update Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the 
Directive, for the current 6-year MSFD reporting cycle. By September 2020, 20 MS reported on D1 in 
electronic format. The MS made a huge and respectable effort to fulfil the demanding requirements 
of an environmentally ambitious Directive like the MSFD. The second reporting obligation for Art. 8, 9 
and 10 was remarkably improved compared to the 2012 reporting, especially regarding the regional 
coordination,  the  consistency  in  the  reporting  (which  can  be  further  improved)  and  good 
understanding of the reporting and assessing requirements.  

Regarding the species groups, marine mammals had more complete assessments and good regional 
coordination for the Good Environmental Status (GES) determination. For marine reptiles, there were 
no  agreed  methods  for  assessments  and  GES  determination,  and  this  was  reflected  in  the  poor 
reporting. Seabirds are well coordinated in terms of methods and assessment in the Baltic and North 
East Atlantic Seas, however important gaps exist in data availability in the Mediterranean and Black 
Sea.  For  fish  and  cephalopods  reported  under  D1,  critical  gaps  in  assessment  methods,  species 
selection and data did not allow a comprehensive EU GES evaluation.  

The  input  from  other  EU  policies,  mostly  the  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives,  and  the  Regional  Sea 
Conventions (boosted by EU action and support stemming from MSFD requirements) was critical for 
the improvement between the two reporting cycles. However, there is still room for aligning the EU 
policies and further developing regional indicators and methods towards harmonised and comparable 
regional GES assessments for the highly mobile species. 

With regards to Article 9, a general lack of harmonization in the GES determination was evident. In 
most cases, GES was not specified in a quantitative  manner or  associated to a  threshold values to 
discriminate good from bad status. With regards to Article 10, discrepancies were observed in the way 
the Member States have set their targets, while many of the reported targets were not consistently 
assigned to the Descriptor and to the GES components. Targets were not harmonised across MS and 
they were rarely measurable and/or associated with specific thresholds.  

The present report provides recommendations for the implementation of MSFD for D1 species. As an 
overarching recommendation for D1 species, the GES Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) should 
prioritise the work to harmonise the GES determination and the common understanding on how to 
develop quantitative GES description with agreed thresholds,  which will be regionally coordinated. 
Although  these  key  actions  for  the  harmonised  MSFD  implementation  are  conceptually  well 
developed in the GES Decision (2017/848/EU) and in the SWD(2020) 62, more should be invested to 
harmonise  their  operationalisation.  This  work  will  positively  affect  the  target  setting  for  Art.  10. 
Obviously, across the species groups, criteria and regions there are significant differences regarding 
the developed methodological standards for GES and data availability. 

7 | P a g e  

 
 
 
Introduction 

The GES Decision (European Commission, 2017) in part II sets “Criteria and methodological standards, 
specifications  and  standardised  methods  for  monitoring  and  assessment  of  essential  features  and 
characteristics and current environmental status of marine waters under point (a) of Article 8(1) of 
Directive 2008/56/EC”. Then it specifies that “Part II considers the descriptors linked to the relevant 
ecosystem elements: species groups of birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods (Descriptor 1), 
pelagic habitats (Descriptor 1), benthic habitats (Descriptors 1 and 6) and ecosystems, including food 
webs (Descriptors 1 and 4), as listed in Annex III to Directive 2008/56/EC (1)”. The evaluation of the 
Member States (MS) reports in this work covers all species groups as they listed in Table 1 of the GES 
Decision (European Commission, 2017). For those species the MS need to assess five criteria: 

Criterion D1C1: "The mortality rate per species from incidental by-catch is below levels which threaten 
the species, such that its long- term viability is ensured”. 

Criterion  D1C2:  "The  population  abundance  of  the  species  is  not  adversely  affected  due  to 
anthropogenic pressures, such that its long-term viability is ensured". 

Criterion D1C3: "The population demographic characteristics (e.g. body size or age class structure, sex 
ratio, fecundity, and survival rates) of the species are indicative of a healthy population which is not 
adversely affected due to anthropogenic pressures". 

Criterion D1C4: "The species distributional range and, where relevant, pattern is in line with prevailing 
physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions". 

Criterion  D1C5:  "The habitat for the species has  the necessary extent and condition to support the 
different stages in the life history of the species". 

Moreover, the GES Decision (European Commission, 2017) specifies that the “Member States shall 
establish  threshold  values  for  each  species  through  regional  or  subregional  cooperation,  taking 
account of natural variation in population size and the mortality rates derived from D1C1, D8C4 and 
D10C4 and other relevant pressures. For species covered by Directive 92/43/EEC, these values shall be 
consistent with the Favourable Reference Population values established by the relevant Member States 
under  Directive  92/43/EEC”.  As  such,  the  Habitats  (HD,  European  Commission  1992)  and  Birds 
Directives (BD, European Commission 2009) and the developments of indicators and methods under 
the  Regional  Sea  Conventions  (RSC)  are  always  considered  in  the  evaluation  of  the  MS  reports. 
Another  key  aspect  in  the  evaluation  of  the  MS  reports  is  that  depending  on  the  species  group 
different criteria are considered primary and secondary.  

The assessments of MSFD Descriptor 1 (D1), which represents the state of the marine environment 
should consider pressure  assessments, more specifically: “Assessments of the adverse  effects  from 
pressures  under criteria D1C1, D2C3, D3C1, D8C2, D8C4 and D10C4, as  well as  the assessments  of 
pressures  under  criteria  D9C1,  D10C3,  D11C1  and  D11C2,  shall  be  taken  into  account  in  the 
assessments of species under Descriptor 1”.  

The environmental status of the European marine waters in the context of the MSFD was primarily 
assessed by the MS in 2012, as part of the reporting obligations linked to the MSFD initial assessment. 
In  that  context,  the  first  in-depth  assessment  of  the  MS  reports  highlighted  the  need  to  further 
harmonise  methodological  standards  for  assessment  and  monitoring  related  to  MSFD  Art.  8,  to 
harmonise  the  GES  determination  at  regional  level  providing  a  quantitative  determination,  where 
possible, and set measurable and GES-compatible targets for MSFD Art. 10 (Palialexis et al., 2014). The 
overall evaluation of the MS reports in 2012 indicated that D1 had many gaps in terms of data for 

8 | P a g e  

 
several species, the HD, BD and Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) only partially cover the overlapped 
species and only for some criteria. The selection of species assessment was not harmonised, and the 
use of indicators was not consistently assigned to the proper criterion.  

The biodiversity expert network was established by the Working Group for the Good Environmental 
Status  (WG  GES)  to  review  the  repealed  GES  Decision  (European  Commission,  2010)  and  its 
recommendations  (Palialexis  et  al.,  2015)  were  well  reflected  in  the  GES  Decision  (European 
Commission,  2017).  Since  then,  the  MSFD  Biodiversity  network  contributed  to  provide 
recommendations to several technical and scientific issues that were highly prioritised in the gaps of 
the first evaluation of the MS reports (Palialexis et al., 2014), such as integration rules, methods for 
thresholds and indicators for the species criteria assessment. Overall, the progress made during the 
first cycle of the MSFD implementation for D1, especially on the harmonisation of methods and on 
developing a common understanding for key elements of the  assessment was  impressive  and was 
reflected  in  the  current  reporting  cycle.  Obviously,  there  is  still  room  for  improvement  and  the 
recommendations from this analysis aim to highlight the gaps, identify the policy tools and point out 
the proper players to take this work forward.    

In response to their 2018 reporting obligations, the MS have currently reported information on MSFD 
D1 for the last 6-year MSFD reporting cycle, following the Article 17 requirements of updating Articles 
8, 9 and 10. Despite  the  reporting deadline  of October 2018, significant delays were  observed. By 
September 2020, 20 MS (Table 1) had reported on D1 in electronic format, covering the four MSFD 
regions, the  Baltic Sea (BAL), Northeast Atlantic (NEA), Mediterranean (MED)  and Black  Sea (BLK).  
More specifically, 19 MS reported for Art. 8 (except of LT, UK, EL and BG), 18 for Art. 9 and Art. 10 
respectively (apart from IT, PT, UK, EL and BG). Three MS did not provide electronic reports (UK, EL 
and BG) and were excluded from the analysis since the reported information form the paper report 
was not consistent and comparable to the structure of the electronic report.  

Table 1. The table below presents the names and abbreviations of MSFD regions and subregions, as well as of Members 
States (MS) allocated to their respective subregion(s). MS highlighted in grey had not submitted an electronic report for 
Art. 8, 9 and 10 by the end of September 2020 and they were not included in the current assessment. 

Region 

Subregion 

Member States [MS] 

]
L
A
B
[
a
e
S
c
i
t
l
a
B

]
A
E
N

[
c
i
t
n
a

l
t
A
t
s
a
E
h
t
r
o
N

e
n
a
r
r
e
t
i
d
e
M

]

D
E
M

[
a
e
S
n
a

BAL 

Denmark 
[DK] 

Estonia 
[EE] 

Finland 
[FI] 

Germany 
[DE] 

Latvia 
[LV] 

Lithuania 
[LT] 

Poland 
[PL] 

Swede
n [SE] 

Bay of Biscay 
and the Iberian 
Coast [ABI] 

Celtic Seas [ACS] 

Macaronesia 
[AMA] 

Greater North 
Sea [ANS] 

Adriatic Sea 
[MAD] 
Aegean-
Levantine Sea 
[MAL] 

France 
[FR] 

France 
[FR] 

Portugal 
[PT] 

Belgium 
[BE] 

Croatia 
[HR] 

Cyprus 
[CY]  

Portugal 
[PT] 

Ireland 
[IE] 

Spain [ES] 

Spain [ES] 

United 
Kingdom 
[UK] 

Denmark 
[DK] 

France 
[FR] 

Germany 
[DE] 

Sweden 
[SE] 

The 
Netherlan
ds [NL] 

United 
Kingdom 
[UK] 

Slovenia 
[SI] 

Italy [IT] 

Greece 
[EL] 

9 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ionian Sea and 
Central 
Mediterranean 
Sea [MIC] 
Western 
Mediterranean 
Sea [MWE] 

Greece 
[EL] 

France 
[FR] 

Italy [IT] 

Malta 
[MT] 

Italy [IT] 

Spain [ES] 

United 
Kingdom 
[UK] 

]
K
L
B
[
a
e
S
k
c
a
B

l

BLK 

Bulgaria 
[BG] 

Romania 
[RO] 

The report is structured around the five species groups (marine mammals, marine reptiles, seabirds, 
cephalopods  and  fish),  where  the  GES  assessment  (Art.  8)  and  the  GES  determination  (Art.  9)  are 
evaluated following a set of common reported aspects.  The reported targets (Art. 10) are evaluated 
in the last part of this report, since it was not feasible to group them at a common level. Many targets 
were set at the Descriptors level, or at a level of more than one species groups.  

The scope of the report is to provide an overview of the current situation of the MSFD implementation 
and to identify gaps to facilitate the future workplans of the policy implementation. This information 
is organised at the end of each section as gaps and recommendations aim to inform the European 
Commission and the MS competent authorities. Moreover, detailed technical/scientific analysis took 
place  for  each  criterion,  species  group  and  regional  seas  related  with  thresholds,  indicators, 
integration tools and other technical issues. This information aims to prioritise and facilitate the work 
of the Biodiversity expert network, any biodiversity expert from the MS and the scientific community 
that are involved in the assessment and monitoring of the marine environment. Other international 
organisations, such as the RSC, International Council for the Exploitation of the Sea (ICES), General 
Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFSM), Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of 
the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area (ACCOBAMS) and Agreement on the 
Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS), 
participating in the policy implementation and the scientific developments could also benefit from this 
analysis. Finally, the evaluation of the MSFD reports will directly feed the ongoing review of the MSFD 
and  the  alignment  of  environmental  Directives  (MSFD,  HD  and  BD)  in  the  frame  of  the  European 
Commission’s better regulation.  

10 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  Marine Mammals 
1.1  Results of Art.8 analysis  

  Consistency, comparability and adequacy of reported criteria elements and 

features assessed at EU and regional level   

1.1.1.1 Objective: Which species are reported, by which MS per region, and which MS did not report 
species that occur in their waters.  

Data: We analyse the data reported in column G “Elements” (Appendix 2, Art.8 mammals) per MS, 
subdivisions and regions. 

Expected Outcome: Overview of species reported (black in Table 2 to Table 5) and species that should 
have been reported because of their distribution (blue) per MS, subdivision and region. In red, MS 
that did not provide electronic reports. Grey cells correspond to regions or subdivisions where the 
species do not occur. Thus, it is easy to identify the species distribution from the white cells and the 
MS that either reported or they should have done so, but they did not. It should be clarified that the 
analysed level of information cannot always show missing species that were deselected by the MS 
through the species selection criteria of the GES Decision (2017/848/EU). In addition, the reported 
species might not be assessed or could be partially assessed, and this is presented in section 1.1.2. 

Table 2. Marine seals reported by the evaluated Member States, and their geographical association with the MSFD regions 
and subregions. In black font the species reported, in blue the species that should be reported because of their distribution 
per MS, subdivision and region, and in red, MS that did not provide electronic reports. Grey cells correspond to regions or 
subdivisions where the species do not occur. Missing MS from a region denote that species does not occur in their national 
water. 

Seals species 

Halichoerus grypus 
Grey seal 
Phoca hispida botnica 
Ringed seal 
Phoca vitulina 
Harbour seal 
Monachus monachus 
Mediterranean monk seal 

BAL 

BAL 
DE, DK, EE, FI, 
LV, PL, SE, LT 
EE, FI, LV, SE, 
PL, LT, DE 

DE, DK, SE, PL 

ANS 
DE, DK, FR, NL, 
SE, UK 

NEA 

ACS 
FR, 
UK, IE 

DE, DK, FR, NL, 
SE, UK, BE 

FR, 
UK, IE 

ABI 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

MED 

BLK 

BLK 

PT 

IT 

IT, EL 

IT, HR  EL, CY 

Table 3. Small-toothed cetaceans reported by the evaluated Member States and their geographical association with the 
MSFD regions and subregions. In black font the species reported, in blue the species that should be reported because of 
their  distribution  per  MS,  subdivision  and  region,  and  in  red,  MS  that  did  not  provide  electronic  reports.  Grey  cells 
correspond to regions or subdivisions where the species do not occur. Missing MS from a region denote that species does 
not occur in their national water. 

Small toothed cetacean species 

Delphinus delphis 
Short-beaked common dolphin 
Lagenorhynchus albirostris 
White beaked dolphin 
Globicephala macrorhynchus 
Short-finned pilot whale 

BAL 
BAL 

ANS 

FR, UK 

NEA 
ACS 

FR, UK, 
IE 
FR, UK, 
IE 

MED 

ABI 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

ES, 
FR, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, 
FR, IT 

MT, 
IT, EL 

IT 

EL, CY 

BLK 
BLK 

RO, 
BG 

FR, 
ES, PT 

ES, PT 

11 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Small toothed cetacean species 

BAL 
BAL 

ANS 

NEA 
ACS 

ABI 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

MED 

BLK 
BLK 

Grampus griseus 
Risso's dolphin 
Orcinus orca 
Killer whale 

Phocoena phocoena 
Harbour porpoise 
Stenella coeruleoalba 
Striped dolphin 
Stenella frontalis 
Atlantic spotted dolphin 
Tursiops truncates 
Bottle-nosed dolphin 
Steno bredanensis 
Rough-toothed dolphin 
Lagenodelphis hosei  
Fraser’s dolphin 
Lagenorhynchus acutus  
Atlantic white-sided dolphin 

DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE, UK 

FR, UK, 
IE 

FR, 
ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, 
FR, IT 

IT, EL, 
MT 

IT, 
HR, SI 

EL, CY 

DE, DK, FI, PL, 
SE, LT, LV  

ES, 
FR, PT 
ES, 
FR, PT 
FR, 
ES, PT 
FR, 
ES, PT 
ES, 
FR, PT 
FR, 
ES, PT 

DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE, UK 
BE, DE, DK, 
NL, FR 
DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE, UK 

FR, UK, 
IE 
FR, UK, 
IE 
FR, UK, 
IE 

FR, UK, 
IE 

DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE, UK 
DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE, UK 

DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE, UK 

FR, UK, 
IE 

ES, 
FR, IT 
ES, 
FR, IT 
ES, 
FR, IT 
ES, 
FR, IT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, 
FR, IT 

IT, EL, 
MT 

IT, 
HR, SI 
IT, 
HR, SI 
HR IT, 
SI 

EL, CY 

EL, CY 

RO, 
BG 

IT, EL 
MT,  

MT, 
IT, EL 
IT, EL, 
MT 

HR, 
IT, SI 
IT, 
HR, SI 

EL, CY 

EL, CY 

RO, 
BG 
RO, 
BG 

Table 4. Deep-diving toothed cetaceans reported by the evaluated Member States and their geographical association with 
the MSFD regions and subregions. In black font the species reported, in blue the species that should be reported because 
of their  distribution per  MS,  subdivision and region,  and in  red, MS  that  did not  provide  electronic reports.  Grey  cells 
correspond to regions or subdivisions where the species do not occur. Missing MS from a region denote that species does 
not occur in their national water. 

Deep diving toothed 
species 

Globicephala melas 
Long-finned pilot whale 
Physeter macrocephalus 
Sperm whale 
Ziphius cavirostris 
Cuvier’s beaked whale 
Mesoplodon bidens 
Sowerby’s beaked whale 
Mesoplodon densirostris 
Blainville's beaked whale 

Crassidens Pseudorca 
False killer whale 

Hyperoodon ampullatus 
Northern bottle-nose whale 

Kogia breviceps  
Pygmy sperm whale 
Kogia simus  
Dwarf sperm whale 
Mesoplodon europaeus 
Gervais’ beaked whale 
Mesoplodon mirus  
True’s beaked whale 
Peponocephala electra  
Melon-headed whale 

BAL 

BAL 

ANS 

NEA 

ACS 

ABI 
ES, FR, 
PT 

MED 

AMA 

MWE 

MIC  MAD  MAL 

BLK 

BLK 

PT, ES, 

ES, FR, IT 

ES, PT 

ES, FR, IT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, FR, IT 

DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE, UK 

FR, UK, 
IE 

FR, ES, 
PT 
FR, ES, 
PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE, UK 

FR, UK, 
IE 

FR, ES, 
PT 

ES, PT 

ES, FR, IT 

IT, 
EL, 
MT 

IT, 
HR, 
SI 

EL, 
CY 

DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE, UK 
DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE, UK 

FR, UK, 
IE 
FR, UK, 
IE 

FR, UK, 
IE 

FR, ES, 
PT 
FR, ES, 
PT 
FR, ES, 
PT 
FR, ES, 
PT 

PT, ES 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

Table  5.  Baleen  whales  reported  by  the  evaluated  Member  States  and  their  geographical  association  with  the  MSFD 
regions and subregions. In black font the species reported, in blue the species that should be reported because of their 

12 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
distribution per MS, subdivision and region, and in red, MS that did not provide electronic reports. Grey cells correspond 
to regions or subdivisions where the species do not occur. Missing MS from a region denote that species does not occur 
in their national water. 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

ANS 

ACS 

ABI 

AMA 

MWE 

MED 
MIC  MAD  MAL 

BLK 

BLK 

FR, DE, DK, 
NL, SE, UK 

FR, ES, 
PT 

ES, PT 

DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE, UK 
DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE, UK 
DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE, UK 
DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE, UK 

FR, 
UK, IE 
FR, 
UK, IE 
FR, 
UK, IE 
FR, 
UK, IE 

ES, FR, 
PT 
FR, ES, 
PT 
FR, ES, 
PT 
FR, ES, 
PT 
FR, ES, 
PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, FR, IT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

Baleens whale species 

Balaenoptera 
acutorostrata 
Minke whale 
Balaenoptera edeni 
Bryde’s whale 
Balaenoptera physalus 
Fin whale 
Balaenoptera musculus  
Blue whale 
Eubalaena glacialis 
Northern right whale 
Balaenoptera borealis 
Sei whale 
Megaptera novaeangliae 
Humpback whale 

Findings:  

Species perspective:  

Seals (Table 2) are well studied and reported by almost all MS where they occur. The MS that did not 
report (e.g., Poland for ringed seal), they claim that the species occurs only in low numbers and are 
not relevant for assessment, in line with the species selection criteria of the GES Decision. Only CY 
reported monk seal in the east MED.  

The small toothed cetacean species (Table 3) are sparsely reported apart from three species (common 
and stripped dolphin, and harbour porpoise). Only three species (Table 4) were reported from the 
deep-diving cetaceans (Long-finned pilot whale, Sperm whale and Cuvier’s beaked whale) out of the 
12  species  in  the  JRC’s  species  list  (Palialexis  et  al.  2018).  Those  that  were  not  reported  have 
distribution beyond the coastal waters in NEA. Same for the baleen whales (Table 5), where only ES 
and FR reported three out of the seven species distributed in the offshore waters.  

Regional perspective: 

All the species reported in the intermediate assessment of OSPAR (OSPAR 2017) were also reported 
for  the  MSFD;  however,  not  all  MS  that  contributed  to  the  OSPAR  assessments  have  provided 
assessments for all species in their MSFD reporting (details for the species contributed to the OSPAR 
assessment and the contracting parties provided data in the metadata of OSPAR 2017). The Risso’s 
dolphin (Grampus griseus) was reported for first time in NEA region by France, while previously it was 
only reported in the MED. 

All the species reported in the MED were included in UNEP/MAP assessments (UNEP/MAP 2017). All 
three marine mammal species present in the BLK were reported by RO. In the BAL, all four species 
that were assessed by HELCOM were also reported by the MS for the MSFD.  

Good practices: The common monitoring programmes coordinated by OSPAR (SCANS) in the NEA and 
HELCOM (BAL) for marine mammals increase the harmonisation in the species reported across the MS 
in each region.   

13 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gap: The major gaps in terms of species reported appear in those whales that have distribution in the 
offshore waters of the NEA and in the east MED. However, before putting any criticism on the MS it is 
essential to explore if those species have known causal links with specific pressures and thus their 
assessment will add value to the species group overall assessment, as the species selection criteria 
foresee in the GES Decision.     

Recommendation  for  reporting:  The  species  lists  that  were  developed  for  the  e-reporting  greatly 
improve the consistency in the reporting of species, compared with the 2012 reporting. Synonyms, 
typos,  or  misreported  species  were  found  only  in  MS  that  provided  paper  reports,  while  the  e-
reporting ensures consistency. Chronic reporting delays hamper the analysis of the information and 
subsequent steps in the implementation of the Directive. The EC should keep encouraging the MS to 
provide e-reports, and the experience between the two reporting cycles (2012 and 2018) showed how 
the e-reports with the drop-down menus and the harmonised structure improved the consistency and 
comparability of the reported information.  

Recommendation for implementation: The MS are encouraged to select species that are sensitive to 
specific pressures, and for their selection the GES Decision provides a set of practical and scientific 
selection criteria. Both in 2012 and in 2018 reports, the MS reported for the MSFD the information 
that was available from other obligations (HD and RSC), rather than those that are relevant for the 
MSFD objectives. For this reason, the MS did not consistently select and assess representative species 
for each species group and identify key species-indicators sensitive to specific pressures. Thus, the 
groups of dolphins and whales are scarcely assessed, without reflecting the potential pressures acting 
on their population (e.g., noise, bycatch, PCBs). We would recommend building on the available lists 
of pressures-species and include those in the species selection process to inform the final selected 
species to be assessed for each species group. The MSFD biodiversity network and the RSC group of 
experts can provide a harmonised selection of species at regional level, in line with the GES Decision 
selection criteria and consistently  assign species  to each species group.  This level of collaboration 
could also contribute to harmonised (joint) monitoring programmes at regional level, based on the 
currently  ongoing  ones  (i.e.,  the  SCANS  for  the  NEA  and  the  new  Mediterranean  monitoring 
programme with the contribution of ACCOBAMS).  

Recommendation for methodological standards: The discrepancies in the species selected at regional 
level could be tackled with the use of the species selection developed by JRC (RIsk-Based Choices for 
the Assessment of Good Environmental Status-RIBCAGE, submitted for publication). Thus, both the 
MS  and  the  EC  will  have  a  transparent  and  comparable  selection/deselection  justification  for  all 
relevant  species.  The  RIBCAGE  will  be  presented  and  shared  within  the  MSFD  biodiversity  expert 
network for testing. 

1.1.1.2 Objective: The MS reported the sources of the elements (species), i.e., whether the species 
are selected from EU (e.g., Directives), regional (e.g., regional sea conventions) or national lists. The 
analysis of the sources will reveal the level of harmonisation across the MS and the level of exploitation 
of available information. This information combined with the source of threshold can reveal whether 

14 | P a g e  

 
 
the  MS claim to use, for instance, national sources  instead of regional to HD. Something that was 
evident in the reported monitoring programmes of 2014.    

Data: We analyse  the  data reported in column M “Element source”  (Appendix  2, Art.8 mammals). 

Table 6. Element source by region and MS for D1-Mammals 

Element source 

EU  
HELCOM  
OSPAR  
BARCON 
BSC 
MS in (sub)region 
National  

BAL 
DE, EE 
DK, FI, LV, SE 

Reported in: 
NEA 
DE, IE, PT 
SE 
DK, NL 

MED 

BLK 

LV, PL 

ES (AMA) 
BE, ES, FR 

MT 

RO 

CY, ES, IT, 
FR, HR, SI 

Tot. 
MS 
4 
4 
2 
1 
1 
1 
9 

Findings: The MS reported one of the sources for their elements in the first column of Table 6: 

EU 

• 
•  Regional - HELCOM  
•  Regional - OSPAR 
•  Regional – BARCON 
•  Regional - BSC 
• 
•  National 

Subregional - MS in (sub) region 

There is no consistency at regional level. For instance, among the BAL MS there is a mixture of EU, 
regional (RSC) and national sources assigned to element sources. However, the marine mammals are 
included  in  both  HD  and  RSC  lists,  so  this  entry  is  not  informative  and  is  open  to  different 
interpretations.  

Gap: All MS reported for all entries. No gaps.    

Recommendation for reporting: This entry can be omitted for marine mammals as they all belong to 
at least two categories (RSC and EU/HD) and it can be merged with the source of threshold, assuming 
that  regional  lists  and  assessments  should  be  reused  by  the  MS  for  the  MSFD.  The  source  of  the 
assessment or threshold should be used in its place.  

Recommendation  for  implementation:  The  MS  accurately  reported  elements  that  are  included  in 
other EU, or international agreements and policies. The next step would be to ensure that the regional 
lists are developed and applied in a consistent way, to allow for consistent regional assessments for 
the highly mobile species, rather than using national, non-comparable, ones. The combination of the 
reported source of species and source of thresholds indicates that some MS use national thresholds 
and  species  assessments  that  are  developed  for  the  HD,  which  are  not  fully  fit  to  the  regional 
assessments required by the MSFD. Hopefully, the effort to align the environmental EU Directives will 
facilitate the direct use of such assessments. 

Recommendation for methodological standards: Not relevant.  

15 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Extension in use of MSFD Criteria (primary and secondary) reported at EU, 

regional and (sub)regional level 

Objective: 

Table 7 provides a variety of information and overviews related with the progress of the assessments.   

-  Overview of the use of primary and secondary criteria. The number in each cell indicates the 
number of member states that reported each criterion out of the total number of MS reported 
for each species.   

-  Overview of the species assessments and threshold values per criterion and region. The traffic 
light approach (green, orange, red) corresponds to the level of assessment of the parameters 
for each criterion and species, including the reporting of threshold values. Green: Indicates 
that  both  the  threshold value  and  the  achieved  value  are reported. Orange: Indicates  that 
either  a  threshold  value  is  available,  or  the  value  achieved  (estimated  parameter),  so 
assessment is not complete. Red: Indicates that neither threshold values nor achieved values 
are reported.  

-  Overview of the assessed parameter for each species and criterion. The bold borders around 
the cells indicate those species and criteria for which the achieved parameter has reported 
(either negative or positive). This information, in principle, should reflect the decision of an 
achieved  (or  not)  parameter  based  on  the  assessment  value  and  the  threshold  value. 
However,  in  many  cases  MS  reported  parameters  as  achieved  without  reporting  the  two 
prerequired  entries.  We  assume  that  in  those  cases  the  MS  got  assessments  from  other 
obligations (e.g., HD) and denote these cases with the bold frame.   

Data: The reported information in column N (Appendix 2, Art.8 mammals) was used for the use of the 
criteria. The species assessment was based on the information in columns Q, R, S and V (Appendix 2, 
Art.8 mammals). The overview of the assessed parameters was based on the information in column 
AD. The assumption for the traffic light approach is that any reported category was aggregated to the 
higher level, so if only one MS provided threshold value and value achieved for a single species in a 
single Marine Reporting Unit (MRU), this is assigned to the species, region or subdivision. We assume 
that all MS in the same  region or subdivision should have  available  methods to perform a similar 
assessment.  

Table 7. Reported threshold values and/or estimated parameters are shown for each species and criterion as: i) green, for 
those criteria with both the threshold value and the value achieved reported, ii) orange, when either a threshold value is 
available,  or  the  value  achieved  (estimated  parameter),  so  assessment  is  not  complete,  and  iii)  red,  when  neither 
threshold values nor values achieved are reported. The numbers reflect the MS that reported each criterion to allow for 
an  overview  of  the  usage  between  primary against  secondary  criteria.  The  bold-framed  cells  show  the  criteria  of  the 
species that were reported to have a final assessment (positive or negative). 

BAL 

Seals 
DE, DK, EE, FI, LV, PL, SE 

Small-toothed cetaceans 
DE, DK, FI 

Halichoerus grypus 

Phoca hispida botnica 

Phoca vitulina 

Phocoena phocoena 

D1C1 
primary 

D1C2 
primary 

D1C3 
secondary 

D1C4 
primary 

D1C5 
primary 

2/6 

1/2 

1/2 

2/3 

7/7 

4/4 

3/3 

3/3 

5/5 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

7/7 

4/4 

3/3 

3/3 

3/4 

1/2 

2/2 

2/2 

16 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
NEA 

Seals 
DE, DK, FR, IE, NL, PT, SE 

Small-toothed cetaceans 
BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, IE, NL, PT 

Deep-diving toothed 
cetaceans 
ES, FR, PT 

Baleen whales 
ES, FR, PT 

D1C1 
primary 

D1C2 
primary 

D1C3 
secondary 

D1C4 
primary 

D1C5 
primary 

Halichoerus grypus 

Phoca vitulina 

Monachus monachus 

Delphinus delphis 

Globicephala macrorhynchus 

Globicephala melas 

Grampus griseus 

Lagerorhynchus albirostris 

Orcinus orca 

Phocoena phocoena 

Pseudorca crassidens 

Stenella coeruleoalba 

Stenella frontalis 

Steno bredanensis 

Tursiops truncatus 

Globicephala macrorhynchus 

Globicephala melas 

Grampus griseus 

Hyperoodon ampullatus 

Kogia breviceps 

Mesoplodon bidens 

Mesoplodon europaeus 

Mesoplodon mirus 

Physeter macrocephalus 

Ziphius cavirostris 

Balaenoptera acutorostrata 

Balaenoptera borealis 

Balaenoptera edeni 

Balaenoptera musculus 

Balaenoptera physalus 

Megaptera novaeangliae 

1/5 

2/4 

1/1 

1/3 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

7/7 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

3/4 

0/1 

0/2 

172 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

2/2 

2/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/2 

0/1 

4/5 

5/6 

1/1 

1/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

7/7 

0/1 

2/2 

1/1 

0/1 

2/4 

1/2 

2/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

2/2 

0/1 

1/1 
0/1 

0/2 

0/1 

3/4 

1/2 

1/1 

1/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

3/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/3 

0/2 

1/2 

0/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/2 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 
0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

5/5 

5/5 

1/1 

2/3 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

5/6 

0/1 

2/2 

0/1 

0/1 

3/4 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

2/2 

0/1 

0/1 
0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

3/5 

4/4 

1/1 

1/3 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

6/7 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

2/4 

0/1 

0/2 

0/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 
0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

MED 

Seals 
CY 

Small-toothed cetaceans 
ES, FR, HR, IT, MT, SI 

D1C1 
primary 

D1C2 
primary 

D1C3 
secondary 

D1C4 
primary 

D1C5 
primary 

Monachus monachus 

Delphinus delphis 

Stenella coeruleoalba 

Tursiops truncatus 

1/1 

1/2 

1/4 

2/4 

1/1 

1/2 

0/4 

2/4 

1/1 

0/1 

2/2 

2/2 

0/1 

0/2 

1/4 

1/3 

0/1 

0/2 

2/4 

2/3 

17 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
Globicephala melas 

Grampus griseus 

Physeter macrocephalus 

Ziphius cavirostris 

Balaenoptera physalus 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/2 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0//1 

0//1 

1/1 

1/1 

D1C1 
primary 
1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

D1C2 
primary 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

D1C3 
secondary 
0/1 

D1C4 
primary 
0/1 

D1C5 
primary 
0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

Deep-diving toothed cetaceans 
ES 

Baleen whales 
ES, IT 

BLK 

Small-toothed cetaceans 
RO 

Delphinus delphis 

Phocoena phocoena 

Tursiops truncatus 

Findings:  

Use of primary and secondary criteria: Although we would expect the MS to use more the primary 
than the secondary criteria, it seems that their selection of criteria was based on data and methods 
availability. Thus, in cases where available data cover secondary criteria, such as for D1C3 for marine 
seals in the Baltic, the assessments are reported. In contrast with primary criteria such as D1C1, where 
less information and data are available. The overlay of the three-fold information in Table 7 provides 
an easy-to-see pattern showing that the selection of criteria is data-driven, as it is verified by the bold 
frames and by the non-clear preference to primary against secondary. In other words, MS reported 
what  was  available.  In  the  BAL,  the  HELCOM  assessments  for  marine  mammals  cover  all  criteria, 
except bycatch. The OSPAR IA assessment provides similar to HELCOM assessments for seals and more 
complete assessments for a few small cetaceans (e.g., bottle-nose dolphin and harbour porpoise). For 
the rest of the marine mammals the IA provides assessments for abundance and less for distribution 
(D1C2  and  D1C4,  respectively).  In  the  Mediterranean  very  few  species  have  good  data  and  thus 
assessed criteria. Finally, in the BLK available data exist only for bycatch and this was the only criterion 
reported. There is no justification reported by MS for not using secondary criteria. 

Species assessments and threshold values per criterion and region: The species at regional level with 
full assessments of their parameters completely mirror the RSC complete assessments form the recent 
regional reports (HELCOM holistic assessment and OSPAR Intermediate Assessment). That is the case 
in the BAL and NEA, as for the MED and BLK the RSC do not have complete assessments for marine 
mammals.  The  status  of  developed  methods  for  methods  to  set  thresholds,  threshold  values  and 
indicators are described in the overview of Palialexis et al. (2019), where all RSC indicators for marine 
mammals are listed.  

Consistency of assessed parameter reported for each species and criterion: The assessed parameters 
were more than what was expected based on the complete assessments. The bold-bordered cells on 
yellow  or  red  cells  reveal  that  some  MS  assessed  their  parameters  using  other  assessments  (e.g., 
trends  from  HD),  without  providing  estimates  of  the  parameter  or  thresholds.  Moreover,  some 
reported parameters seem to be assessed without providing any threshold value or estimate at all, or 
even the source of the assessment. To this end, the assessed parameters should be checked one-by-
one  to  verify  the  validity  and  certainty  of  the  assessment.  Once  again,  most  of  the  reported 
parameters are based on the RSC assessments.  

18 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
In  cases  where  it  was  feasible  to  evaluate  the  MS  justification  for  the  assessed  parameters,  we 
observed different approaches. For instance, some MS reported positive assessments, even when the 
uncertainty was high (e.g., missing threshold value), while others were more reluctant to report any 
assessment that was not well justified by the data.  

Good practices: The high level of coordination and consistency in the assessment of the seals in ANS 
and BAL is the result of the work of HELCOM and OSPAR on these species. Such established groups of 
experts  could  take  over/forward  the  work  on  the  missing  criteria  and  parameters  (e.g.,  develop 
threshold  values  for  D1C1).  Coordination  through  the  MSFD  biodiversity  network  could  facilitate 
similar developments to other regions and methodological harmonisation.  

Gap:  There  are  many  species  for  which  the  lack  of  data  or  lack  of  thresholds  does  not  allow  for 
complete assessments. In the MED and NEA, there are many gaps that could be covered with better 
coordination  at  and  across  regions  and  with  the  wide  regional  marine  mammal  monitoring 
programmes (such as SCANS for NEA and the new monitoring programme, started in 2018, in the MED 
with the contribution of ACCOBAMS). In the BLK, the monitoring programmes should generate data 
for  species  distribution  and  abundance.  The  few  reported  threshold  values  for  the  criteria  are 
developed regionally, however, the methods to set threshold values could be also applied and tested 
to other regions.     

Recommendation for reporting: The entries analysed in this section, which include thresholds values, 
values achieved, and assessed parameters, are essential for the Art. 8 report. The MS reported in a 
consistent way, denoting that they have a good understanding of the structure of the reporting and 
of  the  concepts  behind  it.  Some  inconsistencies  in  the  way  the  parameters  are  assessed  raised 
questions, whether the assessment is based on a direct comparison of the value achieved and the 
threshold value or by other sources. It should be clear in the coming reporting guidance (2024) that 
the assessments should be based on the reported information (value assessed and threshold), so to 
facilitate the evaluation of the assessment result.  

Recommendation for implementation: The analysis of the multidimensional information in Table 7 
shows that there is progress in the assessments, in the understanding and in the harmonisation of the 
reported information compared with the 2012 reporting. The challenge now is to fill-in the data gaps 
and the methodological gaps for the species that were not assessed. The first through the updates of 
the  monitoring  programmes,  due  in  2020  (MSFD  Art.  17  updates  for  Art.  11),  with  regional 
coordination  and  joint  monitoring,  and  the  second  through  the  work  that  takes  place  within  the 
marine mammals’ expert networks of the RSC, ASCOBANS, ACCOBAMS, the Habitats Directive and the 
MSFD Biodiversity expert network. The MS should ensure the continuous support of their experts to 
the networks.    

19 | P a g e  

 
 
   Legislation related to marine mammals at EU and regional levels 

Objective:  Analysis  of  relevant  EU  policies  and  international  or  regional  agreements  that  the  MS 
reported. This is a general analysis to complement the  element  sources  in section (2.1.2) and the 
threshold value sources (2.4.1).  

Data: All entries that refer to other assessment obligations (Appendix 2, Art.8 mammals). 

Figure 1. Percentage of MS (out of 19) reported the use of Habitats Directive assessments (left) and number of MS reused 
HD parameters criteria D1C2-D1C5 (right) for marine mammals in 2018 MSFD cycle for Article 8. 

Findings: All marine mammals reported are listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive. At regional 
level, the RSC lists include all the species reported for the MSFD. All MS referred to either the HD or 
to RSC assessments. In some cases, they referred to HD assessments which were reported as ‘national’ 
sources. In the BAL, for instance, FI and SE reported HELCOM assessments, while DE and DK used the 
HD 2013 assessments for all criteria. Figure 1 presents the MS that referred to HD and the number of 
criteria that were associated with HD parameters. A comparison of the species that were assessed 
based on HD assessments  was  not performed as it is expected to be  done  by  the  DG ENV funded 
project1 on the alignment of MSFD and HD. 

In the Baltic, the assessment results are often given at regional level, so many trends for national MRU 
reported unknown with trends and parameters taken from the regional HELCOM assessment, apart 
from few MS (PL, FI, SE). 

In the intermediate assessment of OSPAR (OSPAR 2017), the following species were assessed: harbour 
porpoise  (Phocoena  phocoena),  offshore  bottlenose  dolphin  (Tursiops  truncates),  white-beaked 
dolphin  (Lagenorhynchus  albirostris),  short-beaked  common  dolphin  (Delphinus  delphis),  striped 
dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), fin whale (Balaenoptera 
physalus), long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas), sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) and 
beaked whales (the latter as a combined species group). All these species were reported also for the 
MSFD; however, not all MS that were included in the OSPAR analysis have provided assessments for 
all species in their MSFD reporting. 

On the other hand, the following eleven species of cetaceans, regularly occurring in the MED, were 
included  in  UNEP/MAP  assessments  (UNEP/MAP  2017):  short-beaked  common  dolphin  (Delphinus 
delphis),  striped  dolphin  (Stenella  coeruleoalba),  common  bottlenose  dolphin  (Tursiops  truncatus), 

1  In  February  2020,  the  European  Commission  launched  a  service  contract  on  "Coordinated  assessments  of 
marine  species  and  habitats  under the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive" under the framework contract no. ENV.C.2/FRA/2016/0017 

20 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas), rough-toothed 
dolphin (Steno bredanensis), Risso’s dolphin (Grampus  griseus), fin whale  (Balaenoptera physalus), 
sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) and killer whale 
(Orcinus  orca).  Two  of  these  species  have  very  limited  ranges  within  MED:  the  harbour  porpoise, 
possibly representing a small remnant population in the Aegean Sea, and the killer whale, present only 
as a small population of few individuals in the Strait of Gibraltar. Despite the wide spatial distribution 
of the remaining species, many of them were not reported as shown in Table 1, a gap that should be 
considered in the updates of the monitoring programmes. 

The BLK has three marine mammal species which are assessed by the two MS with great consistency. 
The  three  species  present  in  the  BLK  are  reported  from  Romania  (Bulgaria  did  not  report 
electronically), however there are no existing assessments for those species at regional scale, neither 
from the RSC. 

Good practices: It is positive that the MS increased the consistency in their reports and the efficiency 
of the assessments by reusing highly coordinated regional RSC assessments.   

Gap: The RSC, and even more so the HD, are not completely harmonised with the MSFD.  The MS, 
depending on their needs, exploit the existing assessments at different levels; for instance, some used 
HD parameters, but not the assessments of species. Others used the trends and based on them they 
assessed the species status, and others used only the threshold values.      

An  issue  of  caution  is  that  the  HD  assessments  are  undertaken  at  national  scale,  while  the  RSC 
assessments were made at regional level and the reported assessments might not be comparable. 
Other factors beyond the scale might also affect the assessments. To exemplify potential differences, 
FI specified that the national assessment for grey seals differs from the regional one and consequently 
the status result also differs. 

Recommendation for reporting: It will be more transparent if the MS refer in their reports to HD and 
national assessments more consistently. When the assessment comes from the HD it should be stated 
so, even if the reporting is at national level. Assessments reported as national, should be independent 
from  other  policy  assessments  and  not  modification  of  existing  reported  assessments,  to  avoid 
jeopardising the methodological harmonisation across reporting obligations.     

Recommendation  for  implementation:  MSFD  Art  5(2)  requires  MS  to  work  together  in  each 
(sub)region  to  produce  consistent  and  coordinated  assessments.  The  GES  Decision  requires 
(sub)regionally agreed lists of species and thresholds, and use of regional or subregional assessment 
in  this  context  (e.g.,  reuse  of  data,  same 
scales.  Use  of  HD  assessments  needs  to  be 
parameters/indicators). The RSC assessments and the HD assessments are not directly comparable or 
well aligned. The EC has launched a process to harmonise MSFD and HD. Until the full alignment of 
the assessments and the achievement of one monitoring, one assessment for all reporting obligations, 
we  would  recommend  to  the  MS  follow  the  MSFD  and  the  GES  Decision  requirements  entailing 
(sub)regional  definition  of  GES  and  coordinated  assessments  using  harmonised  methodological 
standards. HD should be used as described above.  

21 | P a g e  

 
 
  Marine mammal parameters and threshold values  

1.1.4.1  Parameters and sources for D1 criteria 

Objective: We analysed the parameters reported, which largely come from a  predefined list in the 
reporting  guidance.  It  provides  a  good  indication  of  the  variety  of  information  reported,  the 
consistency and the areas where refinement is required.   

Data: We analyse the data reported in column O and P for the parameters reported for each criterion 
per species (Appendix 2, Art.8 mammals). 

Analysis of the reports and findings for D1C1 criterion:  

-  D1C1 

The parameter MOR/F (mortality rate) is the default value in the reporting list. Overall, many MS did 
not assess the parameter, because of missing threshold values (e.g., seals in BAL, threshold values for 
mammals in OSPAR), indicators, and lack of monitoring/data. Some MS (for instance, EE, ES, FR and 
LV) reported species for this criterion, but did not provide an assessment. Table 8 summarises the 
parameters reported by each MS, the source of the parameters and the associated species. Figure 2 
shows the distribution of parameters in each region and the level of consistency. For instance, five out 
of the seven Baltic MS reported the same parameter.  

Table 8. Parameters reported and additional information for the use of parameters in the reports (also includes MS which 
reported parameters but did not assessed them for the criteria). 

PAR 
A 

Reported parameters 

MOR/F 

Reporting MS 
BE, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, 
HR, IE, IT, MT, NL, PL, PT, 
SE 

Threshold Value source 
HELCOM, OSPAR, CMS, 
ASCOBAN, National 

B 

C 

D 

E 

Mortality by catch rate 

RO 

National 

Mortality rate from ship 
collision 
Percentage of (sp. name) 
stranded with signals 
compatible with bycatch 
Incidental capture (No 
individuals); fishing 
longlining / Tuna fisheries 

ES (AMA) 

ES (ABI, MWE) 

OSPAR 

PT (AMA) 

Species groups 
Seals, small-toothed cetaceans 
(Phocoena phocoena), deep 
diving toothed cetaceans, 
baleen-whales 
Small cetaceans 

Deep divers 

Small cetaceans (included 
Phocoena phocoena), deep 
divers, baleen whales 
Seals (Monachus monachus) 

In  Table  8,  A  and B are practically the  same  parameter reported differently, indicating the  lack  of 
consistency in the reporting, despite the default drop-down menu with option. D and E are another 
expression of mortality (A).  

22 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Number of MS per each region using the parameters listed in Table 7. Duplications allowed for same MS using 
more parameters in the same region (example: ES uses D in three regions). 

-  D1C2 

While ABU (abundance) is the default parameter for this criterion, some MS (Table 9 and Figure 3) 
reported other parameters, obviously because these were already available and possibly assessed for 
some species. Moreover, the abundance is expressed as number of individuals, relative abundance 
within  the  community  and  trend,  making  it  difficult  to  compare  changes  in  the  population  across 
regions and MS. Growth rate was also reported for D1C2, which is typically a D1C3 indicator. ES and 
PT were reported assessments that were made during the MISTIC SEA project, which covered the area 
of Macaronesia. However, the estimated parameters were deviate from the recommendations of the 
GES Decision (F and H in Table 9). Depending on the species some MS made use of both regional and 
national assessments (e.g.,  FI), while  others  reported qualitative  threshold values  at national level 
(e.g., PL). For the MS having marine waters in two regions, FR set its own threshold values that are 
different across the (sub)regions, while other MS (DE, DK, SE) used the same threshold for both BAL 
and  NEA.  Cetaceans  in  MED  could  not  be  evaluated  as  the  assessments  are  not  comparable.  MT 
reported trends, IT reported number of species but without threshold values and thus assessments of 
criteria,  HR  reported  a  value  only  for  one  species  and  one  criterion,  and  CY  assessed  Monachus 
monachus and no other species, common with other MS (monk seal occurs in EL, but EL did not provide 
e-report and was not included in the analysis). FR reported only one criterion of one species in the 
MED (Stenella coeruleoalba) and only ES reported a more detailed assessment of several species and 
criteria for marine mammals in the MED. The comparison of the quality and quantity of the reported 
information across MED is indicative of the failure of the reporting to provide a single and harmonized 
assessment of the marine mammals’ status in this region. No data for the BLK. 

Table 9. Parameters reported and additional information for the use of parameters in the reports (also includes MS which 
reported parameters but did not assess them for the criteria). 

PAR  Parameter name 

Abundance (ABU) 

Population growth rate 
Trend in abundance 
Relative abundance within community 
(short term) 
Relative abundance within community (long 
term) 

MS reporting (regardless completing 
assessment) 

CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, HR, IE, IT, LV, MT, 
NL, PL, PT, SE 
FI 
SE 
FR 

Threshold Values 
(+source) assigned to 
parameter 
HELCOM, HD, MISTIC 
SEA II, National 
HELCOM, National 
HELCOM 
OSPAR, National  

FR (ACS, ANS) 

OSPAR 

Abundance DS (Distance Sampling) 
Abundance spatial modelling 
CMR (Capture Mark Recapture) 

ES (AMA) 
ES (AMA) 
PT (AMA) 

MISTIC SEA II 
MISTIC SEA II 
MISTIC SEA II 

23 | P a g e  

A 

B 
C 
D 

E 

F 
G 
H 

 
 
Figure 3. Number of MS per each region using the parameters listed in Table 9. Duplications allowed for same MS using 
more parameters in the same region (example: ES uses D in three regions). 

-  D1C3  

HELCOM 

In  D1C3  several  parameters  could  be  assigned  related  to  the  population  characteristics.  The  MS 
reported more than the four default options (Table 10 and Figure 4), including two well-developed 
indicators for HELCOM grey seals:  

• 

• 

‘Nutritional status’ of seals evaluates the blubber thickness of a specimen of the population in 
relation to a minimum threshold value (HELCOM 2018a). 
‘Reproductive status’ measures the proportion of adult female grey seals over 6 years old that are 
pregnant or give birth during July to February in relation to a minimum threshold value (HELCOM 
2018a). 

This  is  a  secondary  criterion  for  all  mammals,  where  many  species  reported  but  not  all  of  them 
assessed. 

Most of the additional parameters were reported by a few MS (Figure 4), suggesting that these were 
available for the reporting and were not developed for the MSFD (e.g., the HELCOM indicators for the 
seals).  This  is  not  a  criticism,  since  the  developed  indicators  are  very  useful,  sensitive  to  specific 
pressures  and  robust,  but  it  is  unlikely  to  be  developed  by  other  MS  for  other  regions  or  species 
because of the data requirement and the new monitoring programmes that should be established.    

Table 10. Parameters reported and additional information on use of parameters in the reports (also includes MS which 
reported parameters but did not assess them for the criteria). 

PAR  Parameter name 

A 
B 
C 

Age distribution (AGE-D) 
Fecundity (breeding rate) (FEC) 
Sex distribution (SEX-D) 

MS reporting (regardless 
completing assessment) 

DE, ES, HR 
CY, ES, FI, NL, PL, SE 
ES 

Threshold values 
(+source) assigned to 
parameter 
Habitats 
HELCOM, OSPAR, National 

24 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D 
E 

F 
G 
H 

I 

J 
K 
R 
S 

Survival rate (SUR) 
Blubber thickness (caught seals) 

ES, FI, PT 
SE 

OSPAR, National  
HELCOM 

Blubber thickness (hunted seals) 
Reproductive status 
Breeding interval (BI), 
Growth rate 
LE- Life Expectancy, 
NMR- Natural Mortality Rate, 
AGR- Annual Gestation Rate, 
Size- length,  
Temporal emigration probability (TEP) estimated for 
the Ria de Arousa area 
Generation time 
Mortality rate 
Number of extreme strandings2 
Hunting 

SE 
LV 
ES 

ES 

ES 
ES 
FR 
FI 

HELCOM 
HELCOM 
(National) 

(National) 

(National) 
(National) 
National 
National 

Figure 4. Number of MS per each region using the parameters listed in Table 10. Duplications allowed for same MS using 
more parameters in the same region (example: ES uses D in three regions). 

-  D1C4 

All MS reported the three default categories (distribution pattern, range and spatial distribution, A, B 
and C respectively in  Figure  5). Most of them reported at least two parameters depending on the 
source  (Table  11)  and  the  species  groups.  In  many  cases  indicators  developed  by  the  RSC  for 
abundance  D1C2  are  also  applied  for  distribution  (e.g.,  OSPAR  indicators  for  abundance  and 
distribution of cetaceans and distribution and abundance of harbour porpoise).    

Given the lack of data on the overlap between spatial distribution of human activities/pressures and 
species distribution, it is not possible to identify whether there is a cause-effect relationship between 

2 A qualitative threshold values which is determined as: The number of groundings actually observed over 3 days 
does  not  exceed,  over  more  than  one  month  for  two  years  of  the  current  cycle,  the  upper  limit  of  the 
confidence interval at 95% of the monthly threshold (predicted from the cycle previous). 

25 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
human  activities  and  cetacean  population  size  and  distribution  (OSPAR,  2017;  abundance  and 
distribution of cetaceans’ indicators). The power to detect trends could be improved by increasing the 
frequency of large-scale surveys. Spatial distribution models are very popular where data exist, but 
once  again  it  is  challenging  to  make  a  causal  link  with  pressures  and  identify  changes  caused  by 
anthropogenic activities and not by other natural phenomena.   

Table 11.  Parameters reported (first two columns) and additional information on use of parameters in the reports (also 
includes MS which reported parameters but did not assess them for the criteria). 

PAR 

Parameter name 

A 
B 
C 

Distribution pattern (DIST-P) 
Distribution range (DIST-R) 
Distribution spatial (DIST-S) 

MS reporting (regardless 
completing assessment) 
EE, ES, HR 
DK, EE, ES, FI, IE, MT, PT, SE 
CY, DE, ES, FR, HR, LV, PL, PT, SE 

Threshold Values (+ source) 
assigned to parameter 
HELCOM 
HELCOM, National 
Habitats, HELCOM, OSPAR, 
National 

Figure 5. Number of MS per each region using the parameters listed in Table 11. Duplications allowed for same MS using 
more parameters in the same region (example: ES uses D in three regions). 

-  D1C5 

Interestingly, ES reported several parameters for criterion D1C5, beyond the Habitat Condition (HAB-
CON) parameter that was expected for this criterion. They reported the extent (EXT) of the habitat for 
the  species,  as  MT  also  did,  and  several  parameters  that  are  also  relevant  to  D8C1  and  D9C1 
(Concentration  of  contaminants  in  biota,  in  fat,  liver  and  other  tissues).  HD  is  currently  the  only 
potential source for this criterion; for instance, BAL MS reported bad criteria status because of the 
bad habitat quality for the species according to HD. However, lack of threshold values and data did 
not  allow  for  many  assessments  for  this  criterion.  The  13  MS  reported  for  this  criterion  made  22 
assessments in total for D1C5 for five species, indicating the lack of data and methods and the low 
contribution of this criterion in the species assessments. 

Table 12. Parameters reported (first two columns) and additional information on use of parameters in the reports (also 
includes MS which reported parameters but did not assess them for the criteria). 

PAR  Parameter name 

A 
B 
C 
D 
E 
F 
G 

Habitat condition (HAB-CON) 
Extent (EXT) 
Indirect values of contaminants available 
Concentration in biota - liver (CONC-B-LI) 
Concentration in biota - other (CONC-B-OT) 
Concentration in biota - fat (CONC-B-FA) 
Duration 

MS reporting (regardless 
completing assessment) 

CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, HR, MT, NL 
ES, IE, MT, PT 
ES 
ES 
ES 
ES 
ES 

Threshold Values 
(+source) assigned to 
parameter 
Habitats 

26 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6. Number of MS per each region using the parameters listed in Table 12. Duplications allowed for same MS using 
more parameters in the same region (example: ES uses D in three regions). 

Gap: Lack of common assessment methods to harmonise the parameters at regional level, and at the 
species level.     

Recommendation  for  reporting:  No  recommendations,  this  entry  is  clear,  and  the  reported 
information  is  consistent.  However,  there  are  several  cases  where  the  MS  reported  as  “other” 
parameters that could fit to the default categories. The harmonisation of methodology  at regional 
level  or  through  the  biodiversity  expert  network  could  further  improve  the  consistency  in  the 
description of the parameters. The drop-down menus with prefilled parameters had greatly improved 
the consistency in the reporting compared with the 2012 reporting. 

Recommendation for implementation: The development of common regional methodologies and the 
work developed within the MSFD biodiversity expert network will facilitate the harmonisation of the 
parameters reported at regional level and across the same species. The analysis shows that very few 
parameters assigned to species and assessments for some criteria (e.g., D1C5 and D1C1). Obviously, 
there are still gaps in data, which should be covered in the updates of the monitoring programmes. 
The  methodological  gaps  can  be  tackled  with  regional  and  EU  coordination  through  the  expert 
network. Another striking point is that D1C5 was not adequately reported or omitted by many MS, 
despite the link with the HD assessment for the habitat of the species. Reviewing the HD reports for 
the same species it becomes clear that there is lack of the causal link between the habitat condition 
and extend of the marine mammals and the pressures acting on those habitats, which complicates the 
D1C5 assessment. Moreover, in several cases the MS did not manage to characterise the habitats of 
the species and restricted their analysis to the population characteristics. More work is required across 
descriptors to link pressures with affected habitats in a quantitative manner and to better characterise 
species’ habitats with specific populations especially for those species that are related with pelagic 
habitats (development of methodological standards for D1C6 could also support this link).   

27 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.1.4.2  Threshold values 

Objective: To provide an overview of the reported threshold values (Table 13) and compare them with 
those that are developed by the RSC or other organisations (e.g., ASCOBANS) and for EU legislation 
for each D1 criterion.   

Data: We analyse the data reported in columns Q, R and S for threshold values (Appendix 2, Art.8 
mammals). This information is checked against the RSC roof reports and against the Palialexis et al. 
(2019) report on the harmonisation of methods to set threshold values.  

Table 13. Overview of the threshold values reported and their sources per criterion and species group. Explanations of the 
parameter are given in the previous section. The criteria in grey font correspond to the secondary ones. 

Criteria 

OSPAR 

HELCOM 

UNEP/MAP 

HD 
parameters 

No source reported and 
qualitative Threshold 
Values 

Seal 

D1C1  

- 

- 

-25.0: Relative 
abundance within 
community (long 
term)  

10000.0 (ind.): 
ABU 
0.6 (BQR-ratio); 
ABU 

D1C2  

6.0:  Relative 
abundance within 
community (short 
term) 

7.0, 9.0, -10.0: 
Trend in 
abundance 

Rate of decrease 
less than 10% 
over a 10-year 
period 

90.0: FEC  
0.6: Reproductive 
status 
35.0: Blubber 
thickness (caught 
seals) 
40.0: Blubber 
thickness (hunted 
seals) 
0.6: DIST-S 
DIST-P 
DIST-R 

-1.0: FEC 

No changes in the 
species 
distribution: 
DIST-S 

- 

- 

- 

D1C3  

D1C4  

D1C5  

- 

10000 (ind.): 
ABU 

>7, <15: ABU 
Favorable 
conservation 
status of the 
population: 
ABU 

Trend as GES 
definition 

>7, <15: FEC 

Favorable 
conservation 
status of the 
population: 
AGE-D 

Favorable 
conservation 
status of the 
distribution: 
DIST-S 

Favorable 
state of 
conservation 
of the habitat: 
HAB-CON 

No Threshold Value set for 
MOR/F 
Increasing population 
growth rate (FI) 
Trend as GES definition 
(NL) 
Abundance increases by 
10% in comparison to 
previous year (PL) 

Number of feeding 
females, offspring or 
pregnant females reaching 
at least 5% of the 
population (PL): FEC 
Hunting (FI) 

No decrease in area of 
occupation occurs: DIST-R 
Appearance of grey seal at 
all haul-out areas during 
monitoring period and 
molting: DIST-S 

28 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sufficiency of 
area and 
quality of 
occupied 
habitat 

- 

- 

Whale – baleen, 
Small-toothed cetaceans, 
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans 
- 
MOR/F: 1.7% 
0.7% or 1.4% 
varying by 
species 

D1C1  

D1C2  

- 

-5.0: Relative 
abundance within 
community (long 
term) 

- 

ABU: 
Favorable 
conservation 
status of the 
population 
Stable trend 
(MT) 
ABU: At or 
greater than 
the current 
Favourable 
Reference 
Population 
value (IE) 
Comparison 
census in the 
assessment 
period with 
values 
reported in 
Art. 17 of the 
Habitats 
Directive (PT) 

or 

MOR/F:  
1.7  %  of  the  population 
mortality  to  be  caused  by 
bycatch  comes  from  the 
ASCOBANS 
recommendation 
national TV 
1.0  %  mortality  rate  from 
ship collision 
1.0 % from CMS 
Number  of 
individuals 
dead due to bycatch never 
exceed  0.7%  of  the  best 
abundance 
estimate 
available (ES) 
National values (in BLK) 
Percentage of (mammal 
sp.) stranded with signals 
compatible with bycatch 
(ES). 
0.0: Incidental capture (No 
individuals) ? Tuna 
fisheries/fishing longlining 
Stable or declining trend 
(MT) 
-0.5: Relative abundance 
within community (short 
term) – National (FR) 
abundance spatial 
modelling 
abundance Distance 
Sampling – source: MISTIC 
SEAS II 
(ES) 

29 | P a g e  

 
 
 
- 

- 

- 

AGE-D: 
Favorable 
conservation 
status of the 
population  

D1C3  

D1C4  

D1C5  

- 

No changes in the 
species 
distribution: 
DIST-S 

- 

- 

- 

- 

DIST-S: 
Favorable 
conservation 
status of the 
distribution 
Comparison 
census in the 
assessment 
period with 
values 
reported in 
Art. 17 of the 
Habitats 
Directive 

HAB-CON 
Favorable 
state of 
conservation 
of the habitat 

EXT: 
Equivalent to 
the current 
Favourable 
Reference 
Range (IE) 

AGE-D 
FEC 
SEX-D 
SUR 
The number of groundings 
actually observed over 3 
days does not exceed, 
over more than one 
month for two years of the 
current cycle, the upper 
limit of the confidence 
interval at 95% of the 
monthly threshold 
(predicted from the cycle 
previous) (FR) 
Breeding interval BI (ES) 
Size-length (ES) 
NMR- Natural Mortality 
Rate (ES) 
AGR- Annual Gestation 
Rate (ES) 
LE- Life Expectancy (ES) 
Temporal emigration 
probability (TEP) 
estimated for the Ria de 
Arousa area (ES) 
Generation time (ES) 
The upper limit of the 
confidence interval at 80% 
of the average annual 
percentage difference in 
the proportion of area 
occupied by the species 
over the assessment cycle 
must be greater than 0% 
(FR) : DIST-S 
Distribution range extends 
to Finnish marine area and 
it is observed yearly from 
each sub-basin (except 
Bothnian Bay) 
Stable trend in 
distributional range (MT): 
DIST-R 
17.0: Indirect values of 
contaminants available 
(ES) 
EXT 
HAB-CON 
CONC-B-OT  
CONC-B-LI 
CONC-B-FA 
Duration 

30 | P a g e  

 
 
Comparison 
census in the 
assessment 
period with 
values 
reported in 
Art. 17 of the 
Habitats 
Directive (PT) 

Findings:  The  variety  of  sources  and  methods  to  set  threshold  values  and  the  differences  in  data 
availability across the regional seas is well reflected in the different types of thresholds reported. For 
D1C1 there is only a method developed for threshold and a value proposed by ASCOBANS, with some 
variation from the  OSPAR  and HELCOM. Thus, where it  was  reported it was consistent.  Threshold 
values  reported  for  D1C2  and  D1C4  are  influenced  by  the  HD.  For  D1C3  and  D1C5  numerous 
parameters  were  reported  and  consequently  different,  non-comparable  threshold  values  were 
reported.  

Gap: For several species’ groups, species and regions, threshold values do not exist, and the lack of 
data  prevents  any  attempt  to  establish  such  values.  The  threshold  values  that  were  reported  are 
coming from other assessment obligations, regional (from ASCOBANS for D1C1) or HD (common in 
D1C2).      

Recommendation  for  reporting:  The  reporting  of  the  threshold  values  was  efficient  and  had  the 
detailed compilation of information for a comprehensive understanding of the estimation and use of 
the  thresholds.  Some  inconsistencies  and misunderstandings on  the selected/developed threshold 
values for parameters that deviate from the GES Decision could be refined either with the monitoring 
guidance or with the Art. 8 guidance. Such inconsistencies derived from the MS’ tendency to report 
available  information, even if it’s not fully fit to the  required entries  (e.g.,  relevant abundance  for 
D1C2) or from projects that developed thresholds at subregional level, which are not aligned with the 
GES Decision. 

Recommendation for implementation: Generally, the MS reported threshold values that are already 
developed  by  RSC  or  other  organisations  (ASCOBANS).  Given  the  lack  of  data  and  the  regional 
harmonisation,  the  reported  threshold  values  can  be  the  basis  for  regional  coordination  and 
extrapolation of methods to other regions. For D1C1 and D1C3 some already developed indicators 
could provide some level of harmonisation of the methods to set threshold values. For D1C2 and D1C4 
(possible also D1C5, but this was not evident in this reporting cycle) the HD provides some consistency 
in the threshold values in terms of units. However, the highly mobile species should require a more 
coordinate  assessment  at  regional  level,  some  more  harmonisation  is  required  for  a  meaningful 
assessment of the species status. Given the different monitoring programmes being reported for the 
marine  mammals  (2014  monitoring  reports)  and  the  poorly  developed  guidance  and  methods  for 
threshold values, the ongoing work focused on the regional coordination of setting threshold values 
in line with the MSFD requirements will contribute to the improve the coming assessments. Despite 
the lack of agreed methods to set thresholds and the very few thresholds that are available from other 
sources, the expert networks for the species groups have a dynamic to develop harmonised methods 
for testing and endorsement for the MSFD. The MS should support their experts working regionally 
and for the MSFD D1 expert networks, as this group can provide recommendations to fulfil MSFD, HD 
and RSC assessments and reporting.  

31 | P a g e  

 
 
  Consistency of spatial coverage and assessment period 

Objective: The MS reported the assessment period for each parameter per species and criterion. We 
analysed  this  information  to  explore  potential  discrepancies  in  the  assessment  at  regional  and 
criterion level that could potentially affect the comparability and consistency in the final assessment 
of each parameter (Table 14).  

Data: This information is reported in column AT “assessment period” (Appendix 2, Art. 8 mammals).  

Table  14:  Assessment  period  per  criterion  and  region  based  on  which  the  MS  performed  the  assessment  of  their 
parameters. The numbers indicate how many reported parameters have the same assessment period per criterion. 

2000-
2017 

2006-
2016 

2006-
2017 

2009-
2018 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

8 

2 

2 

2 

2 

8 

2 

2 

2 

2 

BAL 
10 
D1C1   2 
D1C2   2 
D1C3  
D1C4   4 
D1C5   2 
NEA 

D1C1  

D1C2  

D1C3  

D1C4  

D1C5  

MED 

D1C1  

D1C2  

D1C3  

D1C4  

D1C5  

BLK 

D1C1  

2011-
2017 

2012-
2016 

2012-
2017 

2011-
2016 

206 

33 

58 

44 

46 

25 

16 

129 

4 

4 

4 

4 

25 

30 

22 

28 

24 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

8 

1 

3 

1 

3 

94 

15 

11 

33 

18 

17 

64 

12 

12 

15 

12 

13 

40 

10 

10 

10 

10 

16 

7 

7 

1 

1 

2012-
2018 

15 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

173 

38 

36 

33 

33 

33 

25 

5 

5 

2 

5 

8 

2013-
2017 

2013-
2018 

2014-
2018 

15 

2 

8 

3 

1 

1 

9 

1 

1 

1 

4 

2 

3 

3 

Findings: There is no harmonisation in the assessment period for most of the parameters assessed for 
each criterion, indicating that the assessments might not be fully comparable and might have different 
levels  of  uncertainty.  Moreover,  the  6-year  assessment  cycle  is  not  reflected  from  the  assessed 
parameters.  

The pattern of the assessment periods at regional level (Table 14) corresponds to the assessments 
that  the  MS/contracting  parties  did  for  the  RSC.  This  explains  why  most  of  the  BAL  and  NEA 
assessments have data until 2016, or 2017 in some cases where the assessment was updated for the 
2018 reporting. The influence from the HD is evident in the assessment period as well, where the MS 
used  both  a  long  time-series  for  trends  (starting  in  2000  or  a  bit  later)  and  shorter  time-series 
corresponding to the 6-year policy cycle.  

32 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gaps: Once again, the MS used what was available in terms of data, indicators and assessments and 
did not report assessments adjusted to the MSFD requirements – the six-year assessment cycle in this 
case. Of course, longer data sets can provide more accurate estimates for threshold values or state 
assessment,  however,  in  the  requested  duration  should  be  six  years  and  in  line  with  the  policy 
requirements.  The  different  assessment  periods  might  not  provide  comparable  assessments  and 
might not reflect the same volume of pressures to the species.     

Recommendations for reporting: This information is crucial and well reported in terms of the provided 
information. However, the six-year period should be harmonised across the criteria used to ensure 
comparability,  and  consistency  across  the  state  assessment  which  should  consider  pressure  and 
impact criteria assessments. 

Recommendations  for  implementation:  We  should  introduce  in  the  discussion  of  the  policy 
harmonisation that includes  the  harmonisation of the  timing, a process  to harmonise  the  regional 
assessments, as well. Otherwise, the assessment period will be an additional factor to the different 
parameters, methods, and thresholds that produce incomparable and inconsistent assessments.     

  Date when GES is expected to be achieved  

Objective: The MS reported for each species group if it is in GES, or by when they expect to achieve 
GES. We analyse  the  reported information to identify the  proportion of species  that are in GES at 
regional level and when each species group could be in GES according to the MS.   

Data: The information on the GES achievement or the expected date is in column AR (Appendix 2, Art. 
8 mammals). For many species, the MS reported that the GES achievement date is unknown or not 
assessed (approx. 20% of the entries). The rest were  included in the analysis. Achieving GES is the 
overall goal of the MSFD. In the structure of the reporting this entry corresponds to the assessment 
of parameters, which are integrated at the level of criterion and then the criteria are integrated at the 
level of species. The species are aggregated at the level of species groups and the field assessed here 
(GESachieved)  is  based  on  the  feature  (species  group)  for  which  the  MS  needs  to  specify  what 
proportion of species in the group need to be in good status (GES extent threshold). Given the different 
methods of integration at both levels and the number of parameters or criteria that contributed to 
each assessment the final GES assessment/achievement might not be consistent yet. 

Expected Outcome: The outcome will provide a quick overview of the proportion of species that are 
in GES and the provision for the GES achievement for the species group.   

Table 15. GES status for marine mammals or provisional date of GES achievement as it was reported by each MS.   

Species groups and species in 

GES 

GES expected to be achieved 

BAL 

achieved 

by 2020 

later than 2020 
(Art.14 exception) 

later than 2020 
(no Art.14) 

Halichoerus grypus 

LV, SE 

EE 

Seals 

Phoca hispida botnica 

FI, LV, SE  EE 

Phoca vitulina 

SE 

DE 

DE 

Not 
assessed 

Unknown 

LV 

DK, FI, PL 

FI 

DK 

Small 

Phocoena phocoena 

DE, FI 

SE 

DK, PL 

33 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cetaceans 

Species groups and species in 

GES 

NEA 

achieved 

GES expected to be achieved 

Not 
assessed 

Unknown 

by 2020 

later than 2020 
(Art.14 exception) 

later than 
2020 (no 
Art.14) 

Halichoerus grypus 

Seals 

Phoca vitulina 

DE, FR, 
IE 

DE, FR, 
IE, SE 

SE 

SE 

Small 

cetaceans 

Monachus monachus 

Delphinus delphis 

Globicephala 
macrorhynchus 

Globicephala melas 

Grampus griseus 

Lagerorhynchus 
albirostris 

Orcinus orca 

Phocoena phocoena 

IE 

Pseudorca crassidens 

Stenella coeruleoalba 

Stenella frontalis 

Steno bredanensis 

Tursiops truncatus 

Globicephala 
macrorhynchus 

Globicephala melas 

Grampus griseus 

IE 

FR 

FR 

Hyperoodon ampullatus 

Deep 
divers 

Kogia breviceps 

Mesoplodon bidens 

Mesoplodon europaeus 

Mesoplodon mirus 

Physeter 
macrocephalus 

Ziphius cavirostris 

Baleen 
whales 

Balaenoptera 
acutorostrata 

FR 

NL 

NL 

ES, FR 

FR 

ES 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

DK 

DK 

PT (AMA) 

PT (AMA) 

PT (AMA) 

DE, ES, FR, NL 

DK, PT, 
SE 

BE 

FR 

ES, FR 

ES 

ES 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT (AMA) 

PT (AMA) 

AMA: ES 
PT 

PT (AMA) 

AMA: ES 
PT 

ES (AMA) 

PT (AMA) 

PT (AMA) 

PT (AMA) 

PT 

PT (AMA) 

PT (AMA) 

PT (AMA) 

PT (AMA) 

AMA: ES 
PT 

AMA: ES 
PT 

PT (AMA) 

34 | P a g e  

PT 

PT 

PT 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Balaenoptera borealis 

Balaenoptera edeni 

Balaenoptera musculus 

Balaenoptera physalus 

FR 

Megaptera 
novaeangliae 

PT 

PT (AMA) 

AMA: ES 
PT 

PT (AMA) 

ES 

PT 

PT (AMA) 

PT (AMA) 

Species groups and species in 

GES 

GES expected to be achieved 

MED 

achieved 

by 
2020 

later than 2020 
(Art.14 exception) 

later than 2020 
(no Art.14) 

Not 
assessed 

Unknown 

Seals 

Monachus monachus 

CY 

Small 

cetaceans 

Deep 
divers 

Delphinus delphis 

Stenella coeruleoalba 

Tursiops truncatus 

Globicephala melas 

Grampus griseus 

Physeter 
macrocephalus 

Ziphius cavirostris 

Baleen 
whales 

Balaenoptera physalus 

MT 

MT 

FR, HR 

MT, SI 

HR 

ES 

ES, IT 

ES, IT 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES, IT 

Species groups and species in 

GES 

GES expected to be achieved 

BLK 

achieved 

by 
2020 

later than 2020 
(Art.14 exception) 

later than 2020 
(no Art.14) 

Not 
assessed 

Unknown 

Small 

cetaceans 

Delphinus delphis 

Phocoena phocoena 

Tursiops truncatus 

Findings:  

RO 

RO 

RO 

The  seals  in  BAL  are  not  in  GES  and  the  Baltic  MS  are  not  aligned  regarding  the  date  of  GES 
achievement. This outcome is contradicted with the outcome of HELCOM (2018) at least for some 
species and sub-divisions. On the other hand, the seals in NEA are in GES, except for the populations 
in the NL, and DK where the GES status is unknown, which agrees with their assessments in the BAL. 

35 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The differences in the GES assessment from the MS referring to the same populations denotes the 
inconsistency  of  the  methods  or  in  the  GES  determination  across  them.  In  some  cases,  the 
inconsistency comes from the differences between Art. 8 and Art. 9 of the same MS. For instance, FR 
determined GES in a qualitative way, while for Art. 8 they provide many details including complete 
assessments and threshold values.   

The rest of the marine mammals (apart from four species in the French waters) are reported as not in 
GES and the MS foresee to achieve GES after 2020 in NEA. Similar is the case in the MED and BLK 
where no species are in GES, mostly because the MS did not fully assess them. Moreover, in the MED 
many country reports are awaited and those analysed are not representative of the marine mammals’ 
distribution. For instance, not all the countries where the Mediterranean seal occurs are included in 
the analysis (i.e., EL).  

Gap:  Many  data  gaps,  as  this  entry  requires  consideration  of  several  assessments  and  integration 
across parameters, criteria and species within each species group. The outcome is not representative 
of the status of GES in the European waters for marine mammals, as it was expected by the number 
of species assessed by the HD and by RSC in their roof reports.  

Recommendations for reporting: The MS need to combine assessments of criteria and parameters to 
conclude on species (element) status and then assess if GES is achieved at species group level. This 
entry, which is at the species/parameter/criterion level, despite following the GES Decision structure 
corresponds to aggregated information of several lines at the reporting. As such, it might be easier for 
the MS to clarify the link of this entry with the aggregated information of the species group, rather 
than with each line that corresponds to parameters. Many MS conceived it in a different manner and 
reported inconsistent information e.g., assessment of criterion instead of species or no assessment at 
all, when the relevant parameter/criterion was not assessed.   

Recommendations  for  implementation:  This  entry  includes  information  close  to  ultimate  MSFD 
scope, which is the GES achievement. All the work related with the harmonisation of methodological 
standards (thresholds, integration) can ensure a consistent and comparable assessment of species in 
the coming cycles. Contradicted assessment between MSFD, RSCs and HD should be avoided, like the 
seals in the Baltic. Most MS need to define GES extent threshold values, and to conclude on element 
status throughout and to report whether  the species group in in GES. The underlying assessments 
need to be done to consistent standards so that the final assessment is meaningful.  

  Analysis of the integration methods across parameters and criteria  

Objective: The integration rules are an essential part of the GES assessment. We analyse the reported 
information to identify potential patterns in the use of different rules, get an overview of the methods 
applied and reported and use this information for the ongoing debate on agreeing integration rules 
for D1 species.   

Data: The MS reported the integration rules between parameters to inform the criterion level, and 
between  criteria  to  inform  the  species  level  (Integration  rule  type  parameter  in  column  AK  and 
Integration rule type criteria in column AM, respectively in Appendix 2, Art. 8 mammals).  

Table 16. Integration rule type parameter for all criteria.  

Species groups 

Regions 

Integration rule type by parameter 

NHIE_NWEI 

OOAO 

Not relevant 

Species 

36 | P a g e  

 
 
EE 

EE 

Seals 

Small cetaceans 

Deep-diving 
cetaceans 

Baleen whales 

BAL 

NEA 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

BLK 

NEA 

MED 

NEA 

MED 

FI, LV, PL, SE 

DE, DK, LV 

Halichoerus grypus 

Phoca hispida botnica 

Phoca vitulina 

Halichoerus grypus 

Phoca vitulina 

FI, LV 

FR, SE 

FR, SE 

FR 

FR 

FR 

DE, DK, SE 

DE, DK, NL  

DE, DK, NL  

DE, DK, PL, SE 

BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, NL 

ES, FR, HR, MT 

RO 

ES, FR 

ES 

ES, FR 

ES 

Table 17. Integration rule type criteria for all criteria 

Species groups 

Regions 

Species 

Integration rule type by parameter 

OOAO 

Not relevant 

BAL 

Halichoerus grypus 

DK, EE, FI, LV, PL, SE, DE 

LV 

Seals 

MED 

Stenella coeruleoalba 

Delphinus delphis 

Tursiops truncatus 

BLK 

ES 

ES 

ES 

Globicephala macrorhynchus 

Globicephala melas 

ES, FR 

NEA 

Grampus griseus 

Physeter macrocephalus 

Ziphius cavirostris 

Globicephala melas 

Grampus griseus 

Physeter catodon  

Ziphius cavirostris 

MED 

Balaenoptera acurostrata 

NEA 

Balaenoptera edeni 

Balaenoptera physalus 

MED 

Balaenoptera physalus 

FR 

ES 

ES 
ES 

ES 

ES 

FR 

ES 

ES 

Deep-diving 
cetaceans 

Baleen whales 

FR 

RO 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

FR 

Findings:  For  the  parameters,  EE  was  the  only  one  reporting  “Non-hierarchical,  non-weighted 
averaging”  (NHIE_NWEI)  while  the  rest  reported  “One-Out-All-Out”  (OOAO)  (Table  16).  Many  MS 
reported “not relevant” when for each criterion only one parameter is assessed. 

For the integration rules across criteria to the species (element) level all MS reported “One-Out-All-
Out” (Table 17). The  “not relevant” in this case correspond to species that have only one criterion 
assessed (e.g., the three cetaceans in the BLK). Exception for ES where the OOAO method has been 
applied directly in the case of primary criteria. In the case of secondary criteria, expert judgement has 
also been considered for integration. 

Good practices: No variety in the reporting, so no option to be tested.   

37 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gaps: A common agreed method for each level of integration to secure the consistency in the GES 
assessment  and  the  level  of  environmental  protection  since  the  integration  rules  could  affect  the 
conclusion of the status assessment per species.  

Recommendations for reporting: The integration rules are reported only once which helps the MS to 
avoid repeating the same information, and simplifies the reporting.    

Recommendations for implementation: The debate on agreeing integration rules is still ongoing for 
several descriptors. For species, the MSFD biodiversity expert network is working to this direction and 
will continue testing and recommending the most promising methods for each species group (e.g., 
JRC124613  report:  Integration  methods  for  MSFD  biodiversity  assessments).  The  results  should  be 
reflected to the updates of the Art. 8 guidance.     

1.2  Results of Art.9 analysis 
  GES determination levels 

Objective: To get an overview of how the MS determined GES and explore possibilities to harmonise 
the GES determination.  

Data: We analysed the GES description from the MS reports at the levels that were reported (column 
I in Appendix 2, D1-Art9).  

Table 18. Analysis of the levels of detail provided by the MS in the GES determination by criteria and region. 

GES 
component 

Region 

Descriptor 

Criteria 

D1 

D1C1 

D1C2 

D1C3 

D1C4 

D1C5 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

BLK 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

DE 

DE, FR 

LV, PL 

ES 

CY, FR, SI 

ES, IT 

DK 

DK 

IT 

DK 

DK 

RO 

SE 

DK, IE, SE 

HR, MT 

PL, SE 

BE, IE, SE 

IT, MT 

HR 

DK 

DK 

MT 

DK 

PL, SE 

HR, MT(?) 

PL 

BE, IE, PT, SE 

HR 

BE, IE 

HR 

Species 

Threshold value 

Species 
group 

PT 

FI, LT 

NL, PT 

FI (small cet.) 

EE, FI (seals), LT 

NL 

PT 

FI (seals), LT 

PT 

EE, FI, LT 

FI (seals) 

NL 

Findings: MS have determined GES at the level of descriptor, criterion, species, and indicator (Table 
18). There is no consistency in the GES determination at any level, even when it refers to the same 
species  and  criteria.  The  different  levels  of  GES  determination  hinder  the  comparison  of  GES 

38 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
achievement across the MS, as was also verified from the GES achievement reporting information for 
Art.  8  (section  2.6).  Several  reasons  caused  the  inconsistency  in  the  GES  determination  in  Art.  9, 
including: 

-  The  use  of the GES determination of the  2012 reporting, not considering the  details provided in 
Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. 

- The use of assessments from other sources (HD, RSC) which are species specific and MS determined 
GES at the level of the available assessments.  

- Use of both GES Decisions, especially where the repealed one (Commission Decision 2010/477/EU) 
did not provide clarifications on the level of GES determination and on the grouping of the species 
groups no harmonised GES determination could be achieved across the MS.  

- Qualitative determination was reported, since lack of data, of methods and of adequate/common 
understanding of GES could not support a quantified GES determination.  

- Lack of regional coordination and common GES  determination at regional or subregional level to 
deliver MSFD Art. 3(5). The established RSC’ indicators are species oriented and provide useful means 
that could lead to the overall GES determination through the criteria. In the first MSFD cycle the MS 
put substantial effort to commonly developed these indicators, which was reflected to the increased 
harmonisation of several criteria at regional level. However, they did not manage to achieve the same 
level of harmonisation in the GES determination at regional level and per species groups. This step is 
essential and it should be  prioritised  to  provide  a common basis for a more holistic approach (i.e. 
pizza-satellite concept (SWD(2020) 62) to materialise the ecosystem approach to management and 
the DPSIR approach) as required by the MSFD. More indicators and coordination at regional level will 
facilitate the MSFD requirements if these are well interpreted through a common GES determination.      

- Rarely is the GES determination informative enough for specific species groups. 

Gaps:  Lack  of  harmonisation  caused  by  lack  of  common  understanding  of  the  level  of  where  GES 
should be determined and lack of a common approach to provide a qualitative GES at regional level. 
This caused by the misinterpretation of the MSFD requirements in relation to the GES determination 
per  Descriptor  and  using  the  two  GES  Decision  (2010  and  2017)  or  reiteration  of  the  2010  GES 
determination ignoring the progress in the first MSFD cycle, which was well reflected in the 2017 GES 
Decision clarifying Art.9.  

Recommendations for reporting: No recommendation, this information is crucial and well reported. 
Given that most MS provide long description of GES determination (from a sentence to paragraph) it 
could be helpful some of the characteristics that are evaluated to be reported separately. For instance, 
if the GES determination is qualitative or quantitative, and units for the quantitative determination 
(percentage, ratio), always as a drop-down selection to facilitate reporting. Eventually, when agreed 
GES determinations at regional level will be available, this fields could be automatically generated per 
region.  

Recommendations for implementation: The assessment flow and the Art. 8 guidance should be the 
basis for building a common GES determination in a consistent way and agreeing how the GES will be 
reflected  at  the  level  of  species  group,  indicators,  criteria,  and  species.  Since  the  MS  invested 
considerable  effort  to  harmonise  methods  for  assessments,  that 
improved  the  common 
understanding of the MSFD requirements, the follow up is to transfer this common understanding to 
the  work  for  harmonising  GES  determination.  Common  integration  rules  and  common  agreed 
methods will bring consistency in all levels. The reporting tool should be developed accordingly, linking 

39 | P a g e  

 
GES determination to the proper level reducing and automatizing the reporting effort. Starting from 
the technical groups, and in this case from the biodiversity expert network, the experts could propose 
the basis for a quantitative GES determination for each species group, which later could be refined 
through the WG GES. 

  Comparability with legislation related to marine mammals at different scales 
Most MS provided general descriptions at descriptor level, which in some cases are based on other 
policies  or  agreements  (e.g.,  HD),  however,  more  information  on  the  policies  come  from  Art.  8 
reporting. MS made references to MSFD (FR, MT, PL) and HD (DE and DK). Particularly, DE provided a 
comprehensive overview of all the relevant legislation (e.g., WFD, ASCOBANS, HELCOM, OSPAR and 
national  plans)  used  in  its  determination.  NL  was  the  only  MS  to  specify  threshold  value  source 
(ASCOBANS) next to the threshold value. 

  Analysis of adequacy of GES 

The GES determinations for the MS reporting for  two regions (NEA and MED) are quite vague and 
general, while at the descriptor and criteria levels they were more consistent. 

Not all MS provided a GES determination by species group, partially justified using the ‘Feature’ field 
in  the  reporting  template  (Column  G,  in  Appendix  2,  D1-Art9).  Only  for  seals  and  small  cetaceans 
separate GES descriptions were reported. The general group ‘All mammals’ was reported only by DK 
and ES, despite they did not assess all species groups, while the other MS preferred reporting the 
species  groups  in  different  combinations  according  to  what  was  reported  under  Art.8  across  the 
regions and criteria. 

Only FI provided different GES determinations between seals and small cetaceans for some criteria 
and at the most detailed level (including species and threshold values). 

  Consistency and adequacy of reported GES spatial coverage (when relevant; 

regional, national, MRU) 

Most GES determinations were done at larger MRU/national waters scale. MRUs all grouped together 
(Column D, Appendix 2, D1-Art9), and GES determination covers more than one species groups (birds, 
mammals,  reptiles,  fish,  and cephalopods).  The  combination of the  reported MRUs and species  at 
species groups and the varied levels of GES determination jeopardised the spatial harmonisation of 
GES determination, even for the same species group.  

  Justifications for delays in setting EU/regional thresholds and non-use of 

criteria 

Delays:  

MS declared two reasons for delayed reporting: 

-  Missing list of species and information on habitats (BE, FR, PT, SE). 
-  No agreed threshold values  and indicators  at regional level, stating in some  cases  to have 
measured values in the field, but do not have reference threshold values to assess the species 
status (DE, DK, FR). 

Both issues are already prioritized, and on-going work is taking place at regional level and within the 
MSFD biodiversity expert network.  

40 | P a g e  

 
 
 
2.  Marine reptiles 
2.1  Marine reptiles result of Art.8 analysis  

  Consistency, comparability and adequacy of reported criteria elements and 

features assessed at EU and regional level   

Objective: Which species are reported, by which MS per region, and which MS did not report species 
with distribution in their waters.  

Data:  We  analyse  the  data  reported  in  column  G  “Elements”  per  MS,  subdivisions  and  regions  in 
Appendix 2, Art. 8 turtles). 

Expected Outcome: Overview of species reported (black), species that could be reported (blue) per 
MS, subdivisions and regions according to the spatial distribution. In red, MS that did not provide yet 
electronic reports. Grey cells correspond to regions or subdivisions where the species do not occur. 
Thus, it is easy to identify the species distribution from the white cells and the MS that either reported 
them or should have done so, but they did not. 

Table 19. Marine turtles reported by the Member States and their geographical association with the MSFD regions and 
subdivisions. 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

ABI 

AMA 

MWE  MIC  MAD 

MAL 

ES, PT, FR 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

UK 

UK, IE, FR 

ES, PT, FR 

ES, PT 

ES, 
IT, FR 

ES, 
IT, FR 

ES, 
FR 

EL, 
IT, 
MT 

EL, 
IT, 
MT 

EL, 
IT, 
MT 

EL, 
HR, 
IT, SI 

CY, EL 

IT 

CY, EL 

CY, EL 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

Turtle 
species 

Caretta 
caretta 
Loggerhead 
turtle 
Chelonia 
mydas 
Green turtle 
Dermochelys 
coriacea 
Leatherback 
turtle 
Eretmochelys 
imbricate 
Hawksbill 
turtle 
Lepidochelys 
kempii 
Kemp’s 
Ridley turtle 

Findings:  

Species perspective:  

Marine turtles (Table 19) occur in NEA and MED. Five MS from the NEA and eight from the MED have 
the obligation to assess marine turtles as they are all included in the HD Annexes. Three marine turtle 
species are in the coastal MS and five in AMA. Eventually three species were assessed from the MS 
that were analysed (the three on the top of Table 19) by seven MS (ES, MT, HR, CY, HR, SI, IT) out of 
the 10 that we were expecting to report. The outcome of the MSFD report is not representative to the 
distribution of the marine turtles and to their status. For the analysis of the marine turtles’ distribution 
and population characteristics, it should be considered that these migratory species occurred in the 

41 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European  seas,  but  occurrence  might  not  always  correspond  to  resident  populations  with  well 
identified nesting sites and foraging grounds.    

Gap: In this analysis we miss data from at least 30% of the MS that we expected to assess marine turtle 
species (UK, FR, EL) and many more at criterion level.      

Recommendation for reporting: We would recommend the MS to report using the electronic format. 

Recommendation for implementation: There is good knowledge of the distribution of species and of 
the  predominant  pressures  in  the  literature  and  within  the  sea  turtle  expert group.  However,  the 
monitoring programmes are not well connected and consistent in generating information and there 
is lack of methods to assess the GES criteria and methods to set threshold values. The marine turtle 
GES  group  working  under  the  MSFD  biodiversity  expert  network  started  to  analyse  and  combine 
available data and promising methods to cover the GES criteria. The recommendation from this expert 
group should be reflected in the update of the Art. 8 guidance.   

Recommendation  for  methodological  standards:  The  marine  turtle  GES  group  produced  three 
workshop reports, to summarise the outcomes of the workshops that took place in 2019 and 2020, 
with the aim to develop and test methods to support the MSFD D1 criteria assessments. This group 
was officially established as an OSPAR expert group, however, includes many of the MSFD officially 
nominated  experts  and  experts  working  for  relevant  organisations  in  the  MED  (ACCOBAMS, 
UNEP/MAP, SPA/RAC). Most of these experts are also contributing to the HD assessments. As such, 
the best way forward to achieve harmonisation across RSC and EU policies is to establish a single group 
of experts (in this case covering all the  expertise  needed and all the  regional seas  foreseen to be 
assessed) to provide scientific and technical recommendations and one assessment of marine turtles 
for all reporting obligations.  

  Extension in use of MSFD Criteria (primary and secondary) reported at EU, 

regional and (sub)regional level 

Objective: 

Table 20 provides a variety of information and overviews related with the progress of the assessments.   

-  Overview of the use of primary and secondary criteria. The number in each cell indicates the 
number of member states reported each criterion out of the total number of MS reported for 
each species.   

-  Overview of the species assessments and threshold values per criterion and region. The traffic 
light approach (green, orange, red) corresponds to the level of assessment of the parameters 
for each criterion and species, including the report of threshold values. Green: Indicates that 
for those criteria a complete assessment has been done by comparing the threshold value 
with the achieved value. Orange: Indicates that either a threshold value is available or the 

42 | P a g e  

 
 
achieved value (estimated parameter), so assessment is not complete. Red: Indicates that no 
threshold value or achieved value are reported.  

-  Overview of the assessed parameter for each species and criterion. The bold borders around 
the  cells  indicate  those  species  and  criteria  for  which  the  achieved  parameter  has  been 
reported (either negative or positive). 

Data: The reported information in column N (in Appendix 2, Art. 8 turtles) was used for the use of the 
criteria. The species assessment was based on the information in columns Q, R, S and V. The overview 
of the assessed parameters was based on the information in column AD. The assumption for the traffic 
light approach is that the any reported category was aggregated to the higher level, so if only one MS 
provided threshold value and value achieved for a single species and in a single MRU, this is assigned 
to the species and region or subdivision. We assume that all MS in the same  region or subdivision 
should have available methods to perform a similar assessment.  

Table 20. Reported threshold values and/or estimated parameters are shown for each species and criterion as: i) green, 
for those criteria with both the threshold value and the value achieved reported, ii) orange, when either a threshold value 
is  available,  or  the  value  achieved  (estimated  parameter),  so  assessment  is  not  complete,  and  iii)  red,  when  neither 
threshold values nor values achieved are reported. The numbers reflect the MS that reported each criterion to allow for 
an  overview  of  the  usage  between  primary against  secondary  criteria.  The  bold-framed  cells  show  the  criteria  of  the 
species that were reported to have a final assessment (positive or negative). 

NEA 
Turtles 

D1C1 
primary 

D1C2 
primary 
Use BD 

D1C3 
secondary 

D1C4 
secondary 
Use BD 

D1C5 
secondary 

Caretta caretta 

ES, PT, IE 

Chelonia mydas 

Dermochelys coriacea 

1/2 

1/2 

0/3 

1/2 

1/2 

1/3 

2/2 

1/2 

0/3 

1/2 

0/2 

1/3 

1/2 

0/2 

1/3 

D1C1 
primary 

D1C2 
primary 
Use BD 

D1C3 
secondary 

D1C4 
secondary 
Use BD 

D1C5 
secondary 

Caretta caretta 

Chelonia mydas 

1/6 

0/1 

5/6 

1/1 

1/6 

0/1 

4/6 

0/1 

5/6 

0/1 

MED 
Turtles 

ES, HR, 
MT, CY, IT, 
SI 
CY 

Findings:  

Use of primary and secondary criteria: Secondary criterion (D1C3) was reported and is informative for 
the marine turtles’ populations. One out of six MS in the MED and two out of three in NEA reported 
this  criterion,  however,  the  MS  did  not  discriminate  between  primary  and  secondary,  but  they 
reported what was available.  

Species  assessments  and  threshold  values  per  criterion  and  region:  Very  limited  information  is 
reported based on projects (MISTIC SEAS) or publications that set threshold at local populations (e.g., 
ES). There is no coordination for the threshold values setting.  

43 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessed parameter for each species and criterion: The expected parameters were reported for the 
three species and in the MED a MS reported that all parameters were assessed for both species and 
criteria, however without providing details on thresholds and achieved parameters.   

Good practices: The marine turtle GES group working under the MSFD biodiversity expert network 
started to analyse and combine available data and promising methods to cover the GES criteria. For 
this process, the reported information was also considered, however the reported parameters and 
thresholds do not seem to be aligned with the recommendations of the group.  

Gap:  There  are gaps in data and spatial coverage  of the  marine  turtles in both the  NEA and MED. 
Experts  got  together  for  the  first  time  to  combine  data  and  explore  the  possibility  to  provide 
assessment at regional or subdivisional level. The marine turtles require assessments at regional (or 
subdivisional)  as  highly  mobile  species  with  migratory  corridors.  As  such,  the  assessments  and 
monitoring should be coordinated across neighbouring MS.      

Recommendations for reporting: The structure of the reported information is clear and informative. 
No recommendations.  

Recommendations for implementation: Some methodological gaps could be covered by the ongoing 
work of the GES turtle expert network. These gaps related with agreed methods for the assessment 
of  relevant  parameters  (distribution,  abundance,  population  characteristics  and  bycatch).  Bycatch 
monitoring should be enhanced and better coordinated with the CFP monitoring and reporting.  In 
addition, marine turtles are well linked with specific habitats, either for nesting or for foraging, so the 
habitats for the species (D1C5) is essential for their assessment as shown in the reports, despite being 
a secondary criterion. Monitoring of these habitats could contribute to the overall species assessment 
and  increase  the  causal  link  between  populations’  state  and  pressures.  Data  gaps  should  be 
considered in the updates of the monitoring programmes, however, to test potential methods and 
extract threshold values, only available data are used. As such, the process is still very data driven, 
despite their limited sources. Combination of different data sets for marine turtles’ abundance and 
distribution  proved  very  useful  for  the  population  assessments,  especially  for  such  highly  mobile 
species. Support from RSC and MS is required to keep the group of experts active.     

  Marine reptile parameters and thresholds  

Objective: Provide an overview of the reported threshold values (Table 21) and compare them with 
those that are developed by the RSC or other organisations (e.g., ASCOBANS) and legislations.   

Data: We analyse the data reported in columns Q, R and S for threshold values (in Appendix 2, Art. 8 
turtles).  

Table 21. Overview of the reported threshold values per criterion and the assessments and trends that come from other 
policies and RSCs. Red denotes no threshold values agreed or reported at regional level, green denotes existing threshold 
values (not the case for marine turtles) and light green refers to thresholds reported for the Habitats Directive. D1C3 is a 
secondary criterion for marine reptiles 

Species 
group 

Reptiles - 
turtles 

Criteria  

OSPAR   HELCOM  

UNEPMAP  
/ BARCON  

HD 

No source reported 

D1C1  

D1C2  

- 

- 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0.2: MOR/F (ES) 
Stable or declining trend (MT, 
CY) 
Number of individuals (ES, CY) 
2.6 individuals/Km2 (ES)  

44 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
D1C3  

D1C4  
D1C5  

- 

- 
- 

N/A 

N/A 
N/A 

N/A 

National TV – MISTIC SEA II: 
ABU (ES) 
1.76 – MISTIC SEA II: Body 
Condition Index (ES) 
100.0: Distribution Range (ES) 
100%: Extent and Habitat 
Condition (ES) 

Findings: The four turtles are included in the HD Annexes and are assessed under the UNEP/MAP. 
There are HD assessments available, which were reused for the MSFD by some MS (MT and CY). No 
regional agreements or agreed values exist at the RSCs for marine turtles. All the reported threshold 
values are coming from the scientific literature based on local and species-specific studies.   

Gap: There is no regional coordination for thresholds and agreed methods for threshold values. Only 
UNEP/MAP has indicators for turtles, but not agreed quantitative thresholds.       

Recommendations for reporting: The structure of reporting of the threshold values was efficient and 
achieved detailed collection of all necessary information for a comprehensive understanding of the 
estimation and use of the thresholds. The lack of information though could not provide good practices 
and cover all species and criteria.  

Recommendations for implementation: Once again, the methodological gaps could be covered by 
the ongoing work of the GES turtle expert network. The MS should support the experts working on 
this.  

  Consistency of spatial coverage and assessment period 

Objective: The MS reported the assessment period for each parameter per species and criterion. We 
analysed  this  information  to  explore  potential  discrepancies  in  the  assessment  at  regional  and 
criterion  level  that  could  potentially  affect  the  comparability  and  the  consistency  in  the  final 
assessment of each parameter.  

Data: This information is reported in column AT “assessment period” (in Appendix 2, Art. 8 turtles).  

Findings: The eight MS reported for marine turtles, assigned assessment periods each criterion and 
species, however, given the lack of data, there is not any logical assumption that could be made for 
the selection of the assessment period, with very few exemptions where values were reported. In 
any case, the assessment period is not consistent, which is expected to be in order to achieve 
comparable assessment, at least regionally. 

Recommendations for reporting: No recommendation, this information is crucial for the evaluation 
of the assessments. 

Recommendations  for  implementation:  No  recommendation  since  there  are  not  enough  data  to 
analyse. MS should try to harmonise the assessment periods, otherwise the assessments might not 
be comparable. 

45 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Date when GES is expected to be achieved  

Objective: The MS reported for each species if it is in GES, or when they expect to achieve GES. We 
analyse the reported information to identify the proportion of species that are reported to be in GES 
at regional level and when most of the species in each species groups could be in GES according to the 
MS.   

Data: The information of the GES achievement or the expected date is in column AR (Appendix 2, Art. 
8  turtles).  For  many  species,  the  MS  reported  that  the  GES  achievement  date  is  unknown  or  not 
assessed (approx. 60% of the entries). The rest were included in the analysis.  

Expected Outcome: Achieving GES is the overall goal of the MSFD. In the structure of the reporting 
this entry corresponds to the assessment of parameters, which are integrated at the level of criterion 
and then the criteria are integrated at the level of species. The species are aggregated at the level of 
species groups and the field assessed here (GES achieved) is based on the feature (species group) for 
which the MS needs to specify what proportion of species in the group need to be in good status (GES 
extent  threshold).  Given  the  different  methods  of  integration  at  both  levels  and  the  number  of 
parameters or criteria that contributed to each assessment, the final GES assessment/achievement 
might not be consistent yet. The outcome will provide a quick overview of the proportion of species 
that are in GES and the provision for the GES achievement for the species group.   

Table 22. GES status for marine reptiles or provisional date of GES achievement as it was reported by each MS.  

GES assessment D1 

NEA 

GES 
achieved 

GES 
expected 
to be 
achieved 
by 22 

GES expected to 
be achieved later 
than 22, Article 14 
exception 
reported 

GES expected to be 
achieved later than 
22, no Article 14 
exception reported 

Not 
assessed 

Unknown 

Caretta caretta 

Chelonia mydas 
Dermochelys 
coriacea 

GES assessment D1 

MED 

GES 
achieved 

GES 
expected 
to be 
achieved 
by 22 

GES expected to 
be achieved later 
than 22, Article 14 
exception 
reported 

GES expected to be 
achieved later than 
22, no Article 14 
exception reported 

Caretta caretta 

Chelonia mydas 

2 (MT, 
CY) 
1 (CY) 

1 (IT) 

1 (PT) 

1 (PT) 

2 (PT, ES) 

2 (PT, ES) 
3 (PT, ES, 
IE) 

Not 
assessed 

Unknown 

1 (SI) 

2 (ES, 
HR) 

Findings: The GES achievement is either unknown or not assessed for all species in NEA (Table 22). 
However, in the MED two MS reported that GES is achieved for Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) 
and one MS for the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Considering the reported assessments for marine 
turtles  in  the  two  regions, it  is  obvious  that  the  GES  achievement  is  not  similarly interpreted  and 
supported by the MS.  

Gap: Gaps exist in data, understanding of GES, and methods to assess GES.       

46 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendations for reporting: See the recommendation for mammals (section 2.6). The marine 
turtles’ reports do not provide enough information to formulate specific recommendations. 

Recommendations  for  implementation:  Once  again,  the  methodological  gaps  and  the  GES 
understanding could be covered by the ongoing work of the GES turtle expert network. The MS should 
support  the  experts working on  this.  Monitoring gaps should be considered in the updates of  the 
monitoring programmes pursuant to MSFD Art.11 and their updates (Art. 17). 

  Analysis of the integration methods across parameters and criteria  

Objective: The integration rules are an essential part of the GES assessment. We analyse the reported 
information to identify potential patterns in the use of different rules, get an overview of the methods 
applied and reported and use this information for the ongoing debate for agreed integration rules for 
D1 species.   

Data: The MS reported the integration rules between parameters to inform the criterion level, and 
between  criteria  to  inform  the  species  level  (Integration  rule  type  parameter  in  column  AK  and 
Integration rule type criteria in column AM, respectively in Appendix 2, Art. 8 turtles).  

Findings:  MS  are  reported  for  the  integration  between  criteria.  No  information  for  parameters 
integration was reported.  

MT used the HD approach: “The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) integration method 
was  applied.  Since  three  of  the  four  criteria  were  assessed  and  all  three  were  determined  to  be 
good/stable, turtles as represented by C. caretta in Maltese waters as part of the marine sub-region 
can be considered to be in good status. Integration at species level was not required since C. caretta 
is the only species representing marine reptiles in Maltese waters.” 

ES for the AMA did not integrate: “The results of the evaluation of marine mammals in the MISTIC 
SEAS 2 project have not been integrated because it was considered inadequate or, at least, premature, 
with the current level of information and knowledge.” 

ES for ABI and MWE they use Hierarchical non weighting average: “HIE_NWEI:  If a primary criterion 
cannot be assessed for a species due to a lack of data then the resultant assessment of that criterion 
for the species cannot be assigned a status (i.e. it is ‘not assessed’). Where the species is only assessed 
with  the  primary  abundance  criterion,  if  data  are  missing  for  this  criterion,  the  species  cannot  be 
assigned  a  status.  It  also  means  that  the  Member  State  should  take  action  on  monitoring  and 
assessment  tools  to  ensure  that  at  the  next  update  under  Article  8  MSFD  an  assessment  can  be 
undertaken.” 

PT promote a One-Out-All-Out approach. “…a reliable and robust integration method if the state of 
each element, criterion, indicator could be evaluated with a very high degree of confidence, which 
rarely happens. The large knowledge gaps associated with the evaluation of each element and metric 
lead to a high probability of degrading the evaluation of the true general environmental state, and an 
overly conservative global assessment.” 

Gaps: No coordination even within the same country.   

Recommendations for reporting: Not enough information to provide recommendation.   

47 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Recommendations for implementation: The  debate  for agreed integration rules  is  in progress  for 
several descriptors. For species, the MSFD biodiversity expert network is working to this direction and 
will continue testing the most promising methods. However, the fact that the three MS that reported 
integration rules  for criteria promoted different methods is indicative  for the  need of coordinated 
work to agree on common integration rules across criteria. The lack of data will, however, delay the 
progress of a harmonised/agreed approach, since testing is not possible.     

48 | P a g e  

 
 
 
2.2  Results of Art.9 analysis for D1 marine reptiles 

  GES determination levels 

Objective: To get an overview of how the MS determined GES and explore possibilities to harmonise 
GES determination.  

Data: We analysed the GES description from the MS reports at the levels that were reported (column 
I, Appendix 2, D1-Art9).  

Table  23. Level  of  GES  determination and  examples  of  GES  description.  The count  of  entries  corresponds  to  the  total 
number  of  ecosystem  component  per  MS  and  subregion  for  which  GES  was  determined  for  D1  or  its  criteria.  This  is 
indicative to the variety of GES descriptions.  

MS 

Examples of GES description 

Levels of GES 
determination 

Descriptor 

1 
IT 

Criteria 

3 
MT, HR, SI 

Species group 

Species 

Indicators 
No 
determination 
Total entries  

1 
MT 

1 
ES 
- 
5 

9 

The marine species listed in the Habitats Directive, the Birds 
Directive and in the SPA / BD protocol of the Barcelona 
Convention maintain or achieve a satisfactory conservation 
status. 
The mortality rate per species from incidental by-catch is below 
levels which threaten the species, such that its long- term 
viability is ensured. 
Area of the habitat of marine reptiles in Maltese waters is stable 
or increasing and habitat quality is suitable for the long-term 
survival of the species. 
The corresponding sea demarcation does not act as a sink for 
any of the source populations. 
 - 
Blank: no GES description 

Findings: MS have determined GES at the levels of descriptor, species group and species (Table 23). 
There is no consistency in the GES determinations at any level, even when they refer to the same 
species.  The  different levels of GES determination jeopardise  the  comparison  of  GES achievement 
across the MS. From the eight MS reported for marine turtles only three reported GES determination 
for this species group. The lack of data, thresholds values and operational indicators were reported to 
justify no determination. Several reasons caused the inconsistency in the GES determination, which 
are listed in section 3.1. The lack of information in the Art. 9 did not allow to assess possible qualitative 
and  quantitative  ways  to  harmonise  GES  determination  and  threshold  values  related  with  GES 
determination.  

Gaps: Lack of harmonisation caused by lack of common understanding and misinterpretation of the 
MSFD requirements in relation to the GES determination per Descriptor. This should be also clarified 
across the Descriptors and following the ecosystem approach to the assessment linking State with 
Impact and Pressures  (DPSIR).  The  lack  of data, thresholds values  and operational indicators were 
reported to justify no GES determination by five out of the eight MS. 

Recommendations for reporting:  This information is crucial and well reported. Maybe  if we break 
down the detailed description of GES to more detailed entries more information could be extracted, 

49 | P a g e  

 
  
 
as  those  MS  that  reported  GES  description  usually  provide  long  text. However,  this  needs  further 
discussion and is relevant with the harmonisation of GES at descriptor level.   

Recommendations for implementation: The assessment flow and the Art. 8 guidance should be the 
basis for clarifying the GES determination in a consistent way. It should be clarified how the GES will 
be reflected at the level of species groups indicators, criteria, and species. Common integration rules 
and  common  agreed  methods  will  bring  consistency  in  all  levels.  The  reporting  tool  should  be 
developed accordingly, linking GES determination to the proper level reducing and automatizing the 
reporting effort. The experts developing the methodological standards should contribute to the GES 
determination for marine turtles and provide quantitative description, consistent across regions and 
across populations of the same species. 

50 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
3.  Seabirds 
3.1  Seabirds results of Art.8 analysis  

  Consistency, comparability and adequacy of reported criteria elements and 

features assessed at EU and regional level   

Objective: Which species are reported, by which MS per region, and which species were not reported, 
despite that they are included in RSCs lists or EU policies.  

Data:  We  analyse  the  data  reported  in  column  G  “Elements”  per  MS,  subdivisions  and  regions 
(Appendix 2, Art.8 birds). 

Expected Outcome: This analysis provides an overview of the reported species (black font), species 
that were reported in 2012 but not in 2018 (blue) per MS, subdivisions and regions. In red are the 
species reported in 2012 from MS that did not provide electronic reports in 2018 and thus were not 
included in the analysis. Grey cells correspond to regions or subdivisions where there is no information 
from the reporting. For birds, Table 24 does not correspond to the species spatial distribution, but 
only to the reported information, either in 2012 or in 2018, in contrast with the marine mammals’ 
Table 2. This change was made because of the number of seabird species compared with the marine 
mammals  and the  difficulty to associate  their spatial distribution on the  table. Some  species  were 
reported in more than one species groups, depending on where the national experts allocated them. 

Table 24. Seabirds reported by the evaluated Member States and their geographical association with the MSFD regions 
and subdivisions. In blue species that were reported in 2012, but not in 2018 and in red species that were reported in 2012 
by MS that did not provide e-reports in 2018 and thus were not included in the evaluation. 

Benthic bird species 

Aythya ferina 
Common pochard 
Aythya fuligula 
Tufted duck 
Aythya marila 
Greater scaup 
Bucephala clangula 
Common goldeneye 
Clangula hyemalis 
Long-tailed duck 
Gavia arctica* 
Black-throated diver 
Gavia stellate* 
Red-throated loon or diver 
Melanitta fusca 
Velvet scoter 

Melanitta nigra 
Common scoter 

Melanitta spp. 
Mergus serrator* 
Red-breasted merganser 
Phalacrocorax aristotelis* 
European shag 
Podiceps nigricollis 
black-necked grebe 
Polysticta stelleri 
Steller’s eider 

BS 

BS 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

ACS  ABI  AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BAL 
DE, DK, EE, PL, 
SE 
DE, DK, EE, PL, 
SE 
DE, DK, EE, PL, 
SE 
DE, DK, EE, LT, 
PL, SE 

DE, DK, LT, SE 

ANS 
DK, NL, 
SE 
DK, NL, 
SE 

DK, NL 

DK, NL, 
SE 
DK, NL, 
SE 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

DE, DK, EE, LT, 
PL, SE 

DE, DK, LT, SE 

DK, NL, 
SE 
BE, DE, 
DK, NL, 
SE 
BE 

PT 

EE, LT 

51 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Somateria mollissima 
Common eider 

DE, DK, EE, LT, 
PL, SE 

BE, DE, 
DK, NL, 
SE 

Benthic-feeding birds 
(grouped) 
Somateria spectabilis 
King eider 

FI, LV 

Reported in OSPAR 

IT 

IT 

Grazing bird species 

Anas acuta 
Pintail 
Anas clypeata * 
Shoveler 
Anas crecca * 
Teal 
Anas Penelope 
Widgeon 
Anas platyrhynchos 
Mallard 
Anser albifrons 
Greenland white-fronted 
goose 
Anser anser 
Greylag goose 
Branta bernicla 
Brent goose 
Branta canadensis 
Canada goose 
Branta leucopsis 
Barnacle goose 
Cygnus bewickii 
Bewick's swan 
Cygnus columbianus 
Tundra swan 
Cygnus cygnus 
Whooper swan 
Cygnus olor 
Mute swan 
Fulica atra 
Coot 
Grazing birds (grouped) 

Anser erythropus 
Lesser white-fronted 
goose 
Branta ruficollis 
Red-breasted Goose 

Pelagic bird species 

Alca torda 
Razorbill 
Bulweria bulwerii 
Bulwer’s petrel 
Calonectrs borealis  
Scopoli's shearwater 
Cepphus grille 
Black guillemot 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

BS 

ANS 

ACS  ABI  AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL  BS 

DE, DK, PL 

DE, DK 

DK 

SE 

DE, DK, PL, SE 

DE, DK, EE, PL, 
SE 

DK 

DE, DK, EE, PL, 
SE 

DK, SE 

DE, DK 

SE 

DE, DK, NL, 
SE 
BE, DE, DK, 
NL, SE 

DK, NL 

DK, SE 

DE, NL 

DK, SE 

DK, EE, PL, SE 

DK, NL, SE 

DE 

DK, PL 

DE, DK, EE, PL, 
SE 
DE, DK, EE, PL, 
SE 
DE, DK, EE, PL, 
SE 
FI, LV 

NL 

DK 

DK, NL, SE 

BE, DK, NL, 
SE 

DK, NL, SE 

Reported in HELCOM 

Reported in OSPAR and in BS protocol 

BAL 

BAL 
DE, DK, 
PL, SE 

ANS 
BE, DE, DK, 
NL, SE 

DE, DK, 
PL, SE 

BE, DK, SE 

NEA 

MED 

BS 

ACS 

ABI 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL  BS 

FR 

FR 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

52 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fratercula arctica 
Puffin 
Fulmarus glacialis* 
Northern fulmar 
Gavia arctica* 
Black-throated diver 
Gavia stellate* 
Red-throated loon or diver 
Gavia sp. 
Hydrobates (Oceanodroma) 
castro* 
Band-rumped storm-petrel 
Mergellus albellus 
Smew 
Mergus merganser 
Common 
merganser/goosander 
Mergus serrator* 
Red-breasted merganser 
Morus bassanus 
Northern gannet 
Pelagodroma marina* 
White-faced storm petrel 
Phalacrocorax aristotelis* 
European shag 
Phalacrocorax carbo 
Great cormorant 
Phalacrocorax pygmeus 
Pygmy cormorant 
Podiceps auritus 
Slavonian grebe 
Podiceps cristatus 
Great crested grebe 
Podiceps grisegena 
Red-necked grebe 
Puffinus lherminieri 
Audubon's shearwater 
Puffinus mauretanicus * 
Balearic shearwater 
Puffinus yelkouan * 
Mediterranean or Yelkouan 
shearwater 
Rissa tridactyla* 
Black-legged kittiwake 
Sterna hirundo * 
Common tern 
Uria aalge 
Common guillemot 
Pelagic-feeding birds 
(grouped) 
Ceryle rudis 
Pied kingfisher 
Gavia immer 
Great northern loon 
Halcyon smyrnensis 
White-throated kingfisher 
Pelecanus crispus 
Dalmatian Pelican washing 
Sterna bengalensis  
 Lesser crested tern 
Uria aalge ibericus 
Iberian guillemot 

BE, DE, NL 

FR 

IE 

DE, DK 

DE, DK,  

DE, DK, 
SE 

DE, DK, SE 

BE 

DE, DK, 
EE, PL, SE 

DE, DK, 
EE, PL, SE 

DE, DK, 
EE, PL, SE 

DK, NL, SE 

DK, NL, SE 

BE, DE, DK, 
NL, SE 
BE, DE, FR, 
NL 

ES 

FR, 
IE 

ES, FR 

FR 

ES 

BE, FR, NL 

FR 

ES, FR 

ES, FR 

HR, IT 

DE, DK, 
EE, PL, SE 

BE, DE, DK, 
FR, NL, SE 

FR 

FR 

FR 

HR 

DE, SE 

NL, SE 

DE, DK, 
EE, PL, SE 

BE, DK, NL, 
SE 

DE, DK 

DK 

ES 

UK 

UK 

ES 

ES 

MT 

IE 

ES 

BE, DE, DK, 
NL, SE 

FR 

ES, FR 

DE, DK, 
PL, SE 

FI, LV 

Reported in UNEPMAP 

Reported in  OSPAR 

Reported in  UNEPMAP 

Reported in UNEPMAP and in BS (BLK) 

Reported in UNEPMAP 

Reported in OSPAR 

53 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Uria lomvia 
Brϋnnich's guillemot 

Reported in OSPAR 

Surface feeding bird species 

Anas clypeata * 
Shoveler 
Calonectris diomedea  
borealis 
Cory's shearwater  
Calonectris diomedea 
diomedea 
Scopoli's shearwater 
Chlidonias niger 
Black tern 
Fulmarus glacialis* 
Northern fulmar 
Gelochelidon (Sterna) nilotica 
Gull-billed tern 
Haliaeetus albicilla 
White-tailed sea-eagle 
Hydrobates (Oceanodroma) 
castro* 
Band-rumped storm-petrel 
Hydrobates monteiroi 
Monteiro's storm petrel 
Hydrobates pelagicus 
European storm petrel 
Hydrocoloeus minutus 
Little gull 
Hydroprogne caspia 
Caspian tern 
Larus argentatus * 
Herring gull 
Larus audouinii (Ichthyaetus 
audouinii) 
Audouin’s gull 
Larus canus * 
Common gull 
Larus fuscus * (Subsp. 
Graellsii and intermedius) 
Lesser black-backed gull 
Larus genei 
Slender-billed gull 
Larus marinus 
Great black-backed gull 
Larus melanocephalus 
Mediterranean gull 
Larus michahellis* 
Yellow-legged gull 
Larus ridibundus* 
Black-headed gull 
Oceanodroma leucorhoa 
Leach’s storm petrel 
Pelagodroma marina* 
White-faced storm petrel 
Puffinus mauretanicus * 
Balearic shearwater 
Puffinus puffinus 
Manx shearwater 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

ANS 

ACS 

ABI 

MED 
AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL  BS 

BS 

NL 

ES 

ES  

ES 

ES 

ES, FR  MT 

HR 

DK 

DK 

BE, DE, FR, 
NL 

FR 

PL 

FR 

PT 

PT 

FR 

PT 

PT 

FR 

ES, FR, 
PT 

ES, FR, 
IT 

IT, 
MT 

IT 

DK 

BE, DE, DK 

DE, EE, PL, 
SE 
DE, DK, EE, 
PL, SE 

SE 

BE, DE, DK, 
FR, NL, SE 

FR 

FR 

PT 

ES, FR, 
IT 

IT, EL 

EL, 
HR, 
IT 

EL 

DE, DK, EE, 
PL, SE 

DE, DK, FR, 
NL, SE 

DE, DK, EE, 
PL, SE 

BE, DE, DK, 
FR, NL, SE 

FR 

FR, PT 

FR 

FR 

DE, DK, EE, 
PL, SE 

DK 

BE, DE, DK, 
FR, NL, SE 
BE, DE, DK, 
FR, NL 

EE, PL, SE 

BE, DE, FR, 
NL, SE 

UK 

UK 

FR 

FR, PT 

FR, PT 

FR 

PT 

FR 

FR 

PT 

FR 

ES, FR 

FR 

FR 

54 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Surface feeding bird species 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

ANS 

ACS 

ABI 

MED 
AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL  BS 

BS 

Puffinus yelkouan * 
Mediterranean or Yelkouan 
shearwater 
Rissa tridactyla* 
Black-legged kittiwake 
Stercorarius parasiticus 
Arctic skua 
Stercorarius pomarinus 
Pomarine skua 
Stercorarius skua 
Great skua 
Sterna dougallii 
Roseate tern 
Sterna hirundo * 
Common tern 
Sterna paradisaea 
Arctic tern 
Sterna sandvicensis 
Sandwich tern 
Sternula albifrons 
Little tern 
Surface-feeding birds 
(grouped) 
Larus armenicus 
Armenian gull  
Larus minutus 
Little gull 
Pagophila eburnean 
Ivory gull 
Pandion haliaetus 
Osprey 
Panurus biarmicus 
Bearded Reedling 
Phalaropus fulicarius 
Grey phalorope 
Phalaropus lobatus 
Red-necked phalarope 
Stercorarius longicaudus 
Long-tailed skua 
Stercorarius pomarinus 
Pomarine skua 
Sterna caspia 
Caspian tern 

Wading bird species 

Actitis hypoleucos 
Common sandpiper 
Anas crecca * 
Teal 
Arenaria interpres 
Ruddy turnstone 
Calidris alba 
Sanderling 
Calidris alpina 
Dunlin/Greenland dunlin 
Calidris canutus 
Red knot 

FR 

HR 

FR, 
UK 

ES, FR, 
PT 

FR 

BE, DE, DK, 
FR, NL, UK 
BE, DE, NL, 
SE 

DE 

BE, DE, NL 

FR, PT 

BE, FR, NL, 
UK 
BE, DE, DK, 
FR, NL, SE 
BE, DE, DK, 
NL, SE 
BE, DE, DK, 
FR, NL 
BE, DE, DK, 
NL 

FR, 
UK 

FR 

FR 

ES, FR, 
PT 

PT 

PT 

FR 

FR, PT 

ES, FR 

ES, FR 

ES, PT 

ES 

SI 

IT 

SI 

DK 

SE 

DE, DK, EE, 
PL, SE 
DE, DK, EE, 
PL, SE 
DE, DK, EE, 
PL 
DE, DK, EE, 
PL 

FI, LV 

Reported in UNEPMAP 

Reported in OSPAR 

Reported in OSPAR 

Reported in UNEPMAP and in BS 

Reported in BS 

Reported in OSPAR 

Reported in OSPAR 

Reported in OSPAR and in UNEPMAP 

Reported in OSPAR and in UNEPMAP 

Reported in WB, in OSPAR and in HD Annex II 

BAL 

BAL 

SE 

DE, DK, PL 

DK, EE, PL, SE 

NEA 

MED 

BS 

ANS 

ACS 

ABI 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL  BS 

SE 

DK 

DE, DK, 
NL, SE 

DK 

DE, DK, NL 

DE, DK, EE, 
PL 

DE, DK, NL 

DK 

DE, DK, NL 

55 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wading bird species 

Calidris ferruginea 
Curlew sandpiper 
Calidris maritima 
Purple sandpiper 
Charadrius alexandrines 
Kentish Plover 
Charadrius hiaticula 
Ringed plover 
Egretta garzetta 
Little egret 
Haematopus ostralegus 
Oystercatcher 
Larus argentatus * 
Herring gull 
Larus canus * 
Common gull 
Larus fuscus * 
Lesser black-backed gull 
Larus michahellis* 
Yellow-legged gull 
Larus ridibundus* 
Black-headed gull 
Limosa lapponica 
Bar-tailed godwit 
Limosa limosa 
Black-tailed godwit 
Numenius arquata 
Curlew 
Numenius phaeopus 
Whimbrel 
Philomachus pugnax 
Ruff 
Platalea leucorodia 
Eurasian spoonbill 
Pluvialis apricaria 
Golden plover 
Pluvialis squatarola 
Grey plover 
Recurvirostra avosetta 
Pied avocet 
Tadorna tadorna 
Shelduck 
Tringa erythropus 
Spotted redshank 
Tringa glareola 
Wood sandpiper 
Tringa nebularia 
Greenshank 
Tringa totanus 
Redshank 
Vanellus vanellus 
Lapwing 
Wading birds (grouped) 

Charadrius leschenaultii 
columbinus 
Greater sand plover 
Ciconia nigra 
Black stork 
Himantopus himantopus 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

BS 

ANS 

ACS 

ABI 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL  BS 

SI 

SI 

DK 

DK 

DE, DK, EE, 
PL, SE 

NL 

DE, DK, NL 

BE, DE, 
DK, NL 
BE, DE, 
DK, NL, SE 

NL 

DE, DK, EE, 
PL, SE 

BE, DE, 
DK, NL, SE 

BE 

BE 

BE 

DK 

DE, DK, NL 

DE, NL 

DK 

DE, DK, NL 

DE, DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DE, DK, EE, 
PL 
DE, DK, EE, 
PL, SE 

DE, NL 

DK, NL 

BE, DE, 
DK, NL 

DE, DK, NL 

DE, DK, NL 

BE, DE, 
DK, NL 
BE, DE, 
DK, NL, SE 

DE, NL 

DK 

DK 

DE, NL 

DE, DK, 
NL, SE 

DE, DK, NL 

DK, SE 

DK 

FI, LV 

Reported in UNEPMAP 

Reported in BS biodiversity 

Reported in OSPAR and in BS biodiversity 

56 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wading bird species 

Black-winged stilt 

Numenius tenuirostris 
Slender-billed curlew 
Phoenicopterus ruber 
American flamingo 
Plegadis falcinellus 
Glossy ibis 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

BS 

ANS 

ACS 

ABI 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL  BS 

Reported in UNEPMAP and in BS 

Reported in UNEPMAP, BS 

Reported in BS 

Additional species previously reported in the reference list, belonging to a different species group 
from those included in MSFD assessment: 

Bird of prey 

Falco eleonorae 
Common sandpiper 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

ABI 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

HR 

Figure 7. Number of seabird species reported by MS in the outer cycle, grouped by their regions (inner cycle and same 
colour).  

57 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  8.  Average  number  of  seabird  species  reported  per  region.  BAL/NEA  and  NEA/MED  include  those  MS  with 
jurisdiction in both areas, namely DK, DE and SE for the first group and FR and ES for the second, respectively. 

Findings:  

It is obvious from Table 24 that there is significant harmonisation in the species reported from the 
Baltic and the NEA (ANS) MS. The rest of the regions and subdivisions seems to have considerably less 
seabird species, according to the reporting. This is caused because of the lack of MS in the eastern (EL) 
part of the MED and in the BLK (BG) to report electronically. Moreover, it is well known that very few 
seabirds are monitored in the BLK and MED (especially when these numbers are compared with the 
Northern part of Europe), which well reflected in Figure 8. For instance, MT reported three species 
and HR four species, compared with 45 species reported by DE only for BAL. Table 24 also includes 
some seabirds that were not reported by the MS but are included in assessments or lists of RSCs. This 
was  done  to  facilitate  the  MS  to  explore  the  inclusion  of  such  species  in  the  future  monitoring 
programmes and assessments.  

Some inconsistencies were observed in the reporting of species. In the BAL, FI and LV reported only 
species  groups,  without  specified  element  (e.g.,  grouped  Benthic-feeding  birds).  Some  MS  have 
grouped the species in the same family and only reported the family e.g., Gavia sp. 

Good practices: The Joint Birds Working Group (WGBIRD) has achieved a high level of harmonisation 
in  the  OSPAR  and  HELCOM  areas  and  lead  the  way  for  harmonising  thresholds  and  methods  for 
assessments. The results are well reflected in the MS reports in those regions.     

58 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
Gap: Even from the analysis of the monitoring reports of the 2014 was evident that there is a huge gap in data and regular 
(
monitoring 

programmes 

seabirds 

MED 

and 

BLK 

the 

the 

for 

in 

in 

Figure 7 and Figure 8). Even though those MS introduced monitoring programmes for seabirds in the 
2014 Art. 11 obligation, the elapsed time, the lack of coordination and the lack of assessment methods 
resulted in underreporting seabirds (Table 24).     

Recommendations for reporting: The species lists that were developed for the reporting improved 
the  consistency  of  the  reported  species,  compared  to  2012.  Typos  and  misreported  species  were 
avoided. The use of a drop-down menu can prevent to report the same species with different scientific 
names  (e.g.,  Hydrobates  castro and  Oceanodroma castro)  or with both  Latin and common English 
name, and facilitates the evaluation and analysis of the reports. 

Recommendations for implementation and methodological standards: We would encourage the MS 
in the MED and BLK to follow the Joint Birds working group and get methodological standards to test 
to  their  regions.  The  data  gaps  should  be  identified  and  prioritised  in  the  monitoring  updates  for 
Art.17.  

59 | P a g e  

 
 
 
  Extension in use of MSFD Criteria (primary and secondary) reported at EU, 

regional and (sub)regional level 

Objective: 

Table 25 provides a variety of information and overviews related with the progress of the assessments:  

-  Overview of the use of primary and secondary criteria. The number in each cell indicates the 
number of member states reported each criterion out of the  total number of MS reported 
each species.   

-  Overview of the species assessments and threshold values per criterion and region. The traffic 
light approach (green, orange, red) corresponds to the level of assessment of the parameters 
for each criterion and species, including the report of threshold values. Green: Indicates that 
for those criteria a complete assessment has been done by comparing the threshold value 
with the value achieved. Orange: Indicates that either a threshold value is available, or the 
value achieved (estimated parameter), so assessment is not complete. Red: Indicates that no 
threshold value or value achieved are reported.  

-  Overview of the assessed parameter for each species and criterion. The bold borders around 
the cells indicate those species and criteria for which the achieved parameter has reported 
(either negative or positive).   

Data: The reported information in column N was used for the use of the criteria (Appendix 2, Art.8 
birds). The species assessment was based on the information in columns Q, R, S and V. The overview 
of the assessed parameters was based on the information in column AD. The assumption for the traffic 
light approach is that the any reported category was aggregated to the higher level, so if only one MS 
provided threshold value and value achieved for a single species and in a single MRU, this is assigned 
to the species and region or subdivision. We assume that all MS in the same region or subdivision 
should have or get available methods to perform a similar assessment.  

Table 25. Reported threshold values and/or estimated parameters. Green: Indicates that for those criteria a complete 
assessment has been done by comparing the threshold value with the value achieved. Orange: Indicates that either a 
threshold value is available, or the value achieved (estimated parameter), so assessment is not complete. Red: Indicates 
that no threshold value or value achieved are reported. The numbers reflect the MS that reported each criterion to allow 
for an overview of the primary vs. secondary criteria usage. The bold-framed cells show the criteria of the species that 
were reported to be assessed (positive or negative). The species in light-green cells are from the BD annex. 

BAL 

Benthic feeding 
birds 
DE, DK, EE, FI, 
LV, LT, PL, SE 

Aythya ferina 

Aythya fuligula 

Aythya marila 

Bucephala clangula 

Clangula hyemalis 

Melanitta fusca 

Melanitta nigra 

Polysticta stelleri 

Somateria mollissima 

Benthic-feeding birds (grouped) 

D1C1 
primary 

D1C2 
primary 
Use BD 

D1C3 
secondary 

D1C4 
secondary 
Use BD 

D1C5 
secondary 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

5/5 

5/5 

5/5 

6/6 

4/4 

6/6 

4/4 

2/2 

6/6 

2/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

60 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Grazing birds 
DE, DK, FI-LV 
(grouped), PL, 
SE 

Pelagic feeding 
birds 
DE, DK, EE, PL, 
SE, FI, LT, LV 
grouped 

Surface feeding 
birds 
DE, DK, EE, PL, 
SE, FI-LV 
grouped 

Anas acuta 

Anas clypeata 

Anas crecca 

Anas penelope 

Anas platyrhynchos 

Anser albifrons 

Anser anser 

Branta canadensis 

Branta leucopsis 

Cygnus bewickii 

Cygnus columbianus 

Cygnus cygnus 

Cygnus olor 

Fulica atra 

Grazing birds (grouped) 

Alca torda 

Cepphus grylle 

Gavia arctica 

Gavia stellata 

Gavia sp. 

Mergellus albellus 

Mergus merganser 

Mergus serrator 

Phalacrocorax carbo 

Podiceps auritus 

Podiceps cristatus 

Podiceps grisegena 

Uria aalge 

Pelagic-feeding birds (grouped) 

Chlidonias niger 

Haliaeetus albicilla 

Hydrocoloeus minutus 

Hydroprogne caspia 

Larus argentatus 

Larus canus 

Larus fuscus 

Larus fuscus graellsii  

Larus fuscus intermedius 

Larus marinus 

Larus melanocephalus 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

3/3 

1/1 

1/1 

4/4 

5/5 

1/1 

5/5 

2/2 

4/4 

1/1 

2/2 

5/5 

5/5 

5/5 

2/2 

4/4 

4/4 

2/2 

3/3 

1/1 

6/6 

6/6 

6/6 

5/5 

2/2 

6/6 

2/2 

4/4 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

4/4 

5/5 

5/5 

3/3 

1/1 

1/1 

5/5 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

61 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Larus ridibundus 

Rissa tridactyla 

Stercorarius parasiticus 

Sterna hirundo 

Sterna paradisaea 

Sterna sandvicensis 

Sternula albifrons 

Surface-feeding birds (grouped) 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

Actitis hypoleucos 

Anas crecca 

Arenaria interpres 

Calidris alba 

Calidris alpina 

Calidris canutus 

Calidris maritima 

Charadrius alexandrinus 

Charadrius hiaticula 

Haematopus ostralegus 

Limosa lapponica 

Numenius arquata 

Philomachus pugnax 

Platalea leucorodia 

Pluvialis apricaria 

Pluvialis squatarola 

Recurvirostra avosetta 

Tadorna tadorna 

Tringa glareola 

Tringa totanus 

Vanellus vanellus 

Wading birds (grouped) 

3/3 

1/1 

1/1 

5/5 

5/5 

4/4 

4/4 

2/2 

1/1 

3/3 

4/4 

1/1 

4/4 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

5/5 

5/5 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

4/4 

5/5 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

Wading birds 
DE, DK, EE, FI, 
LV, PL, SE 

NEA 

Benthic feeding birds 
BE, DE, DK, NL, SE, PT 

Aythya ferina 

Aythya fuligula 

Aythya marila 

Bucephala clangula 

Clangula hyemalis 

Melanitta fusca 

D1C1 
primary 

D1C2 
primary 
Use BD 

D1C3 
secondary 

D1C4 
secondary 
Use BD 

D1C5 
secondary 

3/3 

3/3 

2/2 

3/3 

3/3 

3/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

62 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Grazing birds 
BE, DE, DK, NL, SE 

Pelagic feeding birds 
BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, NL, 
SE, IE, PT 

Melanitta nigra 

 Melanitta spp. 

Phalacrocorax aristotelis 

Somateria mollissima 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

Anas acuta 

Anas clypeata 

Anas crecca 

Anas penelope 

Anas platyrhynchos 

Anser albifrons 

Anser anser 

Branta bernicla 

Branta canadensis 

Branta leucopsis 

Cygnus bewickii 

Cygnus columbianus 

Cygnus cygnus 

Cygnus olor 

Fulica atra 

Alca torda 

Bulweria bulwerii - AMA 

Calonectrs borealis - AMA 

Cepphus grylle 

Fratercula arctica 

Fulmarus glacialis 

Gavia arctica 

Gavia stellata 

Gavia sp. 

Hydrobates (Oceanodroma) 
castro - AMA 

Mergellus albellus 

Mergus merganser 

Mergus serrator 

Morus bassanus 

Pelagodroma marina - AMA 

Pterodroma deserta 

Pterodroma madeira 

Phalacrocorax aristotelis 

Phalacrocorax carbo 

Podiceps auritus 

Podiceps cristatus 

1/3 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

2/4 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

4/4 

1/1 

1/1 

4/4 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

4/4 

4/4 

2/2 

2/2 

2/2 

2/2 

3/3 

1/1 

1/1 

3/3 

3/3 

3/3 

7/7 

2/2 

2/2 

2/2 

1/2 

0/1 

2/2 

3/3 

1/1 

1/1 

3/3 

3/3 

4/4 

5/6 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

2/2 

5/5 

2/2 

4/4 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

3/4 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

2/3 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/4 

1/2 

0/2 

1/1 

0/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/2 

3/4 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

4/4 

2/4 

1/1 

1/2 

2/4 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

2/3 

1/1 

0/1 

0/3 

0/1 

0/2 

0/2 

63 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Podiceps grisegena 

Puffinus lherminieri - AMA 

Puffinus mauretanicus 

Puffinus gravis 

Puffinus griseus 

Rissa tridactylu 

Sterna hirundo - AMA 

Uria aalge 

Pelagic-feeding birds (grouped) 

Anas clypeata 

Calonectris diomedea borealis 

Calonectris diomedea diomedea 

Chlidonias niger 

Fulmarus glacialis 

Hydrobates pelagicus 

Hydrocoloeus minutus 

Hydroprogne caspia 

Larus argentatus 

Larus canus 

Larus fuscus 

Larus fuscus graellsii 

Larus fuscus intermedius 

Larus marinus 

Larus melanocephalus 

Larus michahellis 

Larus ridibundus 

Puffinus mauretanicus 

Puffinus puffinus 

Rissa tridactyla 

Stercorarius parasiticus 

Stercorarius pomarinus 

Stercorarius skua 

Sterna albifrons 

Sterna dougallii 

Sterna hirundo 

Sterna paradisaea 

Sterna sandvicensis 

Sternula albifrons 

Actitis hypoleucos 

Anas crecca 

Arenaria interpres 

1/2 

2/2 
0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

3/4 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/2 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

2/3 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/3 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/1 

2/2 

1/2 
0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

6/8 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

3/3 

2/2 

2/3 

1/1 

4/4 

4/4 

2/2 

0/1 

1/1 

6/6 

4/4 

1/1 

2/3 

1/1 

1/1 

6/6 

2/3 

0/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

7/7 

4/4 

4/4 

3/4 

1/1 

1/1 

4/4 

1/1 

0/1 
0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

4/5 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

4/4 

2/2 

3/4 

1/3 

2/3 

0/1 

3/4 

1/3 

0/1 

3/4 

0/1 

0/1 

4/5 

2/3 

1/3 

1/1 

3/3 

5/5 

3/3 

4/4 

3/4 

0/1 

1/1 

0/2 

1/3 
0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

3/4 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

2/3 

1/3 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

2/3 

1/3 

0/1 

0/2 

1/1 

1/1 

3/4 

1/2 

0/1 

0/2 

0/1 

0/1 

2/4 

1/2 

2/3 

1/3 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 
0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/2 

0/2 

0/1 

0/2 

0/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/2 

0/2 

0/1 

0/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/3 

0/2 

0/1 

0/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/3 

0/1 

0/2 

0/2 

0/1 

64 | P a g e  

Surface feeding birds 
BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, NL, 
PT, SE 

Wading birds 
BE, DE, DK, NL, SE 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Calidris alba 

Calidris alpina 

Calidris canutus 

Calidris ferruginea 

Calidris maritima 

Charadrius alexandrinus 

Charadrius hiaticula 

Egretta garzetta 

Haematopus ostralegus 

Larus argentatus 

Larus canus 

Larus fuscus 

Limosa lapponica 

Limosa limosa 

Numenius arquata 

Numenius phaeopus 

Philomachus pugnax 

Platalea leucorodia 

Pluvialis apricaria 

Pluvialis squatarola 

Recurvirostra avosetta 

Tadorna tadorna 

Tringa erythropus 

Tringa glareola 

Tringa nebularia 

Tringa totanus 

Vanellus vanellus 

Gavia arctica 

Gavia stellata 

Melanitta fusca 

Melanitta nigra 

Mergus serrator 

Phalacrocorax aristotelis 

Podiceps nigricollis 

Somateria mollissima 

MED 

Benthic feeding birds 
IT 

Pelagic feeding birds 

Calonectris diomedea 

3/3 

3/3 

3/3 

1/1 

3/3 

3/3 

4/4 

1/1 

4/4 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

3/3 

2/2 

3/3 

2/2 

2/2 

3/3 

3/3 

3/3 

3/3 

4/4 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

4/4 

3/3 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

2/2 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

2/2 

2/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

D1C1 
primary 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

D1C2 
primary 
Use BD 
1/1 

D1C3 
secondary 

D1C4 
secondary 
Use BD 
0/1 

D1C5 
secondary 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

65 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ES, FR, HR, IT, MT, SI 

Hydrobates pelagicus 

Morus bassanus 

Phalacrocorax aristotelis 

Phalacrocorax carbo 

Puffinus mauretanicus 

Puffinus yelkouan 

Calonectris diomedea 

Calonectris diomedea borealis 

Calonectris diomedea diomedea 

Gelochelidon nilotica 

Hydrobates pelagicus 

Larus audouinii 

Larus genei 

Larus melanocephalus 

Larus michahellis 

Larus ridibundus 

Puffinus yelkouan 

Sterna hirundo 

Sterna sandvicensis 

Sternula (Sterna) albifrons 

Larus michahellis 

Larus ridibundus 

Surface feeding birds 
ES, FR, HR, SI 

Wading birds 
SI 

Findings:  

1/1 

0/1 

2/3 

0/1 

1/1 

2/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/3 

2/4 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/2 

1/3 

0/2 

0/1 

1/3 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

2/2 

0/1 

1/2 

2/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

0/2 

0/1 

0/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/2 

0/1 

0/2 

0/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/2 

0/2 

0/2 

1/1 

0/1 

1/4 

0/2 

1/1 

2/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

2/3 

2/4 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/2 

0/3 

1/3 

0/3 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

3/4 

1/2 

1/1 

2/2 

0/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

4/4 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

2/2 

3/4 

3/3 

3/4 

0/1 

0/1 

Use of primary and secondary criteria: Although we would expect the MS to use more the primary 
than the secondary criteria, it seems that their selection of criteria was based on the availability of 
data and methods. In BAL, all MS completed the D1C2 assessments, but there were no assessments 
for other criteria. In the NEA, however, there are many species with assessments for D1C2 and D1C3, 
indicating the importance of the secondary criterion D1C3 for birds and the availability of data and 
methods for this criterion. The same is observed in the MED, despite the lower number of species, 
most  of  them  are  completely  assessed  for  D1C2  mainly,  but  also  for  D1C1,  D1C3  and  D1C4.  To 
conclude, there is significant use of the secondary criterion D1C3. 

Species  assessments  and  threshold  values  per  criterion  and  region:  The  BD  does  not  require 
assessments and does not set threshold values. The great coordination and development of indicators 
and thresholds in the OSPAR and HELCOM region is well reflected in the MSFD reporting. All species 
are assessed for their abundance and many for population characteristics (mostly breeding success) 
derived from the relevant OSPAR’s indicator. The MED MS reported completed assessments for D1C1 
and D1C4.  

Assessed  parameter  for  each  species  and  criterion:  There  is  a  good  correlation  between  the 
parameters  assessed  and  the  complete  assessment  (where  both  threshold  values  and  parameter 

66 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
estimates are reported). Very rarely the reported species miss one out of the parameter or threshold, 
which are needed for a complete assessment.  

Good practices: The level of coordination in the OSPAR and HELCOM areas provides a good practice 
that contributes to the significant number of species reported and assessed in a harmonised manner. 
The BD might not require assessments like the MSFD, however it sets the basis and the monitoring 
framework that generates the required information for complete assessments.  

Gap: There is no information and methods to perform assessments for criteria like D1D5, D1C1 and 
D1C4 in some regions. 

Recommendations  for  reporting:  The  entries  analysed  in  this  paragraph  and  include  thresholds 
values,  values  achieved,  and  parameters  assessed  are  very  informative.  The  MS  reported  in  a 
consistent way, denoting that they have a good understanding of the structure of the reporting and 
of the concepts behind it. 

Recommendations  for  implementation:  The  high  level  of  regional  coordination  facilitates  the 
complete assessment of several criteria and species. The MS should build on this coordination and 
agree on methods to cover more criteria. The MED and the BLK MS have short time-series for birds, 
but they could make use of available methods from the North. The methods developed by the WGBIRD 
should  be  tested  in  other  regions.  Experts  from  all  regions  should  work  together  to  continue  the 
development of agreed methods and common monitoring programmes.     

  Seabirds threshold values and parameters reported 

Objective: To provide an overview of the reported threshold values (Table 26) and compare them with 
those that are developed ad applied by the RSCs or other organisations and legislation.   

Data: We analysed the data reported in columns Q, R and S for threshold values (Appendix 2, Art.8 
birds). This information  was  checked  against the RSCs roof reports and  the  Palialexis  et al.  (2019) 
report for the harmonisation of methods to set threshold values.  

Table 26. Overview of the threshold values reported and their sources per criterion and species group. The secondary 
criteria are in grey font colour. 

Criteria  

OSPAR  

HELCOM  

UNEPMAP   BD 

No source reported 

D1C1  

D1C2  

0.7: ABU 
National values as 
breeding pairs (ES) 

0.7: ABU 
75.0: ABU 

ABU (IT): 
Breeding 
Pairs 

MOR/F (BE, DE, FI, FR, 
HR) 
MOR/F  (MT:  Stable 
trend;  ES:  By-catch 
"approach 
should 
zero". 
Source: 
Assessment by expert 
criteria) 

MOR/F  (PT):  1.0,  0.0. 
(MISTIC SEA) 
ABU:  
No 
downward 
National 

significant 
trend: 

67 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABU 
(PT): 
Female 
Breeds 

0.7: Abundance 
(number of individuals) 
– breeding (DE) 
Abundance (number of 
individuals) – wintering 
(DE) 
Abundance in breeding 
season (PL, SE) 
Abundance in 
wintering season (PL, 
SE) 
Abundance index 
[breeding season] (EE) 
Abundance index 
[wintering season] (EE) 

0.8: Abundance in 
breeding season (SE) 

75.0: Abundance of 
breeding waterbirds 
(FI) 
Abundance of breeding 
birds (FI) 

0.7: Abundance (number 
of individuals) – 
breeding (DE) 
Abundance (number of 
individuals) – wintering 
(DE) 

ABU: 
<1.3, >0.7  (PT) 

0.8: Abundance (number 
of individuals)  
– breeding (DE) 

75.0: Abundance of 
breeding (NL) 
Abundance non-
breeding (NL) 

FR: The parameter is 
considered to have been 
reached when the rate 
of change in the 
abundance of breeding 
pairs of the species is 
stable or increasing (> 
0%). In addition, an 
expert opinion was 
considered for all 
species: Relative 
abundance within 
community (long term) 

to 

complement 
abundance 
assessment of resting 
birds offshore (DE) 
Regional 
adapted 
expert criteria) (ES) 
MISTIC SEAS 2 (ES) 

(OSPAR, 
under 

of 

Abundance 
scavengers, 
Abundance  of  non-
scavengers: 
National,  long  term 
average  abundance 
(BE) 

Abundance  (number 
of 
– 
individuals) 
trend: 
National  supplement 
abundance 
to 
assessment 
of 
breeding birds (TWSC 
data)  and  National 
to 
complement 
abundance 
assessment of resting 
birds offshore (DE) 

if 

Relative 
-0.5: 
within 
abundance 
community 
(short 
term)  -  National  (FR: 
is 
The  parameter 
the 
reached 
percentage 
annual 
average  difference in 
relative 
the 
a 
abundance 
of 
the 
species,  over 
cycle, 
assessment 
does  not  decline  by 
more  than  0.5%  per 
year, is centred on 0% 
and  the  interval  80% 
confidence 
includes 
0%). 

ABU:  Breeding  Pairs 
(IT); {individuals} (LT) 

ABU: 
No 
improvement  in  the 
status  of  the  species 
compared 
the 
target set in 2014 (PT) 

to 

68 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 

N/A 

3.0:  FEC  (FR:  The  annual 
percentage of colonies in 
massive 
reproductive 
failure  does  not  exceed 
colonies 
5%  of 
the 
the 
monitored, 
average  percentage  of 
colonies in failure during 
the  previous  15  years, 
whichever is higher, for 3 
years over the evaluated 
cycle.) 

or 

0.8, 0.85, 0.9: SUR 

Stable 
population: 
Breeding abundance (BE) 

3.0: Annual colony failure 
rate (DE Number of years 
with  gross 
loss  for  a 
maximum  of  3  out  of  6 
years.) 

Breeding success (NL) 

D1C3  

D1C4  

success: 
(OSPAR, 
under 

Number  of  nesting 
pairs (SI) 
Brood  size  (climbed 
nests): National (PL) 
Productivity:  
National (PL) 
Ratio of reproduction 
to  adult  mortality: 
TWSC (DE) 
Breeding 
Regional 
adapted 
expert criteria) (ES) 
Brood 
success 
brood failure (DE) 
3.0:  Annual  colony 
failure rate (DE) 
0.9:  SUR  -  MISTIC 
SEA2 (ES) 
0.9:  SUR  -  Regional 
adapted 
(OSPAR, 
under expert criteria) 
(ES) 
SUR (FI, HR) 
FEC (PL, ES) 
59.0:  FEC  –  National 
(PL) 

/ 

breeding 
Annual 
success 
(fledged 
juvs/pair):  Scientific 
literature (IT) 

DIST-R 

– 
Trends 

FEC/SUR (PT): MISTIC 
SEA II 
31.0: 
Directional 
(ES) 
DIST-P: MISTIC SEAS 2 
(ES) 
DIST-S: (ES, HR) 
DIST-S:  National  (FR: 
The upper limit of the 
confidence interval at 
80%  of  the  average 
percentage 
annual 
difference 
the 
proportion  of  area 
the 
occupied 
the 
species 
assessment 
cycle 
must be greater than 
0%.) 
DIST-R (DK, ES) 
DIST-R  (MT:  Stable 
trends) 

by 
over 

in 

69 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D1C5  

- 

- 

- 

Specific  parameters 
related 
to 
distribution  are  still 
to be defined (DE) 

Distribution 
of 
breeding colonies (IT) 
EXT (HR) 
HAB-CON (HR) 
Specific  parameters 
to  habitat 
related 
characteristics 
are 
yet to be defined (DE) 

Findings:  In  contrast  with  other  ecosystem  components,  the  regional  coordination  for  seabirds 
provides an incredible harmonisation of the thresholds that mostly derive from the RSCs indicators. 
Equally harmonised are the reported parameters, as well. The criteria that have developed thresholds, 
like  D1C2,  have  always  one  parameter  reported  for  the  species.  The  reported  parameters  for  the 
criteria with no agreed thresholds also present a consistent use of the default ones (those included in 
the drop-down menus in the reporting sheets). This indicates a common understanding across the MS 
on how seabirds should be assessed, at least for the BAL and NEA MS.     

Gap: D1C1, D1C4 and D1C5 do not have agreed thresholds. The reported values come from projects 
or local studies. D1C3 has agreed or coordinated threshold values, but it was not reported by several 
MS.       

Recommendations for reporting: The reporting of the threshold values was efficient and achieved the 
detailed collection of all necessary information for a comprehensive understanding of the estimation 
and use of the thresholds.  

Recommendations  for  implementation:  The  high  level  of  regional  coordination  in  OSPAR  and 
HELCOM through the WGBIRD facilitates the complete assessment of several criteria and species. The 
MS should build on this coordination and agree on methods to cover more criteria. The MED and the 
BLK MS have short time-series for birds, but they could make use of available methods from the North. 
The developments of the WGBIRD should be included in the Art.8 guidance. Moreover, this is a good 
practice of a group of experts that can directly improve the harmonisation of the implementation for 
the MSFD, but also for the alignment of the MSFD and BD.  The MS through the CIS working groups 
should support the work of their experts.       

  Consistency of spatial coverage and assessment period 

Objective: The MS reported the assessment period for each parameter per species and criterion. We 
analysed  this  information  to  explore  potential  discrepancies  in  the  assessment  at  regional  and 

70 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
criterion  level  that  could  potentially  affect  the  comparability  and  the  consistency  in  the  final 
assessment of each parameter (Table 26).  

Data: This information is reported in column AT “assessment period” (Appendix 2, Art.8 birds).  

Table 27. Assessment period per criterion and region on which the MS performed the assessment of their parameters. 
The numbers indicate how many reported parameters were assessed for each period per criterion and region (in bold). 
BLK MS did not report seabird assessments. 

1999-
2011 
129 

81 

48 

129 

81 

48 

2009-
2018 

2010-
2016 

12 
3 
3 

3 
3 

384 
73 
92 
73 
73 
73 
75 
15 
15 
15 
15 
15 

BAL 
D1C1  
D1C2  
D1C3  
D1C4  
D1C5  
NEA 
D1C1  
D1C2  
D1C3  
D1C4  
D1C5  
MED 
D1C1  
D1C2  
D1C3  
D1C4  
D1C5  

2011-
2016 
310 
74 
213 
23 

121 
54 
67 

2012-
2015 

2012-
2017 
11 

11 

87 

67 
20 

46 
12 
13 

10 

92 
29 
28 
10 
24 

2012-
2018 
199 
29 
57 
25 
44 
44 
338 
38 
98 
62 
70 
70 
77 
15 
15 
20 
15 
12 

2013-
2018 

2014 

2014-
2018 

2017-
2018 

32 

32 

25 

6 
12 
7 

64 
12 
12 
16 
12 
12 

24 
4 
4 
4 
4 
8 

Findings: There is no harmonisation in the assessment period for most of the assessed parameters per 
criterion, indicating that the assessments might not be comparable and might have different level of 
uncertainty. Moreover, the 6-year assessment cycle is always reflected in the assessed parameters.  

The pattern of the assessment periods at regional level (Table 27) confirms the shorter time series in 
the  MED and  the  BLK, which was  pointed  out after the  evaluation of the  monitoring programmes 
(Palialexis et al., 2018). Like the outcome of the mammals’ analysis, the assessment periods in the BAL 
and NEA correspond to the regional assessment of HELCOM (2011-16) and OSPAR (2011-2017).  

Good practices: -.   

Gaps: Once again the MS reported what was available in terms of data, indicators and assessments. 
Of course, longer data set can provide more accurate estimates, however, in most of the periods the 
duration  is  shorter  than  6  years.  The  different  assessment  periods  might  not  provide  comparable 
assessments and might not reflect the equivalent intensity of pressures to species.     

Recommendations for reporting: No recommendation, this information is crucial and well reported. 

Recommendations for implementation: The policy alignment between MSFD, BD and RSC assessment 
cycles that includes alignment of the assessment periods is crucial to reduce the burden of multiple 
incomparable  and  sometimes  misleading  assessments  of  the  same  elements.  Otherwise,  the 
assessment period will be an additional factor to the different parameters, methods, and thresholds 

71 | P a g e  

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to  produce  incomparable  and  inconsistent  environmental  assessments.  The  initiatives  to  align  the 
MSFD with other environmental policies could use the input from this analysis to justify the need for 
temporal alignment and methodological harmonisation across the policy obligations.     

  Date when GES is expected to be achieved  

Objective: The MS reported the status (GES) of each species and when they expect them to achieve 
GES, in cases where GES in not yet achieved. We analysed the reported information to identify the 
proportion of species that are in GES at regional level and by when most of the species in each species 
groups could be in GES according to the MS.   

Data: The information of the GES achievement or the expected date is in column AR (Appendix 2, Art.8 
birds). 

Expected Outcome: The GES achievement is the basis for the MSFD. In the structure of the reporting 
this entry corresponds to the assessment of parameters, which are integrated at the level of criterion 
and then the criteria are integrated at the level of species. Given the different methods of integration 
at both levels and the number of parameters or criteria that contributed to each assessment the final 
GES assessment/achievement might not be consistent yet. The outcome provides a quick overview of 
the proportion of species that are in GES and the provision for the GES achievement for the species 
group.   

Table 28. GES status for seabirds or provisional date of GES achievement as it was reported by each MS. 

GES expected to be achieved 

Bird species groups and species in 

GES 

BAL 

achieved 

by 2020 

later 
than 
2020 
(Art.14 
exceptio
n) 

later than 2020 
(no Art.14) 

Not 
assess
ed 

Unknown 

Benthic 
feeding 
birds 

Aythya ferina 

Aythya fuligula 

Aythya marila 

Bucephala clangula 

Clangula hyemalis 

Melanitta fusca 

Melanitta nigra 

Polysticta stelleri 

Somateria mollissima 

Benthic-feeding birds 
(grouped) 

Anas acuta 

Anas clypeata 

FI 

DE, PL 

PL 

PL 

PL 

PL 

PL 

PL 

FI, LV 

Grazing 
birds 

Anas crecca 

SE 

Anas penelope 

DE, PL, SE 

Anas platyrhynchos 

DE, EE, PL, SE 

PL 

DE, EE, SE 

DE, EE, SE 

DE, EE, SE 

DE, EE, LT, SE 

DE, LT, SE 

DE, EE, LT, SE 

DE, LT, SE 

EE, LT 

DE, EE, LT, SE 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

72 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Anser albifrons 

Anser anser 

DE, EE, PL, SE 

PL 

Branta canadensis 

SE 

Branta leucopsis 

EE, SE 

PL 

Cygnus bewickii 

Cygnus columbianus 

DE 

PL 

Cygnus cygnus 

DE, EE, PL, SE 

Cygnus olor 

Fulica atra 

DE, EE, PL, SE 

DE, EE, PL, SE 

PL 

PL 

PL 

Grazing birds (grouped) 

FI 

FI, LV 

Alca torda 

DE, PL, SE 

PL 

Cepphus grylle 

DE, PL, SE 

Gavia arctica 

Gavia stellata 

Gavia sp. 

DE 

DE, SE 

Pelagic-
feeding 
birds 

Mergellus albellus 

DE, EE, PL, SE 

Mergus merganser 

DE, EE, PL, SE 

Mergus serrator 

DE, EE, PL, SE 

Phalacrocorax carbo 

DE, EE, PL, SE 

PL 

PL 

PL 

PL 

Podiceps auritus 

DE, SE 

Podiceps cristatus 

DE, EE, PL, SE 

PL 

Podiceps grisegena 

DE 

Uria aalge 

DE, PL, SE 

Pelagic-feeding birds 
(grouped) 

FI, LV 

Chlidonias niger 

Haliaeetus albicilla 

PL 

Hydrocoloeus minutus 

Hydroprogne caspia 

Larus argentatus 

Larus canus 

Larus fuscus 

Larus fuscus graellsii 

Larus fuscus intermedius 

EE, SE 

EE, SE 

EE, SE 

SE 

EE 

Larus marinus 

EE, SE 

Larus melanocephalus 

Larus ridibundus 

EE, SE 

Rissa tridactyla 

Stercorarius parasiticus 

SE 

PL 

FI 

PL 

PL 

PL 

PL 

PL 

PL 

Surface 
feeding 
birds 

LT 

LT 

LT 

LT 

LT 

DE 

DE 

DE 

DE 

DE 

Sterna hirundo 

EE, SE 

PL 

DE 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

73 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sterna paradisaea 

EE, SE 

EE 

EE 

FI 

EE 

EE 

EE 

EE 

EE 

EE 

Sterna sandvicensis 

Sternula albifrons 

Surface-feeding birds 
(grouped) 

Actitis hypoleucos 

Anas crecca 

Arenaria interpres 

Calidris alba 

Calidris alpina 

Calidris canutus 

Calidris maritima 

Charadrius alexandrinus 

Charadrius hiaticula 

Haematopus ostralegus 

Wading 
birds 

Limosa lapponica 

Numenius arquata 

Philomachus pugnax 

Platalea leucorodia 

Pluvialis apricaria 

Pluvialis squatarola 

Recurvirostra avosetta 

Tadorna tadorna 

Tringa glareola 

Tringa totanus 

Vanellus vanellus 

PL 

PL 

PL 

FI, LV 

PL 

PL 

PL 

PL 

PL 

PL 

PL 

DE 

DE 

DE 

SE 

DE 

SE 

DE 

DE, SE 

DE, SE 

DE 

DE 

DE, SE 

SE 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

Wading birds (grouped) 

EE 

FI, LV 

Bird species groups and species in 

GES 

NEA 

achieved 

GES expected to be achieved 

by 
2020 

later 
than 
2020 
(Art.14 
exceptio
n) 

later than 
2020 (no 
Art.14) 

Not 
assessed 

Unknown 

Benthic-
feeding 
birds 

Aythya fuligula 

Aythya marila 

Bucephala clangula 

Clangula hyemalis 

Melanitta fusca 

Melanitta nigra 

Melanitta spp. 

NL, SE 

NL 

NL, SE 

NL, SE 

NL, SE 

BE, DE, NL, SE 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK, PT 

BE 

74 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Grazing 
feeding 
birds 

Phalacrocorax 
aristotelis 

Somateria mollissima 

Anas acuta 

Anas clypeata 

Anas crecca 

Anas penelope 

Anas platyrhynchos 

Anser albifrons 

Anser anser 

Branta bernicla 

Branta canadensis 

Branta leucopsis 

Cygnus bewickii 

Cygnus columbianus 

Cygnus cygnus 

Cygnus olor 

Fulica atra 

Alca torda 

Bulweria bulwerii 

Calonectris borealis 

BE 

DE 

DE 

SE 

DE, SE 

DE, SE 

SE 

DE 

SE 

SE 

SE 

SE 

SE 

BE, DE, SE  NL 

Cepphus grylle 

BE, SE 

Fratercula arctica 

BE, DE 

NL 

Fulmarus glacialis 

Gavia arctica 

DE 

Gavia sp. 

Gavia stellata 

DE, SE 

Pelagic 
feeding 
birds 

Hydrobates castro 

Mergellus albellus 

Mergus merganser 

SE 

SE 

Mergus serrator 

BE, DE, SE 

Morus bassanus 

BE, DE 

NL 

IE, NL 

Pelagic-feeding birds 
(grouped) 

Pelagodroma marina 

Phalacrocorax 
aristotelis 

BE 

NL 

Phalacrocorax carbo 

BE, DE, SE  NL 

Podiceps auritus 

SE 

NL 

NL 

PT 

DE, NL, SE 

NL 

BE, NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

NL 

BE, NL 

NL 

NL 

IE 

NL 

NL 

NL 

PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

PT 

PT 

ES 

ES 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

BE, DK, FR 

PT 

PT 

DK 

FR 

DK 

BE 

DK 

ES 

DK 

DK 

DK 

BE, FR 

ES, FR 

DK, FR 

75 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Podiceps cristatus 

SE 

NL 

Podiceps grisegena 

Puffinus gravis 

Puffinus griseus 

Pterodroma deserta 

Pterodroma madeira 

Puffinus lherminieri 

Puffinus mauretanicus 

Rissa tridactylus 

Uria aalge 

BE, DE, SE  NL 

Surface 
feeding 
birds 

Anas clypeata 

Calonectris diomedea 
borealis 

Calonectris diomedea 
diomedea 

Chlidonias niger 

Fulmarus glacialis 

Gelochelidon nilotica 

Hydrobates castro 

Hydrobates monteiroi 

Hydrobates pelagicus 

Hydrocoloeus minutus 

Hydroprogne caspia 

Larus argentatus 

Larus audouinii 

Larus canus 

Larus fuscus 

Larus fuscus graellsii 

Larus fuscus 
intermedius 

SE 

SE 

SE 

SE 

Larus marinus 

SE 

Larus melanocephalus 

Larus michahellis 

Larus ridibundus 

SE 

Oceanodroma castro 

Oceanodroma 
leucorhoa 

Pelagodroma marina 

Puffinus mauretanicus 

Puffinus puffinus 

Rissa tridactyla 

BE, DK 

DK 

PT 

ES 

BE, DK, ES, FR 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

ES, PT 

PT 

PT 

ES 

ES 

DK 

FR 

PT 

PT 

ES, FR 

BE, DK 

DK, FR 

DK, FR 

FR 

DK 

BE, DK, FR 

DK, FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

IE 

NL 

NL 

BE, DE, NL 

DE 

BE, DE, NL 

DE, NL 

BE, NL 

DE 

BE, DE, NL 

BE, DE, NL 

BE, DE, NL 

BE, DE, NL 

PT 

BE, DK, ES, FR 

76 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stercorarius parasiticus 

SE 

Stercorarius pomarinus 

SE 

SE 

Stercorarius skua 

Sterna albifrons 

Sterna dougallii 

Sterna hirundo 

Sterna paradisaea 

Sterna sandvicensis 

Sternula albifrons 

Actitis hypoleucos 

Anas crecca 

Arenaria interpres 

Calidris alba 

Calidris alpina 

Calidris canutus 

Calidris ferruginea 

Calidris maritima 

Charadrius alexandrinus 

Charadrius hiaticula 

Egretta garzetta 

Haematopus ostralegus 

Larus argentatus 

Larus canus 

Larus fuscus 

Limosa lapponica 

Limosa limosa 

Numenius arquata 

Numenius phaeopus 

Philomachus pugnax 

Platalea leucorodia 

Pluvialis apricaria 

Pluvialis squatarola 

Recurvirostra avosetta 

Tadorna tadorna 

Tringa erythropus 

Tringa glareola 

Tringa nebularia 

Tringa totanus 

Vanellus vanellus 

Wading 
birds 

BE, DE, NL 

DE 

BE, DE, NL 

PT 

FR 

FR 

FR 

BE, NL 

FR. PT 

BE, DE, NL 

PT 

BE, DK, ES, FR, PT 

BE, DE, NL 

BE, DE, NL 

BE, DE, NL 

SE 

DE, NL, SE 

DE, NL 

DE, NL 

DE, NL 

NL 

DE, NL 

BE, DE, NL 

BE, DE, NL, SE 

NL 

BE, DE, NL, SE 

BE 

DE, NL 

DE, NL 

DE, NL 

DE, NL 

NL 

BE, DE, NL 

DE, NL 

DE, NL 

BE, DE, NL 

BE, DE, NL, SE 

DE, NL 

DE, NL 

DE, NL, SE 

DE, NL 

DK 

DK, FR 

DK, ES 

PT 

PT 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

BE 

BE 

BE 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

DK 

77 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bird species groups and species in 

GES 

MED 

achieved 

GES expected to be achieved 

Not 
assessed 

Unknown 

by 
2020 

later than 
2020 (Art.14 
exception) 

later than 
2020 (no 
Art.14) 

Gavia arctica 

Gavia stellata 

Melanitta fusca 

Melanitta nigra 

Mergus serrator 

Benthic-
feeding 
birds 

Phalacrocorax aristotelis 

Somateria mollissima 

Podiceps nigricollis 

Calonectris diomedea 

Hydrobates pelagicus 

MT 

MT 

Morus bassanus 

Phalacrocorax aristotelis 

HR 

Phalacrocorax carbo 

Puffinus mauretanicus 

Puffinus yelkouan 

MT 

Calonectris diomedea 

Calonectris diomedea 
borealis 

Calonectris diomedea 
diomedea 

Gelochelidon nilotica 

Hydrobates pelagicus 

Larus audouinii 

Larus genei 

Larus melanocephalus 

Larus michahellis 

Larus ridibundus 

Puffinus yelkouan 

Sternula albifrons 

Sterna hirundo 

Sterna sandvicensis 

Sternula albifrons 

Larus michahellis 

Larus ridibundus 

Pelagic 
feeding 
birds 

Surface 
feeding 
birds 

Wading 
birds 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

HR 

IT 

HR, IT 

HR 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

FR 

ES, FR 

FR 

ES 

IT 

FR 

ES 

ES 

FR 

ES, FR, IT 

ES, FR, IT 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

ES, FR 

ES, FR 

ES 

SI 

SI 

SI 

SI 

SI 

SI 

Findings: The most stunning outcome from the overview of the achieved or provisional achievement 
of  GES  for  seabirds  is  that  the  same  species  in  the  same  region  have  different  evaluation  of  GES 

78 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
achievement. Given that the seabirds distribution usually covers the  whole  region,  inconsistencies 
regarding the GES achievement jeopardise any informed decision for the species GES. Moreover, such 
inconsistencies  indicate  the  need  for  better  regional  collaboration  and  harmonisation  of  the 
assessments, especially for the highly mobile species. Some MS systematically assigned “unknown” 
status for all reported species (DK, FR), because of lack of agreed thresholds or common integration 
rules,  while  others  concluded  to  a  GES  assessment  using  only  a  single  criterion.  Given  these 
inconsistencies we avoided quantifying the results as will be misleading for the status of the species.   

Gap: Many data gaps, as this entry requires consideration of several assessments and integrations, 
which obviously led to inconsistent decision for the GES achievement at species level. The outcome is 
not representative of the status of GES in the European waters for seabirds. The MS had different 
understanding  on  how  to  assess  the  GES  achievement  and  followed  different  approaches,  which 
cannot always be deducted from the reported information.       

to  assess 

the  GES  achievement.  Thus, 

Recommendations  for  reporting:  The  MS  need  to  combine  assessments  from  other  criteria  and 
the 
parameters 
species/parameter/criterion level should be moved to a higher level in the reporting. If possible, the 
GES  should  be  estimated  automatically  from  the  MS  assessment  of  criteria,  according  to  agreed 
integration  methods  and  agreed  methods  to  set  threshold  values.  Many  MS  conceived  GES 
determination  and  achievement  differently  and  reported  inconsistent  information  e.g.,  some  MS 
reported  GES  achievement  based  on  a  single  criterion,  while  other  MS,  even  with  more  criteria 
assessed, reported no assessment for the same species.   

this  entry  which 

is  at 

Recommendations  for  implementation:  This  entry  includes  information  relevant  to  the  high  level 
MSFD scope, which is the GES achievement. All the work that is related with the harmonisation of 
methodological  standards  (thresholds,  integration  rules)  can  ensure  a  consistent  and  comparable 
assessment of species in the coming cycles and achieve consistency in the MS reports. The experts 
from the MS and the WGBIRD develop this work and their role is essential for a consistent regional 
assessment and can feed guidance documents such like Art. 8 and integration rules. 

  Analysis of the integration methods across parameters and criteria  

Objective: The integration rules are an integral part of the GES assessment flow (as it is described in 
the Art. 8 guidance). We analysed the reported information to identify potential patterns in the use 
of different rules, and provide an overview of the reported methods. This analysis can support the 
ongoing debate for agreed integration rules for D1 species. It should be considered that when the MS 
reported there were no agreed integration rules for birds for parameters and criteria. 

Data: The MS reported integration rules applied across parameters to inform the criterion level, and 
across  criteria  to  inform  the  species  level  (integration  rule  type  parameter  in  column  AK  and 
Integration rule type criteria in column AM, respectively in Appendix 2, file Art.8 birds).  

Table 29. Integration rules reported across parameter for all criteria 

Species group 

Region 

Benthic feeding 
birds 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

Integration rules 

Multimetric 

OOAO 

THRES 

Other 

Not relevant 

FI 

DE, PL 

BE, DE 

EE, LV 

DK SE 

NL 

BE DK SE 

IT 

79 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Grazing birds  

Pelagic feeding 
birds 

Surface feeding 
birds 

Wading birds 

BAL 

NEA 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

BAL 

NEA 

FI 

FI 

FI 

FI 

DE, PL 

DE 

DE, PL 

DE 

DE, PL 

DE 

DE, PL 

DE 

EE, LV 

EE, LV 

EE, LV 

EE, LV 

DK SE 

NL 

BE DK SE 

DK SE 

FR, NL 

BE DK ES FR SE 

FR IT 

DK SE 

FR, NL 

BE DK FR SE 

FR IT 

DK SE 

NL 

BE DK SE 

Table 30. Integration rules reported across criteria 

Species group 

Region 

Integration rules 

OOAO 

Other 

Not relevant 

BAL 

NEA 

BAL 

NEA 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

DE, FI. LV 

BE, DE 

DE, FI. LV 

DE 

DE, FI. LV 

NL 

NL 

DK EE SE 

BE DK SE 

DK EE SE 

BE DK SE 

DK EE SE 

DE 

FR IE NL 

BE DK ES SE 

FR 

DE, FI. LV 

DE 

FR NL 

DE, FI. LV 

DE 

NL 

FR 

DK EE PL SE 

BE DK SE 

DK EE SE 

BE DK SE 

Benthic feeding 
birds 

Grazing birds  

Pelagic feeding 
birds 

Surface feeding 
birds 

Wading birds 

Findings:  

- 

Integration of parameters to criteria (Table 29): 

Generally, for the integration of parameters to criterion, the MS reported three methods from the 
default list, while  FR reported “other”. Being aware  that the MS reports were based on the same 
HELCOM’s indicator, we believe that the BAL MS named the integration rule differently (multimetric, 
OOAO, threshold) although in practice the refer to the same method. FR stated that no integration of 
parameters informing criterion D1C2 was carried out. The other criteria were not assessed, so there 
is no integration of parameters. PL integrated three parameters (breeding success, productivity and 
number of chicks) for D1C3 for Haliaeetus albicilla using OOAO and the result of  the lowest rating 
determines the total assessment of the criterion. 

- 

Integration of criteria to species (Table 30): 

Three MS reported OOAO and FR reported  that the integration rule is being developed within the 
framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds, which in practice should be 
same with other MS in the BAL and NEA that reused the same assessments. Likewise, ES reported that 
the  integration  of  the  different  criteria  to  a  joint  evaluation  of  GES  by  species  was  based  on  ICES 

80 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
recommendations (ICES 2018a), with the  recent  modifications incorporated by  the  JWGBIRD (ICES 
2018b).  

Good  practices:  The  MSFD  biodiversity  expert  network  develops  recommendations  for  common 
integration rules across parameters and criteria. This work will be presented to WG GES aiming to 
achieve common agreed rules.   

Gaps: At the time of the reporting there were no agreed integration rules, however, significant work 
was developed since them to cover this gap, which can affect the level of the GES determination.   

Recommendations for reporting: The same recommendation as with the GES achievement (see also 
previous sectors like sector 2.6) is relevant to integration. The integration rules at the criterion level 
are not corresponding directly to the parameter/species/criterion structure, but to a higher level, so 
it has to be consistently and carefully repeated for all relevant parameters and criteria per individual 
species  increasing  the  complexity  of  the  reporting.  An  agreed  method  will  eliminate  the  need  for 
reporting integration rules.   

Recommendations  for  implementation:  The  debate  for  agreed  integration  rules  is  on-going  for 
several descriptors. For species, the MSFD biodiversity expert network is working to this direction and 
will  continue  testing  the  most  promising  methods.  Eventually,  common  agreed  rules  will  be 
introduced to Art. 8 guidance.     

3.2  Results of Art.9 analysis for D1 seabirds 

  GES determination levels 

Objective:  This analysis aims to provide  an overview of how the MS determined GES and explore 
possibilities to harmonise GES determination.  

Data: We analysed the GES description from the MS reports at the levels that were reported (column 
I, Appendix 2, file D1-Art9).  

Table  31.  Level  of  GES  determination  and  examples  of  GES  description.  The  count  of  entries  correspond  to  the  total 
number of ecosystem component per MS and subregion for which GES was determined for D1 or its criteria. The examples 
are indicative to the variety of GES descriptions. 

Levels 

MS 

Examples 

Descriptor 

3 

DE 

CY DE IT 

The good environmental status for D1 is defined, among other things, by 
the fact that: 

... according to the WFD, the coastal waters are in a good ecological 
status and the entire coastal sea area is in a good chemical status. 

... the habitat types of Annex I (LRT 11xx) of the Habitats Directive 
relevant for the marine area of the North Sea are in a favorable state of 
conservation. 

... the species of Annex II of the Habitats Directive relevant for the 
marine area of the North Sea and the species of the Birds Directive 
relevant for the marine area of the North Sea are in a favorable state of 
conservation due to the quality of their food habitat. 

81 | P a g e  

 
 
... the species, species groups and habitats in the Wadden Sea listed in 
the Wadden Sea Plan are in good condition. 

... the goals of individual species or species group-specific conventions 
(e.g. ASCOBANS, seal agreements) have been achieved. 

... the Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQO) defined by OSPAR have 
been achieved. 

According to Commission (EU) 2017/848, the following criteria are used 
to assess the good environmental status of D1 birds: D1C1, D1C2, D1C3, 
D1C4, D1C5. An assessment was currently only possible for criteria D1C2 
and D1C3. 

Explanation: Germany does not update the general description of the 
good environmental status of 2012 at descriptor level in this report 
round. During the reporting period, Germany worked with the countries 
bordering the North Sea as part of the EU's MSRL-CIS process and in 
OSPAR to develop methodological standards (indicators, evaluation 
methods). Specific details of criteria and indicators that contribute to a 
quantitative assessment of good environmental status are reported in 
the reporting scheme Art. 8_GES. For the evaluation of the criteria of 
the decision of the Commission (EU) 2017/848, where relevant, the 
evaluations according to other EU directives are included under Art. 
8_GES, wherever possible the previously agreed regional evaluations are 
taken into account and supplemented by national evaluations in 
individual cases. 

Criteria 

10 

DK 

ES FR IE LV PL 
BE DK HR MT 
SI 

Mortality per species from by-catch is below levels that threaten the 
species in the long term. 

MT 

Levels of incidental by-catch of marine reptiles, marine mammals and 
seabirds do not result in declines in the population abundance of the 
representative species. 

Species group 

Species 

1 

EE 

. 

EE 

Species level: GES is achieved if the abundance of bird species is at least 
70% from the baseline value. 

Species group level: GES is achieved if 75% of the bird species inside the 
species group have achieved GES. 

Indicators 

8 

DK-C1 

DK FI LT NL PL  

SE-(NEA) 

MT PT 

Good environmental density for population density is considered to 
correspond to favorable conservation status (favorable reference 
population) under the Habitats Directive. 

DK-C2 

In relation to the population density of bird species, the criterion is 
assessed in good environmental condition, corresponding to a positive 
assessment of population size under the Article 12 Report of the Bird 
Protection Directive from 2013. 

FI 

82 | P a g e  

 
 
For more than 75% of nesting seabird species, population size does not 
fall> 30% from the 1991-2000 average. 

Seabirds are estimated as the average of two indicators. 

NL 

For each functional group, the population size of at least 75% of the 
species is above the 1992 threshold (OSPAR assessment value). 

PL-C2 

The population abundance of the species is not adversely affected due 
to anthropogenic pressures, such that its long-term viability is ensured. 
Threshold values established on regional level (HELCOM). 

SE-C2 (NEA) 

Birds: When at least 75 % of the species within a species group achieve 
their species specific threshold values. 

MT-C2 

The population trend in terms of the abundance of breeding seabirds, 
measured in breeding pairs over a 12-year time period, is stable and not 
decreasing, taking into consideration natural variation. 

No 
determination 

1 

SE-C2 (BAL) 

SE-(BAL) 

GES: Definition of GES at criteria level is not yet available. 

Levels 

MS 

Examples 

Descriptor 

1 

DE 

DE 

The good environmental status for D1 is defined, among other things, by 
the fact that: 

... according to the WFD, the coastal waters are in a good ecological 
status and the entire coastal sea area is in a good chemical status. 

... the habitat types of Annex I (LRT 11xx) of the Habitats Directive 
relevant for the marine area of the North Sea are in a favorable state of 
conservation. 

... the species of Annex II of the Habitats Directive relevant for the 
marine area of the North Sea and the species of the Birds Directive 
relevant for the marine area of the North Sea are in a favorable state of 
conservation due to the quality of their food habitat. 

... the species, species groups and habitats in the Wadden Sea listed in 
the Wadden Sea Plan are in good condition. 

... the goals of individual species or species group-specific conventions 
(e.g. ASCOBANS, seal agreements) have been achieved. 

... the Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQO) defined by OSPAR have 
been achieved. 

83 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
According to Commission (EU) 2017/848, the following criteria are used 
to assess the good environmental status of D1 birds: D1C1, D1C2, D1C3, 
D1C4, D1C5. An assessment was currently only possible for criteria D1C2 
and D1C3. 

Explanation: Germany does not update the general description of the 
good environmental status of 2012 at descriptor level in this report 
round. During the reporting period, Germany worked with the countries 
bordering the North Sea as part of the EU's MSRL-CIS process and in 
OSPAR to develop methodological standards (indicators, evaluation 
methods). Specific details of criteria and indicators that contribute to a 
quantitative assessment of good environmental status are reported in 
the reporting scheme Art. 8_GES. For the evaluation of the criteria of 
the decision of the Commission (EU) 2017/848, where relevant, the 
evaluations according to other EU directives are included under Art. 
8_GES, wherever possible the previously agreed regional evaluations are 
taken into account and supplemented by national evaluations in 
individual cases. 

Criteria 

8 

DK 

ES FR LV PL BE 
DK HR MT 

Mortality per species from by-catch is below levels that threaten the 
species in the long term. 

MT 

Levels of incidental by-catch of marine reptiles, marine mammals and 
seabirds do not result in declines in the population abundance of the 
representative species. 

Species group 

Species 

1 

EE 

. 

EE 

Species level: GES is achieved if the abundance of bird species is at least 
70% from the baseline value. 

Species group level: GES is achieved if 75% of the bird species inside the 
species group have achieved GES. 

Indicators 

6 

DK-C1 

DK FI NL PL  

SE-(NEA) 

MT 

Good environmental density for population density is considered to 
correspond to favorable conservation status (favorable reference 
population) under the Habitats Directive. 

DK-C2 

In relation to the population density of bird species, the criterion is 
assessed in good environmental condition, corresponding to a positive 
assessment of population size under the Article 12 Report of the Bird 
Protection Directive from 2013. 

FI 

For more than 75% of nesting seabird species, population size does not 
fall> 30% from the 1991-2000 average. 

Seabirds are estimated as the average of two indicators. 

NL 

84 | P a g e  

 
 
 
For each functional group, the population size of at least 75% of the 
species is above the 1992 threshold (OSPAR assessment value). 

PL-C2 

The population abundance of the species is not adversely affected due 
to anthropogenic pressures, such that its long-term viability is ensured. 
Threshold values established on regional level (HELCOM). 

SE-C2 (NEA) 

Birds: When at least 75 % of the species within a species group achieve 
their species specific threshold values. 

MT-C2 

The population trend in terms of the abundance of breeding seabirds, 
measured in breeding pairs over a 12-year time period, is stable and not 
decreasing, taking into consideration natural variation. 

No 
determination 

1 

SE-C2 (BAL) 

SE-(BAL) 

GES: Definition of GES at criteria level is not yet available. 

Findings: MS have determined GES at the levels of descriptor, criterion, species, and indicator (Table 
31). There is no consistency in the GES determination at any level, even when it refers to the same 
species  and criteria. The  different levels of GES determination jeopardised  the  comparison of GES 
achievement across the MS, as was also verified from the GES achievement reporting information for 
Art.  8  (see  sections  like  section  2.6).  Several  reasons  caused  the  inconsistency  in  the  GES 
determination in Art. 9, which are listed for marine mammals (section 1.2) and are the same for all 
species groups. 

Only  some  MS  specified  in  the  GES  description  that  the  assessment  values  were  established  by 
regional  conventions  (either  OSPAR  or  HELCOM)  or  HBD,  however  the  definition  was  always  at 
criterion level. For instance, PL provides a specific GES determination for D1C3 for surface feeding 
birds: “the population demographic characteristics (e.g., body size or age class structure, sex ratio, 
fecundity, and survival rates) of the species are indicative of a healthy population which is not adversely 
affected due to anthropogenic pressures. Threshold values established on regional level (HELCOM)”. 

Gaps: Lack of harmonisation caused by lack of common understanding and misinterpretation of the 
MSFD requirements in relation to the GES determination per Descriptor. This should be clarified across 
Descriptors and following the ecosystem approach to the assessment linking state with impact and 
pressures (DPSIR).    

Recommendations for reporting: No recommendation, this information is crucial and well reported. 
Maybe a way to break down the detailed description of GES that some MS provided would help to 
extract more information from the GES determination, however, this needs further discussion.   

Recommendations for implementation: The assessment flow and the Art. 8 guidance should be the 
basis  for  clarifying  the  GES  determination  in  a  consistent  way.  Guidelines  are  required  on  how  a 
quantitative  GES  will  be  reflected  at  the  level  of  species  groups,  criteria  and  species.  Afterwards, 
agreed values should be developed based on scientific rationale on the percentage of the species in 
each area to be in GES. Common integration rules and common agreed methods will bring consistency 
in all levels. The biodiversity expert network in close collaboration with groups leading the ongoing 

85 | P a g e  

 
 
 
work at regional level (e.g., WGBIRD) can take the harmonisation of the GES determination forward. 
The reporting tool should be developed accordingly, linking GES determination to the proper level 
reducing and automatizing the reporting effort.  

86 | P a g e  

 
 
 
4.  Cephalopods 
4.1  Cephalopods results of Art.8 analysis  

  Consistency, comparability and adequacy of reported criteria elements and 

features assessed at EU and regional level   

Objective: Which species are reported, by which MS per region. 

Data:  We  analysed  the  data  reported  in  column  G  “Elements”  per  MS,  subdivisions  and  regions 
(Appendix 2, file Art.8 cephalopods). 

Expected Outcome: This analysis can provide an overview of the species reported per MS, subdivisions 
and regions. 

Table 32. Coastal shelf cephalopods reported by the evaluated Member States and their geographical association with the 
MSFD regions and subdivisions. 

Coastal shelf cephalopods  

Alloteuthis spp 
Eledone cirrhosa 
Curled octopus 
Eledone moschata 
Musky octopus 
Loligo vulgaris 
European squid 
Octopus vulgaris 
Common octopus 
Sepia officinalis 
Common cuttlefish 
Coastal shelf cephalopods 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

ABI 

AMA 

MWE 

MIC 

MAD 

MAL 

PT 

ES 

ES 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

MT 

SI 

SI 

SI, MT 

MT 

SI 

MT 

MT 

MT 

MT 

MT 

DE 

Table 33. Deep-sea cephalopods reported by the evaluated Member States and their geographical association with the 
MSFD regions and subdivisions. 

Deep-sea cephalopods  

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

ABI 

AMA 

MWE 

MIC 

MAD 

MAL 

ES, PT 

ES, PT 

Eledone cirrhosa 
Curled octopus 
Illex coindetii 
Southern shortfin squid 
Scaeurgus unicirrhus 
Atlantic warty octopus 
Sepia orbignyana 
Pink cuttlefish 
Todaropsis eblanae 
Lesser flying squid 
Todaropsis sagittatus 
Flying squid 
Cephalopods are not present in the Baltic Sea and in the Black Sea.  

ES, PT 

Findings:  

Species perspective:  

MT 

MT 

MT 

MT 

MT 

87 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Four MS reported cephalopod species (PT, SI, ES, MT) and DE reported coastal shelf cephalopods as a 
group (Table 32 and Table 34). The MS that did not provide electronic reports (e.g., EL, UK) and those 
that  did  not  report  cephalopods  (e.g.,  FR,  IT)  should  report  cephalopod  species,  because  of  their 
importance in the ecosystems and fisheries.   

Gap: Assuming that the CFP generates data for all cephalopod species, the gaps in the reporting might 
be  a  result  of  not  prioritising  this  ecosystem  element  compared  with  other  or  a  result  of 
methodological gaps and luck of coordination across cephalopod experts.  Only MT referred to the 
CFP.    

Recommendations  for  reporting:  The  species  lists  that  were  developed  for  the  reporting  greatly 
improve the consistency in the reporting of species, compared with the 2012 reporting. Especially, for 
the cephalopods it seems that the list guided the species to be assessed, at least for ES and MT, SI and 
PT. 

Recommendations for implementation: The MS and their experts should discuss why this  group is 
poorly  reported  and  define  the  added  value  of  assessing  those  species,  especially  against  specific 
anthropogenic pressures.    

Recommendations for methodological standards: The experts on cephalopods, as part of the MSFD 
biodiversity fish group need to work  together  and further develop methods for the  assessment of 
those species and link them with specific pressures.  

8.1.2 Objective: The MS reported the source of the element (i.e., species) reported. The analysis of 
the  sources  will  reveal  the  level  of  harmonisation  across  the  MS  and  the  level  of  exploitation  of 
available information.  

Data:  We  analyse  the  data  reported  in  column  M  “Element  source”  (Appendix  2,  file  Art.8 
cephalopods).  

Table 34. Element source by region and MS 

Element 
source 

Reported in: 

NEA 
ES, PT 

MED 
SI 
MT 
DE did not provide the element source. 

National  
CFP 

Tot. 
MS 

3 
1 

Findings: The MS reported as a source for their elements either “national” or “CFP” in the first column 
of Table 34:  

Gap: Data gaps in the reporting, as not all MS reported cephalopods reported this entry.   

Recommendations for implementation: The CFP data should be better exploited.    

Recommendations for methodological standards: The experts on cephalopods, as part of the MSFD 
biodiversity fish group need to work  together and further develop methods for the  assessment of 
those species and link them with specific pressures.  

88 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
  Extension in use of MSFD Criteria (primary and secondary) reported at EU, 

regional and (sub)regional level 

Objective: 

Table  35  presents  a  variety  of  information  and  overviews  related  with  the  progress  of  the 
cephalopods’ assessments.   

-  Gives  an  overview  of  the  use  of  primary  and  secondary  criteria.  The  number  in  each  cell 
indicates the number of member states reported each criterion out of the total number of MS 
reported for each species.   

- 

Provides  an  overview  of  the  species  assessments  and  threshold  values  per  criterion  and 
region. The traffic light approach (green, orange, red) corresponds to the level of assessment 
of the  parameters  for each  criterion and species, including the  report of threshold values. 
Green: Indicates those criteria with a complete assessment by comparing the threshold value 
with the value achieved. Orange: Indicates that either a threshold value is available, or the 
value achieved (estimated parameter), so assessment is not complete. Red: Indicates that no 
threshold value or value achieved are reported.  

-  Gives an overview of the assessed parameter for each species and criterion. The bold borders 
around  the  cells  indicate  those  species  and  criteria  for  which  the  achieved  parameter  is 
assessed and reported (either negative or positive).   

Data: The reported information in column N was used for the use of the criteria (Appendix 2, file Art.8 
cephalopods). The species assessment was based on the information in columns Q, R, S and V. The 
overview of the assessed parameters was based on the information in column AD. The assumption for 
the traffic light approach is that the any reported category was aggregated to the higher level, so if 
only one MS provided threshold value and value achieved for a single species and in a single MRU, this 
is assigned to the species and region or subdivision. We assume that all MS in the same region or 
subdivision should have available methods to perform a similar assessment.  

Table 35. Reported threshold values and/or estimated parameters. Green: Indicates that for those criteria a complete 
assessment has been done by comparing the threshold value with the value achieved. Orange: Indicates that either a 
threshold value is available, or the value achieved (estimated parameter), so assessment is not complete. Red: Indicates 
that no threshold value or value achieved are reported. The numbers reflect the MS that reported each criterion to allow 
for an overview of the primary vs. secondary criteria usage. The bold-framed cells show the criteria of the species that 
were reported to be assessed (positive or negative). 

NEA 

D1C1 

D1C2 

D1C3 

D1C4 

D1C5 

Coastal/shelf cephalopods 
ES DE PT 

Deep-sea cephalopods 
ES PT 

Eledone cirrhosa 

Eledone moschata 

Loligo vulgaris 

Octopus vulgaris 

Sepia officinalis 

Alloteuthis spp. 

Coastal shelf cephalopods 

Eledone cirrhosa 

Illex coindetii 

Todaropsis eblanae 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 
2/2 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 
2/2 

2/2 

2/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 
2/2 

2/2 

2/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 
1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

89 | P a g e  

 
 
 
MED 

D1C1 

D1C2 

D1C3 

D1C4 

D1C5 

Eledone cirrhosa 

Eledone moschata 

Alloteuthis spp. 

Loligo vulgaris 

Sepia officinalis 
Illex coindetii 

Octopus vulgaris 

Scaeurgus unicirrhus 

Sepia orbignyana 

Todarodes sagittatus 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/2 

0/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/2 

0/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

Coastal/shelf cephalopods 
MT, SI 

Deep-sea cephalopods 
MT 

Findings:  

Use of primary and secondary criteria: From the reported species D1C4 and D1C5 were reported much 
less that the other criteria. Estimated parameters were reported only for D1C2 and D1C3. So according 
to Table 35 there is no indications for using primary more than secondary, but D1C3 was reported 
more than other primary criteria, probably because there were available data for this criterion.  

Species assessments and threshold values per criterion and region: No threshold values reported. Only 
MT reported values for D1C2 (five species), D1C3 (one species) and D1C4 (three species). PT reported 
trends for some species and a break point analysis method for thresholds that is based on a scientific 
paper (Probst and Stelzenmuller, 2015).  

Assessed parameter for each species and criterion: MT and PT reported assessed parameters, but only 
for four species (in orange) and for the Alloteuthis spp. And only for two criteria (D1C2 and D1C3). 

Gap: Assuming that the CFP generates data for all cephalopod species, the gaps in the reporting might 
be  a  result  of  not  prioritising  this  ecosystem  element  compared  with  other  or  a  result  of 
methodological gaps and luck of coordination across cephalopod experts. Only MT and PT provided 
some  kind  of  thresholds  and  assessments,  but  for  very  few  species.  MT  is  the  only  MS  using 
information from the CFP, which could be a source for information for other MS as well. 

Recommendations for methodological standards: The experts on cephalopods, as part of the MSFD 
biodiversity fish group, need to work together and further develop methods for the assessment and 
threshold values for those species and link them with specific pressures. With such a few  reported 
assessments no other recommendation can be provided.  

90 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
  Cephalopods’ thresholds values and parameters reported 

Objective: This section provides an overview of the reported threshold values (Table 36) and compares 
them with those that are developed by the RSCs or other organisations (e.g., GFCM) and policies.   

Data: We analysed the data reported in columns Q, R and S for threshold values (Appendix 2, file Art.8 
cephalopods). This information is checked against the RSCs roof reports and the Palialexis et al. (2019) 
report the harmonisation of methods to set threshold values.  

Table 36. Overview of the threshold values reported and their sources per criterion and species group. 

Criteria 
D1C1  

OSPAR  UNEPMAP  
- 
- 

CFP  MSFD D3  No source reported 
- 

- 

Mortality rate from incidental by-catch 
Discards: Declining trend in discards of non-
commercially  exploited  species  (MT  for  five 
species) 
Biomass Index or LPUE: Above the long-term 
average for the species (MT) (5 species) 
Biomass: 
Combination  of  break  point  analysis  and 
trend in the last five years (PT) (4 species) 
AGE-D  
95%  percentile  of  the  length  distribution: 
Above the long-term average for the species 
(MT) (5 species) 
DIST-R 
Biomass  Distribution:  Stable  or  increased  in 
biomass distribution (MT) (5 species) 
No threshold reported 

D1C2  

- 

N/A 

- 

D1C3 

D1C4  

D1C5  

- 

- 

- 

N/A 

- 

- 

N/A 

N/A 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Findings:  

Threshold values reported:  

No threshold values  were  reported for any parameter  and  criterion.  Quantitative  thresholds were 
reported by PT for D1C2 and MT for D1C1, D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 (Table 36).  

Trends: 

The qualitative thresholds are trend-based, which is always the case when no methods or luck of long 
data do not allow for the development of more sophisticated methods.  Only ES and PT reported a 
trend,  the  first  one  for  grouped  coastal/shelf  cephalopods,  however  the  threshold  value  was  not 
specified, neither the value achieves. The second one for three criteria (D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4) always 
combined with their qualitative trends.  

Recommendations for methodological standards: The information reported is not representative to 
the species group to extract recommendations. The approaches of MT and PT are logical and could be 
considered as a good start for discussions with experts, especially for poor-data criteria. 

91 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
  Consistency of spatial coverage and assessment period 

Objective: The MS reported the assessment period for each parameter per species and criterion. We 
analysed  this  information  to  explore  potential  discrepancies  in  the  assessments  at  regional  and 
criterion  level  that  could  potentially  affect  the  comparability  and  the  consistency  of  the  final 
assessment of each parameter (Table 37).  

Data:  This  information  is  reported  in  column  AT  “assessment  period”  (Appendix  2,  file  Art.8 
cephalopods).  

Table  37.  Assessment  period  per  criterion  and  region  based  on  which  the  MS  performed  the  assessment  of  their 
parameters. The numbers indicate how many reported parameters have the same assessment period per criterion. 

1993-2017 

2011-2017 

2012-2017 

2012-2018 

1 
1 
1 

NEA 
D1C1  
D1C2  
D1C3  
D1C4  
D1C5  
MED 
D1C1 
D1C2  
D1C3  
D1C4  
D1C5  

4 
4 
4 

4 
14 
10 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

5 
5 
5 
5 
5 

Findings:  There  is  no  harmonisation  in  the  assessment  period  even  for  the  limited  reporting  of 
cephalopods. Moreover, the 6-year assessment cycle is not reflected in the assessed parameters.  

Gaps: Data and methodology gaps.     

Recommendations for reporting: No recommendation, this information is crucial, but the data gaps 
do not allow for a deeper analysis. It should be noted though that many MS included in the reporting 
information which does not correspond to specific parameter or data, but it was selected from  the 
drop-down  menus  in  the  reporting.  This  is more  evident  in  poor  data  cases  like  the  cephalopods, 
where despite the very few completed assessments and threshold values the assessment period was 
reported for many more entries. 

Recommendations  for  implementation:  The  policy  alignment  between  MSFD,  CFP  (if  there  is  an 
agreement to use  the CFP monitoring as the main source of data) and RSC assessment cycles that 
includes alignment of the assessment periods is crucial to reduce the burden of multiple incomparable 
and sometimes misleading assessments of the same elements. Otherwise, the assessment period will 
be an additional factor to the different parameters, methods, and thresholds to produce incomparable 
and  inconsistent  environmental  assessments.  The  initiatives  to  align  the  MSFD  with  other 
environmental  policies  could  use  this  analysis  to  justify  the  need  for  temporal  alignment  and 
methodological harmonisation across the policy obligations.     

92 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  GES achievement or date expected to be achieved  

Objective: The MS reported for each species if it is in GES, or when they expect to achieve GES. We 
analysed the reported information to identify the proportion of species that are in GES at regional 
level and when most of the species in each species groups could be in GES according to the MS.   

Data: The information of the GES achievement or the expected date is in column AR (Appendix 2, file 
Art.8 cephalopods).  

Expected Outcome: The GES achievement is the basis for the MSFD. In the structure of the reporting 
this entry corresponds to the assessment of parameters, which are integrated at the level of criterion 
and then the criteria are integrated at the level of species. Given the different methods of integration 
at both levels and the number of parameters or criteria that contributed to each assessment the final 
GES assessment/achievement might not be consistent yet. The outcome will provide a quick overview 
of the proportion of species that are in GES and the provision for the GES achievement for the species 
group.   

Table 38. GES status for cephalopods or provisional date of GES achievement as it was reported by each MS. 

Species groups and species in 

NEA 

GES 

achieved 

GES expected to be achieved 

Not 
Assessed 

Unknown 

by 
2020 

later than 
2020 (Art.14 
exception) 

later than 
2020 (no 
Art.14) 

Eledone cirrhosa 

PT 

Eledone moschata 

Alloteuthis spp. 

Loligo vulgaris 

Octopus vulgaris 

Sepia officinalis 

Coastal/shelf 
cephalopods 

Eledone cirrhosa 

Illex coindetii 

Todaropsis eblanae 

Deep sea cephalopods 

PT 

PT 

Coastal/shelf 
cephalopods 

Deep-sea 

cephalopods 

PT 

PT 

PT 

PT 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

DE, ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

DE, ES 

Species groups and species in 

MED 

GES 

achieved 

Coastal/shelf 

cephalopods 

Eledone cirrhosa 

Alloteuthis spp. 

Eledone moschata 

Loligo vulgaris 

GES expected to be achieved 

Not 
Assessed 

Unknown 

by 
2020 

later than 
2020 (Art.14 
exception) 

later than 
2020 (no 
Art.14) 

MT 

MT 

MT 

MT 

MT 

SI 

SI 

SI 

93 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Octopus vulgaris 

Sepia officinalis 

Scaeurgus unicirrhus 

Deep-sea 
cephalopods 

Illex coindetii 

Sepia orbignyana 

Todarodes sagittatus 

SI 

MT 

MT 

MT 

MT 

MT 

Findings: As was shown for other ecosystem elements, the MS have different understanding of the 
GES achievement, which affects both the way they assessed each species per criterion and the way 
they reported “element assessed” and GES achievement. The MS that reported GES achievement for 
cephalopods followed different approach. ES reported that GES achievement is unknown, while MT 
reported that GES will be achieved after 2020. PT was the only one reported that GES was achieved 
for three species, while for the rest GES is not assessed.  

Gap:  For  cephalopods  there  many  data  gaps,  as  this  entry  requires  consideration  of  several 
assessments and integrations. The outcome is not representative of the status of GES in the European 
waters for cephalopods. Moreover, gaps exist in the methodology on how to commonly assess species 
and set comparable thresholds, which made some MS to report unknown or not assessed for GES 
achievement.  

Recommendations  for  reporting:  The  MS  to  assess  the  GES  achievement  need  to  combine 
assessments  of  other  criteria  and  parameters.  Thus, 
the 
species/parameter/criterion level should be move to a higher level. Many MS conceive it in a different 
manner and reported inconsistent information e.g., assessment of criterion instead of species or no 
assessment at all, when the relevant parameter/criterion was not assessed.   

this  entry  which 

is  at 

Recommendations  for  implementation:  This  entry  includes  information  relevant  to  the  high  level 
MSFD scope, which is the GES achievement. All the work that is related with the harmonisation of 
methodological  standards  (thresholds,  integration  rules)  can  ensure  a  consistent  and  comparable 
assessment of species in the coming cycles and achieve consistency in the MS reports. The experts 
from the MS could develop this work and their role is essential for a consistent regional assessment 
and can feed the Art. 8 guidance and test the recommendations for integration rules. 

  Analysis of the integration methods across parameters and criteria  

Objective: The integration rules are an essential part of the GES assessment. We analyse the reported 
information to identify potential patterns in the use of different rules, get an overview of the methods 
applied and reported and use this information for the ongoing debate for agreed integration rules for 
D1 species.   

Data: The MS reported the integration rules between parameters to inform the criterion level, and 
between  criteria  to  inform  the  species  level  (Integration  rule  type  parameter  in  column  AK  and 
Integration rule type criteria in column AM, respectively, in Appendix 2, file Art.8 cephalopods).  

Findings: Despite the very few assessment of criteria MT reported a conditional rule for integration: 
“The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, 
the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one 

94 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
was  determined  to  be  ‘good’  and  the  other  as  ‘not  good’,  the  overall  status  of  the  species  was 
determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the 
species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under 
Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at 
Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the 
species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and 
cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020”. No other methods were reported. 

Gaps: Data gaps and methodology gaps. As MT reported the integration rules should be agreed at EU 
level.   

Recommendations  for  reporting:  Except  of  the  need  to  get  more  data  to  test  the  recommended 
integration methods, a similar recommendation with the GES achievement (see for instance sector 
2.6) would fit here, as well ; the integration rules at the criterion level are not corresponding directly 
to the parameter/species/criterion structure, but to a higher level, so it has to be consistently and 
carefully  repeated  for  all  relevant  parameters  and  criteria  per  individual  species  increasing  the 
complexity of the reporting. An agreed method will eliminate the need for reporting.   

Recommendations  for  implementation:  The  debate  for  agreed  integration  rules  is  on-going  for 
several descriptors. For species, the MSFD biodiversity expert network is working to this direction and 
will continue testing the most promising methods.     

4.2  Results of Art.9 analysis for D1 cephalopods 

  GES determination levels 

Objective:  This  analysis  aims  to  give  an  overview  of  how  the  MS  determined  GES  and  explore 
possibilities to harmonise it.  

Data: We analysed the GES description from the MS reports at the levels that were reported (column 
I in file D1-Art9, Appendix 2).  

Table  39.  Level  of  GES  determination  and  examples  of  GES  description.  The  count  of  entries  correspond  to  the  total 
number  of  ecosystem  component  per  MS  and  subregion  for  which  GES  was  determined  for  D1  or  its  criteria.  This  is 
indicative to the variety of GES descriptions. 

Levels 

MS 

Examples 

Descriptor 

2 

DE, SI 

DE 

The good environmental status for D1 is defined, among other things, by the fact 
that: 

... according to the WFD, the coastal waters are in a good ecological status and the 
entire coastal sea area is in a good chemical status. 

... the habitat types of Annex I (LRT 11xx) of the Habitats Directive relevant for the 
marine area of the North Sea are in a favorable state of conservation. 

... the species of Annex II of the Habitats Directive relevant for the marine area of 
the North Sea and the species of the Birds Directive relevant for the marine area of 
the North Sea are in a favorable state of conservation due to the quality of their 
food habitat. 

... the species, species groups and habitats in the Wadden Sea listed in the Wadden 
Sea Plan are in good condition. 

95 | P a g e  

 
 
... the goals of individual species or species group-specific conventions (e.g. 
ASCOBANS, seal agreements) have been achieved. 

... the Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQO) defined by OSPAR have been achieved. 

The cephalopod species group could not be assessed. 

Explanation: Germany does not update the general description of the good 
environmental status of 2012 at descriptor level in this report round. During the 
reporting period, Germany worked with the countries bordering the North Sea as 
part of the EU's MSRL-CIS process and in OSPAR to develop methodological 
standards (indicators, evaluation methods). Specific details of criteria and indicators 
that contribute to a quantitative assessment of good environmental status are 
reported in the reporting scheme Art. 8_GES. For the evaluation of the criteria of 
the decision of the Commission (EU) 2017/848, where relevant, the evaluations 
according to other EU directives are included under Art. 8_GES, wherever possible 
the previously agreed regional evaluations are taken into account and 
supplemented by national evaluations in individual cases. 

SI 

Good environmental status in relation to the quality descriptor Biodiversity (D1) - 
groups of species of birds, reptiles, mammals, fish and cephalopods is achieved 
when: (1) the mortality rate for an individual species due to inadvertent by-catches 
is below endangering that their long-term viability is guaranteed, (2) anthropogenic 
pressures do not adversely affect the abundance of fish species populations, so that 
their long-term viability is guaranteed, (3) the demographic characteristics of 
commercial fish and cephalopod populations are typical for a healthy population, 
(4) the range of the species is in accordance with the prevailing physiographic, 
geographical and climatic conditions, (5) the habitat of the species has the 
necessary range and conditions to support the different stages of the life cycle of 
the species. 

Criteria 

Species group 

Species 

Indicators 

No 
determination 

1 

MT 

The biomass indices and the size distribution of non-commercially exploited 
species, as assessed through MEDITS surveys, in comparison with historical 
averages, are indicative of healthy status. 

Findings: Only three MS provided a GES determination that could be relevant to cephalopods. DE 
and SI provided a very general GES description at the level of Descriptor (Table 39) DE provided the 
same GES description for all ecosystem elements. MT provided a very detailed GES description at the 
level of indicator. Of course, such a description does not facilitate an assessment at species level. No 
quantitative GES description was provided, neither any attempt to link GES with thresholds and GES 
extent. 

Gaps: Lack of harmonisation caused by lack of common understanding and misinterpretation of the 
MSFD requirements in relation to the GES determination per Descriptor. This should be also clarified 
across the Descriptors and following the ecosystem approach to the assessment linking State with 
Impact and Pressures (DPSIR). When only three MS provided GES determination for cephalopods there 
is not much to analyse, however the experts should consider the same analysis and results for other 
species groups that are more informative.  

96 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendations for reporting: No recommendation, this information is crucial for the reporting. 
As it was  proposed for  other species  groups,  a way  forward could be  to break  down the  detailed 
description of GES to more than one entry allowing the extraction of more information from the GES 
determination, however, this needs further discussion.   

Recommendations for implementation: The assessment flow and the Art. 8 guidance should be the 
basis for clarifying the GES determination in a consistent way and how the GES will be reflected at the 
level of species groups indicators, criteria and species. Common integration rules and common agreed 
methods will bring consistency in all levels. The reporting tool should be developed accordingly, linking 
GES determination to the proper level reducing and automatizing the reporting effort.  

  Justifications for delays and no-using 

DE reported a justification for delay, which we reproduce here as an indication of the very different 
justifications  that  can  be  reported  for  each  species,  indicators/criteria,  mechanisms  and  scientific 
capacity or resources. 

They reported: “The relevance of the cephalopods for the description of the good environmental status 
of German North Sea waters is currently unclear: the pollution situation is unclear. There is no targeted 
fishing in Germany, but by-catches do occur. These are extremely low at 2t to 20t. There is currently 
no coordinated assessment procedure for assessing the state of the squid populations in the North Sea 
and the data basis is uncertain. The strong annual fluctuations in abundance make it difficult to define 
good  environmental  status  for  the  respective  populations.  Scientific  working  groups  under  the 
patronage of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) work on the development 
of methods and the collection of data”. 

97 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
5.  Fish 
5.1  Fish results of Art.8 analysis  

  Consistency, comparability and adequacy of reported criteria elements and 

features assessed at EU and regional level   

10.1.1 Objective: This analysis presents the reported species by MS per region (black font), and the 
non-reported species (in blue font when they were reported by the MS in 2012), that are included in 
RSCs lists or EU policies3 (lower part of Table 40 to Table 43).  

Data:  We  analyse  the  data  reported  in  column  G  “Elements”  per  MS,  subdivisions  and  regions 
(Appendix 2, Art.8 fish). 

Expected Outcome: The analysis gives an overview of the reported species (black) per region, MS and 
species  group.  At  the  bottom  of  each  table,  we  list  species  not  reported  in  2018  per  subregion, 
although they were previously reported in 2012. Species reported in more than one species group 
were included in additional tables to avoid duplication and are identified by green highlighting. Grey 
cells correspond to regions or subdivisions where there is no information in the reports. 

Table 40. Coastal fish reported by the evaluated Member States and their geographical association with the MSFD regions 
and subdivisions. Green cells correspond to species reported under more than one fish groups. 

Coastal fish species 

Abramis brama 
Common bream 
Acipenser oxyrinchus 
Atlantic sturgeon 
Acipenser sturio 
Atlantic sturgeon 
Alepocephalus bairdii  
Baird's smoothhead 
Alopias vulpinus  
Common thresher shark 
Anguilla Anguilla 
Eel 
Antimora rostrata 
Antimora 
Aphanopus carbo 
Black scabbardfish 
Apristurus spp.  
Deep sea catcharks 
Auxis rochei 
Bullet tuna 

Beryx spp.  
Alfonsino 
Callionymus lyra 
Common dragonet 
Cataetyx laticeps 

Chelon labrosus 
Longfin gurnard 
Chimaera monstrosa 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

AMA 

BAL 

BAL 

DE 

DE 

DE, UK 

UK 

DE 

DE, UK 

DE 

IE 

IE 

IE 
UK 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

ES 

PT 

ABI 

3  Common  Fisheries  Policy  and  Data  Collection  (EC,  2013),  HELCOM  Red  list  (HELCOM,  2013),  UNEP/MAP  list 
(EC, 1999), OSPAR list (OSPAR, 2008), Black Sea protocol (BSC, 2002), and IUCN threatened species (IUCN, 
2017).  

98 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Coastal fish species 

Rabbit fish 

Coregonus maraena 
Maraena whitefish 
Centrophorus squamosus 
(Leafscale gulper shark 
Centroscyllium fabricii  
Black dogfish 
Centroscymnus coelolepis 
Portuguese dogfish 
Centroselachus crepidater 
Longnose velvet dogfish 
Cetorhinus maximus  
Basking shark 
Chimaera spp.  
Rabbitfish 
Coris julis 
Mediterranean rainbow 
wrasse 
Coryphaenoides rupestris 
Roundnose grenadier 
Dalatias licha 
Kitefin shark 
Deania calcea  
Birdbeak dogfish 
Dentex dentex 
Four-spotted goby 
Dicentrarchus labrax 
Seabass 

Diplodus puntazzo 

Diplodus sargus 

Diplodus vulgaris 
common two-banded sea 
bream 
Dipturus batis 
Common skate complex 
Dipturus nidarosiensis 
Norwegian skate 
Epigonus telescopus 
Bigeye 
Epinephelus marginatu 
Dusky grouper 
Esox Lucius 
Northern pike 
Etmopterus princeps 
Deepwater lanternshark 
Etmopterus spinax 
Velvetbelly lanternshark 
Euthynnus alletteratus  
Little tunny 

Gadus morhua 
Cod 
Galeorhinus galeus 
Tope shark 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

DE 

DE 

MWE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IT 

IT 

IT 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR, 
ES 

PT 

FR 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE, 
UK 
IE 

DE 

SE, UK 

FR 

FR IT 

IT 

IT 

ES 

99 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Coastal fish species 

Galeus melastomus 
Blackmouth catshark 
Galeus murinus  
Mouse catshark 
Helicolenus dactylopterus 
Blackbelly rosefish 
Hexanchus griseus  
Six-gill shark 

Hippocampus guttulatus 
Long-snouted seahorse 
Hippocampus hippocampus 
Short-snouted seahorse 
Hippoglossus hippoglossus 
Halibut 
Hoplostethus atlanticus 
Orange roughy 
Hydrolagus mirabilis 
(Large-eyed rabbitfish 
Isurus oxyrinchus 
Shortfin mako shark 
Labrus viridis 
Green wrasse 
Lamna nasus 
Porbeagle shark 
Lampetra fluviatilis 
River lamprey 
Leuciscus aspius 
Po brook lamprey 
Leucoraja circularis 
Sandy ra) 
Molva dypterygia  
Blue ling 
Mora moro 
Mora 
Mullus surmuletus 
Striped red mullet 
Mustelus asterias  
Starry moothhound 
Neogobius melanostomus 
Shorthorn sculpin 
Notocanthus chemnitzii 
Snub-nose spiny eel 
Oblada melanura 
Saddled seabream 
Oxynotus paradoxs 
Sailfin roughshark 

Pagellus acarne 

Pagellus erythrinus 
Common pandora 
Perca fluvialis 
European perch 
Petromyzon marinus 
Sea lamprey 
Platichthys flesus 
European flounder 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

UK 

UK 

DE, UK 

UK 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

PT 

PT 

PT 

DE, FI, SE 

DE  

DE 

SE 

DK, LT 

DE, DK 

FR 

FR 

FR 

RO 

IT 

IT 

IT 

100 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Coastal fish species 

Raja clavate 
Thornback ray 
Raja montagui 
Spotted ray 
Raja undulata 
Undulate ray 
Rajella fyllae 
Deepwater ray 
Rhinochimaera atlantica 
Straightnose rabbitfish 
Rostroraja alba  
White skate 
Salmo salar 
Atlantic salmon 
Sander lucioperca 
Pike-perch 
Sarpa salpa 
Salema porgy 
Sciaena umbra 
Brown meagre 
Scophthalmus maximus 
[Psetta maxima] 
Turbot 
Scorpaena porcus 
Black scorpionfish 
Scymnodon ringens 
Knitefooth shark 
Serranus cabrilla 
Comber 
Serranus hepatus 
Brown comber 
Spondyliosoma cantharus 
Black seabream 
Squalus acanthias  
Spurdog 
Squatina squatina  
Angel shark 
Symphodus cinereus 
Grey wrasse 
Symphodus tinca 
East Atlantic peacock wrasse 
Thunnus thynnus  
Bluefin tuna 
Torpedo marmorata 
Marbled electric ray 
Trachyscorpia cristulata 
Spiny scorpionfish 

Vimba vimba  
Vimba bream 

Zoarces viviparus  
Comber 

Coastal fish grouped 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE, 
UK 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

FR 

PT 

PT 

EE, FI 

UK 

DE 

DE 

DK 

LT 

DK 

IT 

FR IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

SI 

IT 

IT 

IT 

ES 

ES 

Barbus barbus 
Barbel 

HELCOM 
RED list 

101 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Coastal fish species 

Cobitis taenia 
Spined loach 

Cottus poecilopus 
Alpine bullhead 

Gymnura altavela 
Spiny butterfly ray 

Gobio gobio 
Gudgeon 

Labrus bergylta 
Ballan wrasse 

Lebetus guilleti 
Guillet's goby 

Nerophis ophidion 
Straightnose pipefish 

Pristis pectinate 
Smalltooth sawfish 

Pristis pristis 
Common sawfish 

Rhinobatos rhinobatos 
Common guitarfish 

Sander marinus 
Estuarine perch 

Spinachia spinachia 
Sea stickleback 

Symphodus melops 
Corkwing wrasse 

Valencia letourneuxi 
Corfu toothcarp 

BAL 

BAL 

HELCOM 
RED list 

HELCOM 
RED list 

HELCOM 
RED list 

HELCOM 
RED list 

HELCOM 
RED list 

HELCOM 
RED list 

HELCOM 
RED list 

HELCOM 
RED list 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

UNEP list   

UNEP list   

UNEP list  

UNEP list   

UNEP list L322 

BS 
prot 

BS 
prot 

Table 41. Demersal shelf fish reported by the evaluated Member States and their geographical association with the MSFD 
regions and subdivisions.  

Demersal shelf fish 

Amblyraja radiate 
Starry ray 
Ammodytes spp 
Sand eel 
Anarhichas lupus 
Atlantic wolffish 
Anguilla Anguilla 
Eel 
Argentina 
Argentine 
Argentina silus 
Black scabbardfish 
Argentina sphyraena 
Argentine 
Arnoglossus imperialis 
Imperial scaldfish 
Arnoglossus laterna 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

DK 

DE, DK, SE 

SE 

SE 

DK 

SE 

SE 

FR 

FR 

FR 

ES, PT, 
FR 

ES 

ES 

FR 

FR 

ES 

ES 

102 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Demersal shelf fish 

Mediterranean scaldfish 

Arnoglossus rueppelli 
Rüppel's scaldback 
Arnoglossus thori 
Thor's scaldfish 
Blennius ocellaris 
Butterfly blenny 
Boops boops 
Bogue, 
Brosme brosme 
Cusk 
Buglossidium luteum 
Solonette 
Callionymus lyra 
Common dragonet 
Callionymus maculatus 
Spotted dragonet 
Capros aper 
Boar fish 
Centrophorus granulosus 
Gulper shark 
Cepola macrophthalma 
Red Bandfish 
Chelidonichthys cuculus 
Red gurnard 
Chelidonichthys lastoviza 
Streaked gurnard 
Chelidonichthys lucerna 
Streaked gurnard 
Chelidonichthys obscurus 
Longfin gurnard 
Chimaera monstrosa 
Rabbit fish 
Citharus linguatula 
Spotted flounder 
Coelorinchus caelorhincus 
Hollowsnout grenadier 
Conger conger 
Conger eel 
Coregonus lavaretus 
Lavaret 
Coryphaenoides rupestris 
Roundnose grenadier 
Dalatias licha 
Kitefin shark 
Dasyatis pastinaca 
Common stingray 
Deltentosteus quadrimaculatus 
Four-spotted goby 
Dicentrarchus labrax 
Seabass 
Diplodus annularis 
Annular seabream 
Dilpodus bellotii 
Wedge sole 
Diplodus vulgaris 
Sargo 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

ES, FR 

ES 

ES, FR 

ES, IT 

IT 

IT 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES, FR 

ES, FR 

MT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

FR 

ES 

ES, FR 
IT 

ES IT 

IT 

FR 

IT 

IT 

IT 

FR, ES  MT 

FR IT 

IT 

IT 

ES, FR  MT 

SE 

IE 

FR, 
IE 

IE 

ES 

ES 

FR 

FR 

ES, FR 

FR 

ES 

ES 

ES 

FR 

ES, FR 

ES, FR 

SE 

SE 

IE 

DE 

SE 

ES, FR 

MT 

ES, FR 

ES, FR 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

MWE 

103 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Demersal shelf fish 

Dipturus batis 
Common skate 
Dipturus oxyrinchus 
Longnosed skate 
Echiichtys vipera 
Painted eel 
Enchelyopus cimbrius 
Fourbeard rockling 
Etmopterus spinax 
Velvet belly lantern shark 
Eutrigla gurnardus 
Grey gurnard 
Gadiculus argenteus 
Silvery pout 
Gaidropsarus macrophthalmus 
Bigeye rockling 
Gaidropsarus vulgaris 
Bigeye rockling 
Gadus morhua 
Cod 
Galeorhinus galeus 
Tope shark 
Galeus melastomus 
Blackmouth catshark 
Glossanodon leioglossus 
Smalltoothed argentine 
Glyptocephalus cynoglossus 
Witch flounder 
Gnathophis mystax 
Thinlip conger 
Gobius niger 
Black goby 
Helicolenus dactylopterus 
Blackbelly rosefish  
Heptranchias perlo 
Sharpnose sevengill shark 
Hexanchus griseus 
Bluntnose sixgill shark 
Hippoglossus hippoglossus 
Atlantic halibut 
Hymenocephalus italicus 
Glass-head grenadier 
Lepidopus caudatus 
Silver scabbardfish 
Lepidorhombus boscii 
Four-spot megrim 
Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis 
Megrim 
Lepidotrigla cavillone 
Large-scaled gurnard 
Lepidotrigla dieuzeidei 
Spiny gurnard 
Lepidotrigla spp. 
Lesueurigobius friesii 
Frie's goby 
Lesueurigobius sanzi 
Frie's goby 
Leucoraja (Raja) circularis 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

BAL 

BAL 

DE 

DE, DK, SE, 
UK 

FR, 
UK 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

DE, FR, SE 

FR, 
IE 

DE 

DE, SE, 
FI, LV 

DE, FR, SE, 
UK 

ACS 

FR, 
UK 

ES 

ES, FR 

ES PT 

ES 

FR 

IT 

IT 

MT 

IT 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

SE 

DK 

FR 

ES, FR 

ES, FR  MT 

ES, FR 

ES 

ES 

ES 

FR 

ES, FR 

ES, FR  MT 

IT 

IT 
MT 

MT 

MT 

IT 

ES, FR 

ES, FR 

ES 

ES 

IT 

IT 

IT 

104 | P a g e  

FR 

IE 

ES 

ES, FR, 
PT 

ES 

ES 

ES 

PT 

ES 

ES 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Demersal shelf fish 

Sandy rayfish 

Leucoraja fullonica 
Shagreen ray 
Leucoraja melitensis 
Maltese ray 
Leucoraja naevus 
Cuckoo ray 
Limanda limanda 
Common dab 
Lophius budegassa 
Blackbellied angler 
Lophius piscatorius 
White Anglerfish 
Lumpenus lampretaeformis 
Snakeblenny 
Melanogrammus aeglefinus 
Haddock 
Merlangius merlangus 
Whiting 
Merluccius merluccius 
European Hake 
Microchirus azevia 
Bastard sole 
Microchirus boscanion 
Lusitanian sole 
Microchirus ocellatus 
Foureyed sole 
Microchirus variegatus 
Thickback sole 
Micromesistius poutassou 
Blue whiting 
Microstomus kitt 
Lemon sole 
Molva dypterygia 
Blue ling 
Molva macrophthalma 
Spanish ling 
Molva molva 
Ling 
Mullus surmuletus 
Striped red mullet 
Mustelus 
Smooth-hounds 
Mustelus asterias 
Starry smooth-hound 
Mustelus mustelus 
Smooth-hound 
Mustelus punctulatus 
blackspotted smooth-hound 
Myliobatis aquila 
Common eagle ray 
Nezumia aequalis 
Common Atlantic grenadier 
Nezumia sclerorhynchus 
Common Atlantic grenadier 
Pagellus acarne 
Axillary seabream 
Pagellus bellotii 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

IT 

IT 

IT 

FR 

ES, FR 

FR IT 

IT 

RO 

ES, FR 

MWE 

FR 

FR 

FR, 
IE 

ES, FR, 
PT 

FR 

FR 

IE 

IE 

FR, 
IE 

ES, FR, 
PT 

ES, FR 

ES 

ES, FR, 
PT 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES, PT 

IE 

ES, PT 

ES 

DE, SE 

DE, SE 

DE 

DK, SE 

DE, SE 

DE 

DE, SE 

SE 

SE 

SE 

SE 

DK, SE 

FR 

FR 

ES 

FR 

DE, DK 

DK, FR 

ES 

ES 

FR 

ES 

IT 

IT 

IT 

ES 

ES 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

MT 

MT 

105 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Demersal shelf fish 

Red pandora 

Pagellus bogaraveo 
Blackspot seabream 
Pagellus erythrinus 
Common pandora 
Peristedion cataphractum 
African armoured searobin 
Petromyzon marinus 
Sea lamprey 
Phycis blennoides 
Greater forkbeard 
Platichthys flesus 
European flounder 
Pleuronectes platessa 
Plaice 
Pollachius pollachius 
Pollack 
Pollachius virens 
Saithe 
Raja asterias 
Mediterranean starry ray 

Raja clavata 
Thornback ray 

Raja miraletus 
Brown ray 
Raja montagui 
Spotted ray 
Raja polystigma 
Cuckoo ray 
Raja undulata 
Undulate ray 
Rostroraja alba 
White skate 
Scomber scombrus 
Atlantic mackerel 
Scophthalmus maximus [Psetta 
maxima] 
Turbot 
Scophthalmus rhombus 
Brill 
Scorpaena loppei 
Cadenat's rockfish 
Scorpaena notata 
(Small) red scorpionfish 
Scorpaena scrofa  
Red scorpionfish 
Scyliorhinus canicula 
Small-spotted dogfish 
Scyliorhinus stellaris 
Nursehound 
Serranus cabrilla 
Comber 
Serranus hepatus 
Brown comber 
Solea solea 
Common sole 
Spicara flexuosa 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

IT 

IT 

IT 

ES 

FR 

ES, FR 

ES, FR 

ES 

ES 

DE, FI, SE 

DE, UK 

DK, SE 

LV, SE 

SE 

UK 

FR, 
IE 

DE, SE 

DE, SE 

IE 

FR, SE 

DE, SE 

IE 

FR IT 

IT 

ES, FR, 
IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

FR 

FR 

BE, DE, DK, 
FR, SE, UK 

FR, 
IE, 
UK 

ES, FR 

DE, DK, FR, 
UK 

UK 

ES 

FR 

SE, UK 

UK 

PT 

DE, SE 

DE, SE 

FR 

FR 

IT 

IT 

IT 

DE, SE 

DE, SE 

ES 

ES 

DE, FR, SE 

FR, 
IE 

ES, FR, 
PT 

FR 

DE, SE (S. 
vulgaris) 

DE 

IE 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

FR 

ES, FR 

ES, FR, 
IT 

ES 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

SI 

106 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Demersal shelf fish 

Blotched picarel 

Spondyliosoma cantharus 
Black seabream 
Squalus acanthias  
Spurdog 
Squalus blainville 
Spiny dogfish, picked dogfish 
Squatina squatina 
Angel shark/monkfish 
Symphurus nigrescens 
Tonguesole 
Thymallus thymallus 
Grayling 
Torpedo marmorata 
Marbled electric ray 
Trachinus draco 
Greater weaver 
Trachurus mediterraneus 
Mediterranean horse mackeral 
Trachurus picturatus 
Blue jack mackerel 
Trachurus trachurus 
Blue jack mackeral/ horse 
mackerel 
Trachyrincus scabrous 
Roughsnout grenadier 
Trigla lyra 
Tub gurnard 
Trisopterus luscus 
Pouting 
Trisopterus minutus 
Poor cod 
Zeus faber 
John Dory 
Zoarces viviparus  
Comber 
Acipenser naccarii 
Adriatic sturgeon 
Acipenser nudiventris 
Ship sturgeon 
Acipenser stellatus 
Stellate sturgeon 
Aphanius fasciatus  
Mediterranean Killifish 
Aphanius iberus 
Spanish toothcarp 
Arnoglossus kessleri 
Scaldback 
Benthophiloides brauneri 
Goby 
Benthophilus stellatus 
Stellate tadpole-goby 
Cottus gobio 
Bullhead 
Deania calcea 
Birdbeak dogfish 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

SE, UK 

FR, 
UK 

UK 

FR 

ES 

ES 

FR 

FR 

ES 

FR, IT 

IT 

IT 

RO 

FR 

FR IT 

IT 

IT 

ES 

IT 

IT 

IT 

FR 

ES, FR 

ES, FR 

SE 

DE 

ES 

PT 

SE 

 IE 

ES, PT 

ES 

ES 

ES, FR, 
PT 

IE 

FR, 
IE 

FR 

DE 

IT 

IT 

ES 

IT 

ES 

ES, FR 

FR 

ES 

ES, FR 

IT 

UNEP list L322 

UNEP list L322 

BS 
prot 
BS 
SoE 

BS 
prot 
BS 
prot 
BS 
prot 

HELCOM 
RED list 

OSPAR LIST 

107 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Demersal shelf fish 

Diplodus sargus 
Sargo 
Echelus myrus 
Painted eel 
Entelurus aequoreus 
Snake pipefish 
Epigonus denticulatus 
Pencil cardinal 
Gobius niger jozo 
Hippocampus ramulosus 
Long-snouted seahorse 
Labrus mixtus 
Cuckoo wrasse 
Lebetus scorpioides 
Diminutive goby 
Lethenteron zanandreai  
Po brook lamprey 
Liparis montagui 
Montagus seasnail 
Lithognathus mormyrus 
Striped seabream 
Liza saliens 
Leaping mullet 
Lycodes gracilis 
Vahl's eelpout 
Mullus barbatus 
Red mullet 
Myoxocephalus Scorpius 
Shorthorn sculpin 
Nerophis lumbriciformis 
Worm pipefish 
Nezumia aequalis 
Common Atlantic grenadier 
Phoxinus phoxinus 
Eurasian minnow 
Phrynorhombus norvegicus 
Norwegian topknot 
Plectorhinchus mediterraneus 
Rubberlip grunt 
Pomatoschistus canestrini 
Canestrini's goby 
Pomatoschistus norvegicus 
Norway goby 
Pomatoschistus pictus 
Painted goby 
Pomatoschistus tortonesei 
Tortonese's goby 
Raja alba 
White skate 
Rhinobatos cemiculus 
Blackchin guitarfish 
Salmo trutta labrax 
Black Sea salmon 
Sebastes viviparus 
Norway redfish 
Sparus aurata 
Gilt-head bream 
Squatina aculeata 

BAL 

BAL 

HELCOM 
RED list 

HELCOM 
RED list 
HELCOM 
RED list 

HELCOM 
RED list 

HELCOM 
RED list 

HELCOM 
RED list 
HELCOM 
RED list 

HELCOM 
RED list 
HELCOM 
RED list 

HELCOM 
RED list 
HELCOM 
RED list 

HELCOM 
RED list 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

UNEP list 

UNEP list L322 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

UNEP list L322 

UNEP list L322 

UNEP list L322 

UNEP list   

ES 

UNEP list   

BS 
prot 

BS 
prot 

108 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Demersal shelf fish 

Sawback angelshark 

Squatina oculate 
Smoothback angelshark 
Syngnathus spp. 
(details in Ref list) 
Taurulus bubalis 
Longspined bullhead 
Umbrina cirrosa 
Shi drum 
Uranoscopus scaber 
Atlantic stargazer 
Zeugopterus punctatus 
Topknot 

BAL 

BAL 

HELCOM 
RED 
HELCOM 
RED 

HELCOM 
RED 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

UNEP list   

UNEP list   

ES 

BS 

BS 

BS 
prot 

Table 42. Pelagic shelf fish reported by the evaluated Member States and their geographical association with the MSFD 
regions and subdivisions. 

Pelagic shelf fish 

Alosa alosa 
Allis shad 
Alosa fallax 
Twaite shad 
Belone belone 
Deepwater sole 
Boops boops 
Bogue 
Capros aper 
Boar fish 
Cetorhinus maximus 
Basking sharks 
Clupea harengus 
Atlantic herring 
Clupea harengus membras 
Baltic herring 
Coregonus albula 
Vendace 
Cyclopterus lumpus 
Lumpfish 
Dicentrarchus labrax 
Seabass 
Engraulis encrasicolus 
European anchovy 
Galeorhinus galeus 
Tope shark 
Lamna nasus 
Porbeagle 
Micromesistius poutassou 
Blue whiting 
Mobula mobular 
Giant devil ray 
Salmo salar 
Atlantic salmon 
Salmo trutta trutta 
Brown trout 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

DE, UK 

UK 

DE 

BAL 

BAL 

DE 

DE 

PT 

PT 

FR 

FR 

DE, FR, SE, 
UK 

FR, 
UK 

DE, LV, SE  DE, FR, SE 

IE 

FI, LV 

SE 

DE 

DE 

DE 

ES PT 

ES 

ES, FR 

DE, DK, SE 

DE, FR, SE, 
UK 

FR 

FR, 
UK 

FR 

FR 

FR 

IT 

FR 

SI 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

DE, LT, FI 

DE 

DE, FI, LT 

109 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

ES, IT 

IT 

ES PT 

ES 

ES PT 

ES 

ES  

ES 

FR, SE 

FR, 
IE 

ES, FR 

ES, FR, 
IT 

ES IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

SI 

IT 

IT 

DE, LV, SE  DE, SE 

IE 

DE, UK 

FR 

 UK 

FR, 
IE 

FR, ES 

ES 

IT 

ES 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

FR, SE 

FR 

FR 

FR 

DE, SE 

FR, 
IE 

IE 

FR, ES 

ES, FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

ES 

Pelagic shelf fish 

Sarda sarda 
Atlantic bonito 
Sardina pilchardus 
European pilchard 
Scomber colias 
Atlantic chub mackeral 
Scomber scombrus 
Atlantic mackeral 
Spicara maena 
Blotched picarel 
Sprattus sprattus 
European sprat 
Squalus acanthias  
Spurdog 
Thunnus alalunga 
Albacore 
Trachurus mediterraneus 
Mediterranean horse 
mackeral 
Trachurus trachurus 
Blue jack mackeral/ horse 
mackerel 

Thunnus thynnus 
Atlantic bluefin tuna 

Trisopterus esmarkii 
Norway pout 
Xiphias gladius 
Norway pout 
Acanthocybium solandri 
Wahoo 
Alopias vulpinus 
Thresher 
Alosa immaculata 
Pontic shad 
Alosa maeotica 
Black Sea shad 
Alosa pontica 
Pontic shad 
Antonogadus 
megalokynodon 
Mediterranean bigeye 
rockling 
Aphanopus carbo 
Black scabbardfish 
Aspius aspius 
Asp 
Ballerus ballerus 
Zope 
Bathysolea profundicola 
Deepwater sole 
Belone belone euxini 
Needlefish 
Carcharias Taurus 
Sand tiger shark 
Carcharodon Carcharias 
Great white shark 

Coregonus spp. 

DE 

HELCOM 
RED 

HELCOM 
RED 
HELCOM 
RED 

IE 

BS 
prot 
BS 
prot 

BS SoE 

BS 
prot 

RO 

110 | P a g e  

ES 

ES 

UNEP list   

UNEP list L322 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pelagic shelf fish 

Dentex gibbosus 
Pin dentex 
Engraulis encrasicolus 
ponticus 
Anchovy 
Gadiculus argenteus 
Silvery pout 
Hoplostethus atlanticus 
Orange roughy 
Hoplostethus 
mediterraneus 
Mediterranean slimehead 
Huso huso 
Beluga/European sturgeon 
Isurus oxyrinchus 
Shortfin mako 
Katsuwonus pelamis 
Skipjack tuna 
Liza aurata 
Golden grey mullet 
Liza haematocheilus 
So-iuy mullet 
Mugil cephalus 
Flathead grey mullet 
Odontaspis ferox 
Smalltooth sand tiger 
Pagellus bogaraveo 
Blacksot seabream 
Pagrus pagrus 
Red porgy/common 
seabream 
Pelecus cultratus 
Sichel 
Pomatomus saltatrix 
Bluefish 
Prionace glauca 
Blue shark 
Sardinella aurita 
Round sardinella 
Sarpa salpa 
Salema/cow bream 
Scomberesox saurus 
Atlantic saury 
Sebastes marinus 
Golden redfish 
Sebastes norvegicus 
Golden redfish 
Somniosus microcephalus 
Greenland shark 
Sphyrna lewini 
Scalloped hammerhead 
Sphyrna mokarran 
Great hammerhead 
Sphyrna tudes 
Smalleye hammerhead 
Sphyrna zygaena 
Smooth hammerhead 
Thunnus albacares 
Yellowfin tuna 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

ES 

IE 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

FR 

ES 

ES 

UNEP list L322 

BS SoE 

UNEP list L322 

BS 
prot 
BS 
prot 
BS 
prot 

UNEP list   

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

UNEP list   

UNEP list   

UNEP list   

BS SoE 

IT 

111 | P a g e  

HELCOM 
RED 

HELCOM 
RED 
HELCOM 
RED 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pelagic shelf fish 

Trachurus picturatus 
Blue jack mackeral 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

BS 

AMA  MWE  MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

ES 

ES 

Table 43. Species reported in deep shelf fish by the evaluated Member States and their geographical association with the 
MSFD regions and subdivisions. 

Deep shelf  

Chimaera monstrosa 
Rabbit fish 
Oxynotus centrina 
Angular roughshark 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

BS 

ANS 

ACS 

ABI 

AMA 

MW
E 

MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

DK 

PT 

ES, IT 

IT 

IT 

UNEP list   

Table 44. Reef associated fish reported previously by the evaluated Member States and their geographical association 
with the MSFD regions and subdivisions. 

Reef associated 

Sparidae 
Sea breams and porgies 
Sparisoma cretense 
Parrotfish 

BAL 

BAL 

NEA 

MED 

ANS 

ACS 

ABI 

AMA  MWE 

MIC  MAD  MAL 

BS 

BS 

ES 

ES 

MT, 12 SI, 1 RO, 3

EE, 2

IT, 48

SE, 45

FI, 1
LT, 4 LV, 4
PL, 2

FR, 71

ES, 67

PT, 45

DK, 15

BE, 1

DE, 43

IE, 56

NL, 2

Figure 9. Number of fish species reported by MS. 

Findings:  

It is obvious from the Table 40 to Table 44 that there is good harmonisation at regional level, but only 
for a few species. This could be caused by the very few operational fish indicators from the RSCs and 
by the limited regional coordination. In addition, the use of CFP data to the MSFD is not clear through 

112 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the reporting (only one MS referred to CFP), probably because of methodological issues and gaps in a 
common approach from the MSFD side, but also because of administrative issues.       

Gap:  Regarding  the  reported  species  the  gaps  are  related  more  to  the  luck  of  common  rules  or 
guidelines  for  the  species  selection  for  inclusion  to  the  MSFD,  which  is  also  evident  by  the 
discrepancies in the number of species reported, even across neighbouring MS (Figure 9).    

Recommendations  for  reporting:  The  species  lists  that  were  developed  for  the  reporting  greatly 
improved the consistency in the reporting of species, compared with the 2012 reporting. Synonyms, 
typos, or misreported species were derived from MS that provided paper reports. Given the number 
of species reported, the harmonisation compared with 2012 is remarkable.  

Recommendations  for  implementation  and  methodological  standards:  The  organisation  of 
information in the Table 40 to Table 44, indicates that more work is required to harmonise the set of 
species to be reported and the assignment of species to the species groups. MS with the support of 
the experts should prioritise which species to include in D1 and which in D3. For this action, common 
agreed guidelines need to be developed for the MS. On the same subject, a common understanding 
across MS for which species to be included in the assessment at regional level need to be developed 
to  harmonise  the  species,  their  number  and  source.  This  work  could  be  done  through  the  MSFD 
Biodiversity expert network (fish group) and with the ICES collaboration.   

Objective:  The  MS  reported  the  sources  of  the  elements  (species),  i.e.,  whether  the  species  are 
selected from EU (e.g., Habitats Directives), regional (e.g., regional sea conventions) or national lists. 
The  analysis  of  the  sources  will  reveal  the  level  of  harmonisation  across  the  MS  and  the  level  of 
exploitation of available  information. This information combined with  the  source  of threshold  can 
reveal  whether  the  MS  claim  to  use,  for  instance,  national  sources  instead  of  regional  to  HD. 
Something that was evident in the MSFD reporting for the monitoring programmes of 2014. 

Data: We analysed the data reported in column M “Element source”.  

Findings: The MS reported one of the sources for their elements in the first column of Table 48: 

Table 48. Element source by region and MS 

Element source 

Reported in: 

EU  
CFP 
ICES 
HELCOM  
OSPAR  
National  
MS in (sub)region 

BAL 
DE, EE 

NEA 
DE, IE 

MED 

MT 

BLK 
RO 

DE, DK, EE, LT, LV, SE 
DK, FI, LT, LV, SE 

BE, DE, DK, ES, SE 

DE, DK, SE 

DE, NL 
DE, DK, ES, FR, PT, SE 
PT 

FR, IT, SI 

Tot. 
MS 

4 
1 
8 
5 
2 
8 
1 

There is no consistency at regional level. For instance, among the BAL MS there is a mixture of EU, 
national  and  ICES  and  HELCOM  sources  assigned  to  element  sources.  However,  there  are  no 
references to the CFP, except of Malta. National element source could be derived from the CFP, based 
on  our  evaluation  of  the  species  reported,  however  the  reported  information  cannot  verify  this 
assumption. HECOM has developed indicators for fish (summarised in Palialexis et al. 2019), covering 

113 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
though a low proportion of the species that could potentially be reported (e.g., species reported by 
FI, LT, PL, EE).  

Gap: All MS reported for all entries. No gaps in terms of reporting.  

Recommendations for implementation: The MS accurately reported elements that are included in 
other EU, or international agreements and policies. However, there are some inconsistencies in the 
way the MS reported the element source, which can be refined through coordination across the MS 
or by developing some common hierarchical rules to determine how to report the element source.    

Recommendations for methodological standards: Not relevant.  

  Extension in use of MSFD Criteria (primary and secondary) reported at EU, 

regional and (sub)regional level 

Objective: 

Table 45 provides a variety of information and overviews related with the progress of the assessments.   

-  Overview of the use of primary and secondary criteria. The number in each cell indicates the 
number  of  MS  reported  each  criterion  out  of  the  total  number  of  MS  reported  for  each 
species.   

-  Overview of the species assessments and threshold values per criterion and region. The traffic 
light approach (green, orange, red) corresponds to the level of assessment of the parameters 
for each criterion and species, including the report of threshold values. Green: Indicates that 
for those criteria a complete assessment has been made by comparing the threshold value 
with the  value  achieved. Orange: Indicates  that either a threshold value  is available, or  an 
achieved value (estimated parameter), so assessment is not complete. Red: Indicates that no 
threshold value or achieved value are reported.  

-  Overview of the assessed parameter for each species and criterion. The bold borders around 
the cells indicate those species and criteria for which the achieved parameter has reported 
(either negative or positive).   

-  Which  species  were  reported  under  D3  (3rd  column  in  Table  45),  which  can  support  the 
discussion on how to harmonise the assessment and reporting of species between D1 and D3. 

Data: The reported information in column N was used for the use of the criteria (Appendix 2, Art.8 
fish). The species assessment was based on the information in columns Q, R, S and V. The overview of 
the assessed parameters was based on the information in column AD. The assumption for the traffic 
light approach is that the any reported category was aggregated to the higher level, so if only one MS 
provided threshold value and value achieved for a single species and in a single MRU, this is assigned 
to the species and region or subdivision. We assume that all MS in the same region or subdivision 
should have available methods to perform a similar assessment.  

Table 45. Reported threshold values and/or estimated parameters are shown for each species and criterion as: i) green, 
for those criteria with both the threshold value and the value achieved reported, ii) orange, when either a threshold value 
is  available,  or  the  value  achieved  (estimated  parameter),  so  assessment  is  not  complete,  and  iii)  red,  when  neither 
threshold values nor values achieved are reported. The numbers reflect the MS that reported each criterion to allow for 
an  overview  of  the  usage  between  primary against  secondary  criteria.  The  bold-framed  cells  show  the  criteria  of  the 

114 | P a g e  

 
 
species that were reported to have a final assessment (positive or negative). The table also indicates which species were 
reported under D3 for the same region. 

BAL 

Species 

Reported 
in D3. 

D1C1 
primary 

D1C2 
primary 

D1C3 
I / II 

D1C4 
I / II 

D1C5 
I / II 

Coastal fish 
DE, DK, EE, LT, 
LV, PL, SE 

Abramis brama 

Acipenser oxyrinchus 

Anguilla anguilla 

Coregonus maraena 

Esox lucius 

Lampetra fluviatilis 

Leuciscus aspius 

Perca fluviatilis 

Platichthys flesus 

Salmo salar 

Sander lucioperca 

Vimba vimba 

Zoarces viviparus 

Coastal fish grouped 

Amblyraja radiata 

Anguilla anguilla 

Coregonus lavaretus 

Enchelyopus cimbrius 

Gadus morhua 

Limanda limanda 

Demersal shelf 
fish 
DE, DK, LV, PL, 
SE 

Lumpenus lampretaeformis 

Petromyzon marinus 

Platichthys flesus 

Pleuronectes platessa 

Scophthalmus maximus  

Scophthalmus rhombus 

Solea solea (sin. vulgaris) 

Thymallus thymallus 

Pelagic Shelf 
fish 
DE, FI, LV, LT, 
SE 

Trachinus draco 

Alosa fallax 

Belone belone 

Clupea harengus 

Clupea harengus membras 

Coregonus albula 

Cyclopterus lumpus 

Salmo salar 

Salmo trutta trutta 

Sprattus sprattus 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

115 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NEA 

Species 

Reported 
in D3 

D1C1 

D1C2 

primary 

primary 

D1C3 

I / II 

D1C4 

I / II 

D1C5 

I / II 

Coastal fish 

DE, DK, FR, IE, 
PT, SE 

Acipenser sturio 

Alepocephalus bairdii 

Alopias vulpinus 

Alosa fallax 

Anarhichas denticulatus 

Anguilla anguilla 

Antimora rostrata 

Aphanopus carbo 

Apristurus spp. 

Beryx spp. 

Cataetyx laticeps 

Centrophorus squamosus 

Centroscyllium fabricii 

Centroscymnus coelolepis 

Centroselachus crepidater 

Cetorhinus maximus 

Chelon labrosus 

Chimaera spp. 

Coregonus maraena 

Coryphaenoides rupestris 

Dalatias licha 

Deania calcea 

Dentex dentex 

Dicentrarchus labrax 

Dipturus batis 

Dipturus nidarosiensis 

Epigonus telescopus 

Epinephelus marginatus 

Etmopterus princeps 

Etmopterus spinax 

Gadus morhua 

Galeorhinus galeus 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

3/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

X 

x 

x 

x 

x 

X 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

116 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Galeus melastomus 

Galeus murinus 

Helicolenus dactylopterus 

Hexanchus griseus 

Hippocampus hippocampus 

Hippoglossus hippoglossus 

Hoplostethus atlanticus 

Hydrolagus mirabilis 

Isurus oxyrinchus 

Lamna nasus 

Lampetra fluviatilis 

Leucoraja circularis 

Molva dypterygia 

Mora moro 

Mustelus asterias 

Notocanthus chemnitzii 

Oxynotus paradoxus 

Petromyzon marinus 

Platichthys flesus 

Raja clavata 

Raja montagui 

Raja undulata 

Rajella fyllae 

Rhinochimaera atlantica 

Rostroraja alba 

Salmo salar 

Sciaena umbra 

Scophthalmus maximus 

Scymnodon ringens 

Squalus acanthias 

Squatina squatina 

Thunnus thynnus 

Trachyscorpia cristulata 

Zoarces viviparus 

Deep sea fish 

Alopias superciliosus 

DK, PT 

Centrophorus granulosus 

Centrophorus lusitanicus 

Centrophorus squamosus 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

x 

x 

x 

X 

x 

x 

X 

x 

X 

X 

x 

x 

x 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

117 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chimaera monstrosa 

Dalatias licha 

Deania calcea 

Deania spp. 

Etmopterus princeps 

Etmopterus pusillus 

Etmopterus spinax 

Galeus melastomus 

Heptranchias perlo 

Hexanchus griseus 

Malacocephalus laevis 

Nezumia sclerorhynchus 

Phycis blennoides 

Sphyrna zygaena 

Amblyraja radiata 

Ammodytes spp 

Anarhichas lupus 

Anguilla anguilla 

Argentina 

Argentina silus 

Argentina sphyraena 

Arnoglossus imperialis 

Arnoglossus laterna 

Arnoglossus rueppelii 

Demersal shelf 
fish 

BE, DE, DK, ES, 
FR, NL, PT, SE 

Arnoglossus thori 

Blennius ocellaris 

Boops boops 

Brosme brosme 

Buglossidium luteum 

Callionymus lyra 

Callionymus maculatus 

Capros aper 

Cepola macrophthalma 

Chelidonichthys cuculus 

Chelidonichthys lucerna 

Chelidonichthys obscurus 

Citharus linguatula 

Conger conger 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/3 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

3/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

118 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Coryphaenoides rupestris 

Dasyatis pastinaca 

Deltentosteus quadrimaculatus 

Dicentrarchus labrax 

Diplodus annularis 

Diplodus bellottii 

Diplodus vulgaris 

Dipturus batis 

Echiichtys vipera 

Etmopterus spinax 

Eutrigla gurnardus 

Gadiculus argenteus 

Gadus morhua 

Gaidropsarus macrophthalmus 

Gaidropsarus vulgaris 

Galeorhinus galeus 

Galeus melastomus 

Glyptocephalus cynoglossus 

Gnathophis mystax 

Gobius niger 

Helicolenus dactylopterus 

Hippoglossus hippoglossus 

Lepidorhombus boscii 

Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis 

Lepidotrigla cavillone 

Lepidotrigla dieuzeidei 

Lepidotrigla spp. 

Lesueurigobius friesii 

Lesueurigobius sanzi 

Leucoraja fullonica 

Leucoraja naevus 

Limanda limanda 

Lophius budegassa 

Lophius piscatorius 

Melanogrammus aeglefinus 

Merlangius merlangus 

Merluccius merluccius 

Microchirus azevia 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

3/4 

0/1 

1/1 

3/4 

2/2 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

3/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/3 

0/1 

0/2 

2/3 

1/2 

0/1 

3/4 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

4/4 

1/1 

0/1 

4/4 

2/2 

2/3 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

2/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/3 

1/1 

2/2 

2/3 

2/2 

1/1 

3/4 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

2/4 

0/1 

0/1 

2/4 

1/2 

0/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

2/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/3 

0/1 

1/2 

1/3 

1/2 

0/1 

3/4 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

2/4 

0/1 

0/1 

2/4 

1/2 

0/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/3 

0/1 

0/1 

1/3 

1/2 

0/1 

2/4 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/4 

0/1 

1/1 

2/4 

1/2 

0/2 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

0/1 

2/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/3 

0/1 

0/2 

2/3 

1/2 

0/1 

2/4 

1/1 

119 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Microchirus boscanion 

Microchirus ocellatus 

Microchirus variegatus 

Micromesistius poutassou 

Microstomus kitt 

Molva dypterygia 

Molva molva 

Mullus surmuletus 

Mustelus asterias 

Mustelus mustelus 

Mustelus 

Pagellus acarne 

Pagellus bellottii 

Pagellus erythrinus 

Petromyzon marinus 

Phycis blennoides 

Platichthys flesus 

Pleuronectes platessa 

Pollachius pollachius 

Pollachius virens 

Raja clavata 

Raja montagui 

Raja undulata 

Rostroraja alba 

Scomber scombrus 

Scyliorhinus canicula 

Scophthalmus maximus [Psetta 
maxima] 

Scophthalmus rhombus 

Scorpaena loppei 

Scorpaena notata 

Scyliorhinus canicula 

Scyliorhinus stellaris 

Serranus cabrilla 

Serranus hepatus 

Solea solea 

Spicara flexuosa 

Spondyliosoma cantharus 

Squalus acanthias 

Squatina squatina 

Symphurus nigrescens 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

3/3 

0/1 

0/1 

2/3 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

3/4 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

4/6 

4/4 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

4/5 

2/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/3 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

2/3 

1/1 

0/1 

3/3 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

3/4 

1/1 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

5/6 

3/4 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

4/5 

3/3 

2/2 

0/1 

0/1 

2/3 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

2/2 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/3 

0/1 

0/1 

1/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/4 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

2/6 

2/4 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

2/5 

1/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/4 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

2/6 

2/4 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

2/5 

1/3 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/3 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/4 

0/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

3/6 

3/4 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

3/5 

1/3 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/3 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

120 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Trachinus draco 

Trachurus mediterraneus 

Trachurus picturatus 

Trachurus trachurus 

Trisopterus luscus 

Trisopterus minutus 

Zeus faber 

Zoarces viviparus 

FishPelagicShelf 

Alosa alosa 

DE, DK, , FR, PT, 
SE 

Alosa fallax 

Boops boops 

Capros aper 

Cetorhinus maximus 

Clupea harengus 

Cyclopterus lumpus 

Dicentrarchus labrax 

Engraulis encrasicolus 

Galeorhinus galeus 

Lamna nasus 

Micromesistius poutassou 

Salmo salar 

Sardina pilchardus 

Scomber colias 

Scomber scombrus 

Sprattus sprattus 

Squalus acanthias 

Thunnus alalunga 

Thunnus thynnus 

Trachurus trachurus 

Trisopterus esmarkii 

Xiphias gladius 

0/2 

1/1 

0/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

2/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

2/3 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

2/2 

2/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

3/3 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

2/2 

3/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/3 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

2/3 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/2 

2/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

2/3 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/2 

2/3 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

0/2 

1/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

2/3 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

2/3 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/2 

2/3 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

X 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

121 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reported 
in D3 

D1C1 
primary 

D1C2 
primary 

D1C3 
I / II 

D1C4 
I / II 

D1C5 
I / II 

MED 

Coastal fish 
ES (only general), FR, 
IT, SI 

Deep sea fish 
IT 

Demersal Shelf fish 
FR, IT, MT 

Species 

Coris julis 

Dentex dentex 

Diplodus puntazzo 

Diplodus sargus 

Diplodus vulgaris 

Epinephelus marginatus 

Hippocampus guttulatus 

Hippocampus hippocampus 

Labrus viridis 

Oblada melanura 

Sarpa salpa 

Sciaena umbra 

Scorpaena porcus 

Serranus cabrilla 

Symphodus cinereus 

Symphodus tinca 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

Centrophorus granulosus 

x 

0/1 

Chimaera monstrosa 

Dalatias licha 

Etmopterus spinax 

Galeus melastomus 

Helicolenus dactylopterus 

Heptranchias perlo 

Hexanchus griseus 

Phycis blennoides 

Polyprion americanus 

Argentina 

Arnoglossus rueppelii 

Blennius ocellaris 

Boops boops 

Callionymus maculatus 

Centrophorus granulosus 

Chelidonichthys cuculus 

Chelidonichthys lastoviza 

Chelidonichthys lucerna 

Chelidonichthys obscurus 

Chimaera monstrosa 

Citharus linguatula 

Coelorinchus caelorhincus 

Conger conger 

Dalatias licha 

x 

x 

x 

x 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

122 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dasyatis pastinaca 

Dipturus batis 

Dipturus oxyrinchus 

Etmopterus spinax 

Eutrigla gurnardus 

Galeus melastomus 

Glossanodon leioglossus 

Helicolenus dactylopterus 

Heptranchias perlo 

Hexanchus griseus 

Hymenocephalus italicus 

Lepidopus caudatus 

Lepidorhombus boscii 

Leucoraja circularis 

Leucoraja melitensis 

Leucoraja naevus 

Lophius budegassa 

Lophius piscatorius 

Merluccius merluccius 

Molva macrophthalma 

Mustelus asterias 

Mustelus mustelus 

Mustelus punctulatus 

Myliobatis aquila 

Nezumia sclerorhynchus 

Pagellus bogaraveo 

Peristedion cataphractum 

Phycis blennoides 

Raja asterias 

Raja clavata 

Raja miraletus 

Raja polystigma 

Scophthalmus maximus 

Scorpanea notata 

Scorpaena scrofa 

Scyliorhinus canicula 

Solea solea 

Squalus acanthias 

Squalus blainville 

Squatina squatina 

Torpedo marmorata 

Trachinus draco 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

1/1 

2/2 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/2 

0/2 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/2 

1/1 

1/2 

0/1 

1/1 

123 | P a g e  

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pelagic shelf fish 
FR, IT 

Trachyrincus scabrus 

Trigla lyra 

Zeus faber 

Cetorhinus maximus 

Engraulis encrasicolus 

Galeorhinus galeus 

Lamna nasus 

Mobula mobular 

Sarda sarda 

Scomber scombrus 

Spicara maena 

Squalus acanthias 

Thunnus thynnus 

Trachurus mediterraneus 

Xiphias gladius 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

0/1 

1/1 

0/1 

1/1 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

BKL (RO) 

Species 

Reported 
in D3 

D1C1 

D1C2 

primary 

primary 

D1C3 

I / II 

D1C4 

I / II 

D1C5 

I / II 

Coastal fish 

Neogobius melanostomus 

Demersal shelf fish 

Merlangius merlangus 

Squalus acanthias 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

1/1 

Findings:  

Use of primary and secondary criteria: Although we would expect the MS to use more the primary 
than the secondary criteria, it seems that their selection of criteria was based on the availability of 
data and methods. Most of the species have complete assessments for D1C2, but rarely estimated 
values  for  other  criteria.  No  considerable  changes  could  be  noted  across  the  regions.  In  terms  of 
absolute number of species, NEA ranked first. RO is the only BLK MS that reported electronically and 
for fish they included three species, all of them assessed for at least three criteria (D1C2, D1C3 and 
D1C4). 

Species assessments and threshold values per criterion and region: Threshold values and estimated 
values are mainly reported for abundance (D1C2).   

Assessed parameter for each species and criterion: Whenever the MS have reported values achieved, 
thresholds or both, they also provided and assessment for those parameters. A very small proportion 
of species has more than one parameter assessed (e.g., the three species reported by RO).  

Gap:  Data  gaps  exist  mainly  for  criteria  D1D5,  D1C1  and  D1C4.  Moreover,  there  are  gaps  in 
coordination at regional level for the species to be included for the assessments of each species group. 
The species reported and assessed under D3 and D1 should also be discuss and harmonised in both 
the  assessment  and  the  reporting  bearing  in  mind  that  theD1  species  should  reflect  specific 
anthropogenic pressures that go beyond fisheries, which is covered by D3.  

Recommendations for reporting: The entries analysed in this paragraph including thresholds values, 
achieved values, and assessed parameters are from the most informative in the Art. 8 reporting. The 

124 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS reported the information in a consistent way, denoting that they have a good understanding of 
the structure of the reporting and of the concepts behind it, at least for those analysed in this section. 

Recommendations for implementation: More coordination and common methods for selecting and 
assessing fish for assessment is required. The MSFD biodiversity expert network could facilitate this 
work. Better exploitation of the CFP data might increase the number of the assessed criteria. Different 
assessment  capacity  (in  terms  of  threshold  values  and  criteria)  exists  for  those  species  that  have 
dedicated monitoring programmes (e.g., some anadromous species included in the HD) and the bulk 
of species that are collected by the CFP.    

   Threshold values and parameters reported 

Objective:  This section aims to provide  an overview of the  reported threshold  values  (Table  46  to 
Table 48) and compare them with those that are developed by the RSCs other organisations (ICES, 
GFCM) and legislation (CFP).   

Data: We analyse the data reported in columns Q, R and S for threshold values and column T (Appendix 
2, Art.8 fish) for the sources of the thresholds. This information is check against the RSCs roof reports 
and the Palialexis et al. (2019) report for the harmonisation of methods to set threshold values for 
species.  

Table 46. Quantitative and qualitative (right column) reported threshold values per criterion and their sources. 

125 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
Criteria  

OSPAR  

HELCOM  

UNEPMAP 
/ GFCM  

BLK 

HD 

WFD 

CFP 

ICCAT 

ICES 

National 

Qualitative TV 

D1C1  

D1C2  

D1C3  

Evolution  of 
abundance: 
reached  if  the 
density 
time 
series  has  a 
recent  period 
stability 
of 
greater 
than 
the  previous 
period  or  if  a 
significant 
positive  trend 
observed 
is 
over  the  long 
term 
Side 
distribution 

Fishing 
mortality 

Fishing 
mortality (IE) 

Fishing 
mortality (IE) 

Mortality 
rate 

0.6: BQR-
ratio 

Abundance  50.0: 

National 
(ABU); 

0.08: 
National 
(BIOM) 

Abundance: 
Favourable 
conservation 
status  of  the 
population 

3.3: 
National / 
others (SI 
index) 

Mortality 
rate; SSB 

Mortality 
rate; biomass; 
SSB 

ABU (IE) 

Mean length 
by species; 

Tpm (RO) 

0.6: Mean 
maximum 
length 
across all 
fish species 
found in 
monitoring 
catches 
(MMLI); 

Abundance 
(IE, SI), 
Biomass  

BIOM; 
literature 
(PT) 

ABU (IE) 

MSY Btrigger 
proxy (PT) 

Biomass of 
spawning 
Stock (SSB) 
(PT) 

Mean 
Maximum 
Length 

LFI, 
size 
distribution 
(PT), 
Size 
(length) 
(IT), L% (PT)  

in 
of 

Declining 
trend 
discards 
non-
commercially 
exploited 
species (MT) 
Long term 
average 
Positive trend 
Below a 
reference 
point 
Break point 
analysis 
Median 
ICES advice 
(e.g., 2012, 
2018) 
Safe according 
to red list 
HD FCS 
River  specific 
threshold 
values 
ICES 
When biomass 
large  fish 
of 
(>50 
cm) 
constitutes  ≥ 
20%  of 
the 
total  biomass 
of fish 

(FEC), 

126 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fish 
community 
trophic 
index 
(LT) 
(for  group: 
coastal  fish 
community) 

D1C4  

D1C5  

Favourable 
conservation 
status  of  the 
distribution 
(DIST-S) 

Favourable 
state of 
conservation 
of the 
habitat 
(HAB-CON); 
Area 
Occupied 
Habitat 
Sufficient 
(HD 2019 
assessment) 

for 

the 

Above 
long-term 
average 
the species 
HD FCS 
Comparison 
with  original 
species 
distribution 
HD Favourable 
Reference 
Range 
Trend 
analysis, 
stable 
increased 
distribution  of 
biomass 

or 

127 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 47. Regional consistency in the sources of the threshold value source (default options). 

CFP  GFCM  Habitats  HELCOM 

ICCAT  National  OSPAR  WFD  MS(sub)region 

Other 

19 
2 

17 
74 

5 

20 

49 

BAL 

DE 
DK 
EE 

FI 
LT 
LV 
PL 
SE 
NEA 
BE 
DE 
DK 
ES 
FR 
IE 

NL 
PT 
SE 
MED 
ES 
FR 
IT 
MT 
SI 
BLK 

RO 

14 

21 
18 

7 

7 

3 
17 

17 

8 

3 

1 

3 

6 

6 

4 

18 

11 

62 

18 

62 

16 
11 

1 

2 

2 

59 

16 

20 

2 
21 

1 

1 

4 

4 

65 

65 

15 

11 

1 
8 
8 

Table 48. Regional consistency in the sources if the threshold value source (additional reported sources). 

ICAAT 

ICES 

ICES 
2012 

ICES 
2014 

ICES 
2018 

ICES 
WG 
BAST 

HELCOM 
BEAT 
based 
national 
application 

National  Red list and 

overall list of 
species of 
established fish 
and lampreys 
(Elasmobranchii, 
Actinopterygii & 
Petromyzontidae) 
of Germany's 
marine waters. 

Probst, W. N., 
Stelzenmuller, 
V. (2015). A 
benchmarking 
and 
assessment 
framework to 
operationalise 
ecological 
indicators 
based on time 
series 
analysis, 
Ecological 
Indicators, 55: 
94-106. 

128 | P a g e  

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
3 
3 

2 

5 

 14 

6 

1 

1 

5 

7 

7 

6 

1 

1 

8 
8 

16 

16 

2 

2 

 2 

 2 

14 

14 

BAL 

1 

1 

DE 
DK 
EE 
FI 
LT 

LV 
PL 
SE 
NEA 
BE 
DE 
DK 
ES 
FR 
IE 
NL 
PT 

SE 
MED 
ES 
FR 
MT 
IT 
SI 
BLK 

RO 

Findings: Table 46 provides an overview of the reported qualitative and quantitative threshold values 
for fish. The outcome was expected from Table 45 and shows that there is no coordination in the way 
the MS reused existing threshold values for fish. This is more evident in Table 47 and Table 48 that 
provide a regional perspective. Regarding criteria, D1C1 has very few thresholds reported for very few 
species, however  the  thresholds are  comparable  and estimated in  the same  way. D1C2 has many 
different thresholds, non-comparable, corresponding to several  parameters  (abundance, biomass), 
while a threshold for mortality ratio was reported by a MS in D1C2. While it is positive that some MS 
made use of HD thresholds, there was not consistency across MS in the cycle used and both 2013 and 
2019 HD values were reported. D1C3 has less thresholds reported compared to D1C2, but the nature 
of  this  criterion  that  allows  the  use  of  many  parameters  describing  the  population  characteristics 
resulted into different thresholds corresponding to different indicators, with no coordination at any 
level. D1C4 and D1C5 have very few reported thresholds (only one for the latter) indicating the gap in 
the development or reuse of thresholds for these two criteria. Another remarkable outcome from this 
analysis that verifies the luck of coordination (or guidelines) is the fact that the same threshold for the 
same parameter (BQR-ratio) was reported by three MS for different criteria (D1C2, D1C3 and D1C5) 
and with different sources (HELCOM, ICES, EU).      

Recommendations  for  reporting:  The  reporting  of  the  threshold  values  is  essential  and  well-
structured to provide the necessary information for a comprehensive understanding of the estimation 

129 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
of the assessments and use of the thresholds. The qualitative threshold does not add much to the 
understanding of the assessment. Hopefully, this information will be replaced by quantitative values 
in the future. 

Recommendations  for  implementation:  The  high  number  of  species  with  different  ecosystem 
functions  (from  highly  exploited  to  species  under  conservation)  should  be  better  grouped  and 
assessed to facilitate a better regional (RSC) and policy coordination (HD, CFP). The analysis shows 
that there are (at least) two distinct sources for thresholds, estimates and species sources, the HD and 
the CFP. Many gaps in methods to set threshold values were noticed for several criteria and species, 
which should be prioritised. However, depending on the species subgroups different pools of methods 
should be explored for each criterion. For instance, different methods to set thresholds are developed 
for  commercial  species  through  CFP  and  different  parameters  are  developed  for  species  that  are 
assessed by the RSCs or HD (see also Palialexis et al., 2019) for the variety of methods to set threshold 
values). The fish experts should work together at regional level and develop a common understanding 
for the use of threshold values and harmonise either the existing thresholds or develop a method to 
generate  comparable  thresholds  across  the  MSFD  regions.  Any  progress  on  thresholds  should  be 
reflected in the Art. 8 guidance.  

  Consistency of spatial coverage and assessment period 

Objective: The MS reported the assessment period for each parameter per species and criterion. We 
analysed  this  information  to  explore  potential  discrepancies  in  the  assessment  at  regional  and 
criterion  level  that  could  potentially  affect  the  comparability  and  the  consistency  in  the  final 
assessment of each parameter (Table 49).  

Data: This information is reported in column AT “assessment period” (Appendix 2, Art.8 fish).  

Table  49.  Assessment  period  per  criterion  and  region  based  on  which  the  MS  performed  the  assessment  of  their 
parameters. The numbers indicate how many reported parameters have the same assessment period per criterion. 

1993-
2017 

2000-
2018 

2002-
2016 

2007-
2017 

2008-
2015 

2010-
2015 

2011-
2016 

2011-
2017 

2012-
2016 

2012-
2017 

2012-
2018 

2013-
2017 

2016-
2017 

2016 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

13 

13 

BAL 

D1C1  

D1C2  

D1C3  

D1C4  

D1C5  

NEA 

D1C1  

D1C2  

D1C3  

D1C4  

D1C5  

MED 

D1C1  

D1C2  

D1C3  

D1C4  

44 

2 

1 

1 

44 

2 

35 

4 

2 

1 

9 

8 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

77 

79 

77 

77 

1 

1 

69 

46 

26 

26 

69 

1 

2 

21 

21 

12 

4 

149 

146 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

44 

44 

32 

32 

32 

12 

12 

12 

12 

20 

49 

56 

56 

56 

56 

1 

2 

1 

1 

130 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
D1C5  

BLK 

D1C2  

D1C3  

D1C2  

77 

1 

2 

3 

3 

Findings: There is no harmonisation in the assessment period (Table 49) of most of the parameters 
assessed for each criterion, indicating that the assessments might not be comparable and might have 
different level of uncertainty. Moreover, the 6-year assessment cycle is not reflected in the assessed 
parameters.  

Gaps: Once again the MS used what is available in terms of data, indicators, and assessments and not 
assessments adjusted to the MSFD requirements – cycle in this case. Of course, longer data set can 
provide more accurate estimates, however, in most of the periods the duration is shorter than six 
years. The different assessment periods might not provide comparable assessments and might not 
reflect the same volume of pressures to the species.     

Recommendations  for  reporting:  No  recommendation,  this  information  is  crucial  and  should  be 
remail in the report. 

Recommendations  for  implementation:  The  policy  alignment  between  MSFD,  CFP  (if  there  is  an 
agreement to use  the CFP monitoring as the main source of  data) and RSC assessment cycles that 
includes alignment of the assessment periods is crucial to reduce the burden of multiple incomparable 
and sometimes misleading assessments of the same element. Otherwise, the assessment period will 
be an additional factor added to the different parameters, methods, and thresholds, which produce 
incomparable  and  inconsistent  environmental  assessments.  The  initiatives  to  align  the  MSFD  with 
other environmental policies could use this analysis to justify the need for temporal alignment and 
methodological harmonisation across the policy obligations.   

  GES achievement or date expected to be achieved  

Objective: The MS reported for each species if it is in GES, or when they expect to achieve GES. We 
analysed the reported information to identify the proportion of species that are in GES at regional 
level and when most of the species in each species groups could be in GES according to the MS.   

Data: The information of the GES achievement or the expected date is in column AR (Appendix 2, Art.8 
fish). 

Expected Outcome: The GES achievement is the basis for the MSFD. In the structure of the reporting 
this entry corresponds to the assessment of parameters, which are integrated at the level of criterion 
and then the criteria are integrated at the level of species. Given the different methods of integration 
at both levels and the number of parameters or criteria that contributed to each assessment the final 
GES assessment/achievement might not be consistent yet. The outcome will provide a quick overview 
of the proportion of species that are in GES and the provision for the GES achievement for the species 
group.   

Table 50. GES status for fish or provisional date of GES achievement as it was reported by each MS per MSFD region.  

GES 

GES expected to be achieved 

Unknown 

131 | P a g e  

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Species groups and 
species in BAL 

achieved 

by 2020 

later than 2020 
(Art.14 exception) 

later than 2020 
(no Art.14) 

Not 
assessed/ 
Not 
relevant 

FishCoastal 

LV  

PL 

DE EE LT 

PL SE 

FishDemersalShelf 

LV PL 

FishPelagicShelf 

LV 

LV 

DE SE 

DE SE LT 

DK 

DK 

FI 

Species groups and 
species in NEA 

GES 

GES expected to be achieved 

achieved 

by 2020 

later than 2020 
(Art.14 exception) 

later than 2020 
(no Art.14) 

Not 
assessed 
/ Not 
relevant 

Unknown 

FishCoastal 

FishDeepSea 

PT 

PT 

DE IE 

SE 

DK FR 

DK PT 

BE DK ES 
FR  

FishDemersalShelf 

PT 

DE NL SE 

FishPelagicShelf 

DE SE 

PT 

DK FR 

Species groups and 
species in MED 

GES 

GES expected to be achieved 

achieved 

by 2020 

later than 2020 
(Art.14 exception) 

later than 2020 
(no Art.14) 

FishCoastal 

FishDeepSea 

FishDemersalShelf 

MT 

FishPelagicShelf 

IT 

IT 

IT 

IT 

Not 
assessed/ 
Not 
relevant 

Unknown 

SI 

ES FR 

FR 

FR 

Species groups and 
species in BS 

GES 

GES expected to be achieved 

achieved 

by 2020 

later than 2020 
(Art.14 exception) 

later than 2020 
(no Art.14) 

Not 
assessed/ 
Not 
relevant 

Unknown 

FishCoastal 

RO 

FishDemersalShelf 

RO 

Findings: Only three MS reported fish species to be in GES, two species for LV, one for RO and many 
for PT. A few more will achieve GES by 2020. The majority were reported that the GES is unknown or 
not assessed or that it will be achieved after 2020.   

132 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gap: Many gaps were noticed in data and methods, as this entry requires consideration of several 
assessments and integrations, which led to inconsistent decision for the GES achievement at species 
level. The outcome is not representative of the status of GES in the European waters for fish. The MS 
had  different  understanding  on  how  to  assess  or  report  GES  achievement  and  followed  different 
approaches,  which  unfortunately  cannot  be  deducted  by  the  reported  information.  Thus,  regional 
coordination is required for both assessment and reporting, to tackle gaps and inconsistencies.       

Recommendations  for  reporting:  The  MS  need  to  combine  assessments  of  other  criteria  and 
parameters  to  assess  the  GES  achievement.  Thus,  this  entry  which  corresponds  to  the 
species/parameter/criterion level, depending on level of the integration should be move to a higher 
level  in  the  reporting  structure.  Many  MS  conceive  GES  achievement  differently  and  reported 
inconsistent information e.g., assessment of criterion instead of species or no assessment at all, when 
the relevant parameter/criterion was not assessed.   

Recommendations  for  implementation:  This  entry  includes  information  relevant  to  the  high  level 
MSFD scope, which is the GES achievement. All the work that is related with the harmonisation of 
methodological  standards  (thresholds,  integration  rules)  can  ensure  a  consistent  and  comparable 
assessment of species in the coming cycles and achieve consistency in the MS reports. The experts 
from the MS could develop this work and their role is essential for a consistent regional assessment 
and can feed the Art. 8 guidance and test the recommendations for integration rules. Contradicted 
assessment between MSFD, RSCs, and CFP should be avoided. To this end, an agreed analogy in the 
assessments of D1 and D3 should be developed by the experts. 

5.2  Results of Art.9 analysis for D1 fish 

  GES determination levels 

Objective:  This  section  aims  to  give  an  overview  of  how  the  MS  determined  GES  and  explore 
possibilities to harmonise it.  

Data: We analysed the GES description from the MS reports at the levels that were reported (column 
I in the Art 9 spreadsheet).  

Table  51.  Level  of  GES  determination  and  examples  of  GES  description.  The  count  of  entries  correspond  to  the  total 
number  of  ecosystem  component  per  MS  and  subregion  for  which  GES  was  determined  for  D1  or  its  criteria.  This  is 
indicative of the variety of GES descriptions. In red those MS that provided GES determination to more than one levels.  

Levels 

Number of MS 

Examples 

Descriptor 

5 

DE  

CY DE DK FR IT 

The good environmental status for D1 is defined, among other things, by the 
fact that: 

... according to the WFD, the coastal waters are in a good ecological status and 
the entire coastal sea area is in a good chemical status. 

... the habitat types of Annex I (LRT 11xx) of the Habitats Directive relevant for 
the marine area of the North Sea are in a favorable state of conservation. 

... the species of Annex II of the Habitats Directive relevant for the marine area 
of the North Sea and the species of the Birds Directive relevant for the marine 
area of the North Sea are in a favorable state of conservation due to the quality 
of their food habitat. 

133 | P a g e  

 
 
 
...  the  species,  species  groups  and  habitats  in  the  Wadden  Sea  listed  in  the 
Wadden Sea Plan are in good condition. 

...  the  goals  of  individual  species  or  species  group-specific  conventions  (e.g. 
ASCOBANS, seal agreements) have been achieved. 

...  the  Ecological  Quality  Objectives  (EcoQO)  defined  by  OSPAR  have  been 
achieved. 

According  to  Commission  (EU)  2017/848,  the  following  criteria  are  used  to 
assess  the  good  environmental  status  of  D1  fish:  D1C1,  D1C2,  D1C3,  D1C4, 
D1C5. The  criteria  D1C2,  D1C4  and  D1C5  could  be  evaluated. In contrast,  an 
assessment was not yet possible for D1C1 and D1C3. 

DK Biodiversity is maintained. The quality and prevalence of habitats, as well as 
the  prevalence  and  density  of  species,  correspond  to  the  prevailing 
physiographic, geographical and climatic conditions. 

FR Biological diversity is conserved. The quality of habitats and their number, as 
well  as  the  distribution  and  abundance  of  species  are  adapted  to  existing 
physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions (Directive 2008/56 / EC). 

Demersal and pelagic: D1C2 Species abundance 

Coastal: D1C2 Species population abundance 

RO-demersal: The mortality rate per species from incidental by-catch is below 
levels which threaten the species, such that its long-term viability is ensure. The 
mortality  rate  per  species  from  incidental  by-catch  is  below  the  threshold 
values. 

DK The population density of the species is not adversely affected by man-made 
strains, so the long-term survival of the species is ensured. 

BE  The  distribution  area  and,  if  applicable,  the  distribution  pattern  of  the 
species  is  in  accordance  with  the  prevailing  physiographic,  geographical  and 
climatic conditions. 

IE Ireland has not fully achieved Good Environmental Status within its maritime 
area under criterion D1C5 - the habitat for the species has the necessary extent 
and condition to support the different stages in the life history of the species 
seabed. Of 4 stocks assessed under this criterion 2 stocks have achieved GES 
and 2 stocks have not achieved GES. 

MT commercial: The size distribution of commercially exploited species of fish 
and cephalopods, in comparison with long-term historical average, is indicative 
of healthy stocks. 

FI-coastal: Mortality of sea trout as a by-catch of net fishing is declining in each 
sea area. 

The populations of the species are not adversely affected due to anthropogenic 
pressures. Threshold values established nationally. 

3 

PL, RO, SE 

PL The population abundance of the species is not adversely affected due to 
anthropogenic pressures, such that its long-term viability is ensured. Threshold 
values established nationally. 

RO coastal: The distributional range of the species is not adversely affected due 
to  anthropogenic  pressures,  such  that  its  long-term  viability  is  ensured.  The 
distributional range of the species (%) does not decrease below threshold value. 
(RO coastal) 

134 | P a g e  

Criteria 

D1C1 

D1C2 

D1C4 

D1C5 

2 

LV SI 

4 

DK, HR, IE, RO 

3 

DK, HR, IE 

2 

BE, IE 

IE 

Species group 

MT 

D1C3 

Species 

D1C1 

Threshold 
values 

D1C2 

FI 

PL, PT 

 
 
 
D1C4 

Indicators 

D1C2 

1 

DK 

4 

BE, FI, LT, RO, MT 

SE Coastal fish species achieve GES when at least 90 % of the assessment areas 
reach  the  species-specific  threshold  values.  Demersal  and  pelagic  species 
achieve GES when at least 90 % of the species in each species group achieve 
their threshold values. Status is assessed separately for the three species groups 
coastal fish, demersal fish and pelagic fish. 

In relation to the distribution area for fish that are not exploited commercially, 
good environmental status is assessed to correspond to favorable conservation 
status under the Habitats Directive. 

BE The population density of the species is not affected by anthropogenic loads, 
thus ensuring long-term viability of the species. 

FI Fish are assessed first by  species and then by the status of the fish on the 
basis of all indicators. 

RO-demersal: The  spawning stock  abundance  of the  species  is  not  adversely 
affected  due  to  anthropogenic  pressures,  such  that  its  long-term  viability  is 
ensured.  

MT The biomass indices and the size distribution of non-commercially exploited 
species,  as  assessed  through  MEDITS  surveys,  in  comparison  with  historical 
averages, are indicative of healthy status 

D1C3 

3 

FI, NL, LT 

FI Bay of Biscay migratory pigs: the average growth of spawning mother fish is 
accelerating  and  the  proportion  of  small  individuals  in  spawning  fish  is 
declining. Fish are assessed first by species and then by the status of the fish on 
the basis of all indicators. 

NL-coastal Increase in the share of large fish in the fishing community (OSPAR 
rating) 

No 
determination 

D1C2 

SE 

SE Definition of GES at criteria level is not yet available. 

Findings: Once again the GES description was inconsistent at the level which was set and in the way it 
was  expressed. Most of the GES descriptions are qualitative  and very broad, thus  not informative 
enough  to  estimate  the  distance  from  GES.  The  few  quantitative  descriptions  are  at  the  level  of 
parameter  or  even  at  the  threshold  value  of  a  parameter,  which  is  not  indicative  for  the  GES 
determination of the species. CY, DE, DK, IT and FR provided descriptions at the level of descriptor. 
Germany used the same description for all ecosystem components with no further details. Several MS, 
like DK, provided GES determination at different levels, from criterion to descriptor. Finally, some MS 
did not provide  GES description at all, because  there are no agreed or available determination for 
species and species groups or for specific criteria. The gaps in the GES determination and the different 
levels across region did not reveal any kind of regional coordination across MS. 

Gaps: Lack of harmonisation caused by lack of common understanding and misinterpretation of the 
MSFD requirements in relation to the GES determination per Descriptor. This should be also clarified 
across the Descriptors and following the ecosystem approach to the assessment linking State with 
Impact  and  Pressures  (DPSIR).  For  instance,  when  only  three  MS  provided  GES  determination  for 
cephalopods there is not much to analyse, however the experts should consider the same analysis and 
results for other species groups that are more informative.  

135 | P a g e  

 
 
 
Recommendations for reporting: This information is crucial for the reporting. Maybe a way to break 
down the detailed description of GES that some MS provided would help to extract more information 
from  the  GES  determination,  however,  this  needs  further  discussion.  GES  description  should  be 
changed to “GES determination” as this is the only place where the MS can determine GES. The GES 
determination  should  be  linked  with  the  proper  and  agreed  level  or  levels  e.g.,  a  quantitative 
determination at species  level 70%  of the  species  within the  species  group. The  reiteration of the 
general  description  of  the  descriptor  or  criteria  from  the  GES  decision  is  not  helpful/necessary 
increasing the time of reporting.    

Recommendations for implementation: The assessment flow and the Art. 8 guidance should be the 
basis for clarifying the GES determination in a consistent way and how the GES will be reflected at the 
level of species groups indicators, criteria and species. Common integration rules and common agreed 
methods  will  bring  consistency  to  all  assessment  levels  from  parameters  to  species  groups  and 
ecosystem  components.  The  reporting  tool  should  be  developed  accordingly, 
linking  GES 
determination to the proper level, reducing and automatizing the reporting effort.   

136 | P a g e  

 
 
 
6.  Results of Art. 10 analysis  
6.1  Analysis of D1 ecosystem components 

Objective: Art. 10 was analysed as a single dataset for all D1 ecosystem components. The structure of 
the reported information and the inconsistent content did not allow the grouping of environmental 
targets at a lower level (e.g., species group or criteria). On the other hand, the analysis of all Art. 10 
entries for D1 provides a holistic view of how the MS interpreted the need of targets for the MSFD 
and how they described and set targets for D1. We analysed the reported information from 18 MS, 
since UK, EL and BG did not provide electronic reports and IT, PT did not report for Art. 10 at the time 
of the analysis. 

The analysis covers the following topics: 

- The number of targets per MS and regions or subdivisions of the regions. The outcome of this analysis 
provides an overview of how the MS reported in terms of number per region and subdivision and can 
contribute to the harmonisation of target setting, by revealing the differences and providing potential 
sources of good practices. 

- Assignment of targets to GES components and parameters. The outcome from this analysis can refine 
the reporting of target and provide input for the harmonisation of target setting across the MS. 

- The quantification of the status (new, same as 2012, modified or no longer needed) of the targets. 

- The evaluation of the targets according to their capacity to be quantified. This analysis provides an 
overview of the possible quantification of the distance to achieve GES and of monitoring the progress 
towards GES. 

- An overview of the link between reported targets and measures, and reported targets and related 
indicators. 

- An indicative/qualitative analysis of the content of the targets reported, to provide an overview of 
the level of specificity where the targets were set.  

- The reported assessment periods for the targets. We explored potential patterns in the assessment 
periods  of  the  targets  that  can  potentially  support  regional  coordination,  assuming  that  the 
assessment parameters of the target will be based on common monitoring programmes from RSCs or 
EU legislation (HD, BD CFP). 

Data: We analysed the targets reported for D1 (Art.10 xls file embedded in Appendix 2).  

137 | P a g e  

 
 
 
  Number of targets reported and their distribution across MS per region and 

subdivision 

In  total,  we  analysed  3453  targets  reported  by  18  MS.  Figure  10  presents  the  number  of  targets 
reported by the MS, where almost 80% were reported by three MS (FR, ES and DE) and almost 60% 
were reported only from ES. Of course, these three MS provide targets for two different regions, but 
still the number of the targets reported exceeds by far the average of the other 15 MS, which is 43 
targets. Figure 11 provides a complementary view showing how the reported targets are spread across 
the MSFD regions and subdivisions. The discrepancies in the number of the reported targets provides 
already some indications for the inconsistency in the content and perception of targets from the MS.   

PL, 20

RO, 25

SE, 98 SI, 49

BE, 11

MT, 9

NL, 133

LV, 12

LT, 2
IE, 112

HR, 26

FR, 310

FI, 85

CY, 24

DK, 36

DE, 419

EE, 1

ES, 2081

Figure 10. Number of targets reported for D1 per MS. 

MIC, 9

MAL, 24

MAD, 75

BLK, 25

MWE, 903

ABI, 887

ACS, 193

BAL, 389

AMA, 445

ANS, 503

Figure 11. Distribution of Art. 10 targets at regional and Subdivision scale. 

138 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Assignment of targets to GES components and parameters 

MS assigned the reported targets to GES components. We list in Table 52. The left column lists what 
the MS reported as GES components and the right column shows the number of MS reported each 
component.in the left column what the MS reported under GES component, and on the right column 
the number of MS reporting each component. The reporting guidance (European Commission, 2018) 
for this entry proposes for the GES component to report the “Descriptor or Criteria to which the target 
applies”. The MS indeed reported at Descriptor level (11 MS) and at criterion level (two to seven MS 
depending on the criterion), but they also assigned targets at the species group or pelagic habitat. 
Although it is fully acceptable and practical to split D1 to the five species groups and pelagic habitats, 
the number of MS assigned targets at the level of Descriptor, criterion or species group are varying 
from two to 11 in the best case (high level assignment to Descriptor). This is indicative of the luck of 
harmonization,  regional  coordination  and  possibly  common  understanding  for  the  Art.  10 
requirements, something that is explored in the following sections, as well. 

Table 52. The left column lists what the MS reported as GES components and the right column shows the number of MS 
reported each component. 

GES COMPONENTS 

D1 BIODIVERSITY 

D1 BIRDS 

D1 CEPHALOPODS 

D1 FISH 

D1 MAMMALS 

D1 PELAGIC HABITATS 

D1 REPTILES 

D1C1 MORTALITY RATE FROM INCIDENTAL BY-CATCH 

D1C2 POPULATION ABUNDANCE (1.2, 1.2.1) 

D1C3 POPULATION DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS (1.3, 1.3.1) 

D1C4  POPULATION  DISTRIBUTIONAL  RANGE  AND  PATTERN  (1.1,  1.1.1, 
1.1.2, 1.1.3) 
D1C5 HABITAT FOR THE SPECIES 

NUMBER  MS  REPORTED  FOR  EACH 
COMPONENT 
11 

9 

2 

8 

7 

8 

3 

7 

7 

6 

4 

2 

For each entry/target the  MS assigned a parameter from the default list (drop down menu) in the 
reporting  tool  (European  Commission,  2018).  This  information  provides  a  direct  link  between 
quantifiable, common parameters and targets. Then we summed the parameters depending on their 
relevance with the D1 GES criteria and the results are shown in Figure 12. One third of the MS indeed 
reported one of the listed parameters for each target, another third reported “other”, which in most 
of  the  cases  it  is  not  defined  or  it  is  not  quantifiable.  The  last  third  of  the  MS  did  not  assign  any 
parameter (none), in cases where the targets were qualitative or too vague to be quantified.  

139 | P a g e  

 
 
 
D1C1, 208

D1C2, 218

D1C3, 59

D1C4, 130

none, 1024

D1C5, 498

other, 1310

Figure 12. Number of targets assigned to each D1 criterion, based on the quantification of the parameters reported for 
each target. 

  Quantification of the status of the targets 

The MS reported the status of each target based on four predetermined categories in the reporting 
tool (European Commission, 2018). They determined the status of the new targets, those that were 
reported in 2012, those that were modified since 2012 and those that are not needed any more, either 
because  they  are  not  relevant  anymore  or  they  were  achieved  already  during  the  first  cycle.  In 
absolute numbers most of the targets are new, while a considerable number comes from the 2012 
definitions (Figure 13). Of course, for the reading of Figure 13 we need to consider that 80% of the 
target were reported by three MS (Figure 10). It seems that there are differences in the way the MS 
decided to reuse the targets reported in 2012, where some MS, such as DE, reported the same targets 
as in 2012 and others, such as FR, reported only new targets. It should be noted though that in the 
2012 reporting many MS did not provide targets and that the reported targets were inconsistently 
reported (Palialexis et al. 2014).  

140 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
Target no longer needed

Same as 2012 definition

New target

Modified from 2012 definition

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

NEA MED

BLK

BAL

Figure 13. Number of targets per region according to their status (targets not needed, same targets as in 2012, new targets 
and modified from the 2012 definition).  

  Evaluation of the targets according to their capacity to be quantified.  

The targets should be able to provide information about the GES achievement and to estimate how 
far we are from achieving GES. As such, the MS must assign a target value to each entry/target. We 
analysed the number of targets with reported target values to get an overview of the quantitative 
targets. From the 3453 targets that were analysed approximately 6% have target values, which were 
reported by six out of the 18 MS. It should me mentioned that many of the 6% of the targets with 
target values are either repetitive to other reporting units or other species, so the absolute number 
of values reported is much lower. It is obvious that the luck of measurable targets and joint measurable 
targets (since the six MS belong to 3 different regions) should be prioritised in the work plan of the 
WG GES. Otherwise, the contribution of Art. 10 to the MSFD implementation will remain poor in terms 
of assessing the progress of the targets and the GES achievement.   

  Overview of the link between reported targets and measures, and reported 

targets and related indicators. 

For each target, the MS reported related measures from MSFD Art. 13. Practically, this information 
indicates  which  measure  contributes  to  the  GES  achievement  through  a  quantitative  target.  The 
analysis showed that two out of the three targets are linked to at least one measure. Several target, 
though are linked to more than one measures. Bearing in mind the inconsistency and vagueness of 
the measures reported in 2016, we estimated the number of unique entries assigned to each target. 
Eventually, only 7% of the total targets have unique measures, while the majority (approximately 60%) 
have repetitions of those unique measures.  

A similar analysis was performed on the indicators that were assigned to each target. Those indicators 
were either from the RSCs or national indicators or indicators that were assigned earlier to Art.8. The 
MS reported related indicators for 30% of the reported targets. Once again, there were cases were 

141 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
more than one indicator were assigned to a target. The unique indicators reported were 4% of the 
reported targets, indicating that each indicator was repeated several times. 

  Analysis of the content of the targets reported, to provide an overview of the 

level of specificity where the targets were set. 

In the sections above, the analysis of the targets was focused on the quantification and grouping of 
the reported targets to show the vast amount of reported information and potential discrepancies 
deriving from such quantification. In this section we provide some specific descriptions of targets, the 
level that corresponds to the target according to our interpretation (left column, Table 53) and the 
GES component that was reported by the MS (right column, Table 53). First, the comparison of the 
level  and  GES  components  indicates  that  there  was  no  consistency  in  the  way  the  targets  were 
reported. Second, most of the targets are indeed too vague to be quantified. The target in the last row 
(Table 53) is one of the very few qualitative targets for which the ES provided a value. The description 
though of this target remains vague regarding the quantity to measure potential distance from GES. 
Other target descriptions are too broad regarding their scope  e.g., “Develop regulation…” (second 
target  in  Table  53).  In  other  cases,  the  description  includes  state  characteristics  (multiple  species 
groups  and  habitats),  pressures  (alteration  of  hydrographical  situation)  and  criteria  (population) 
making difficult to assign a single value or measure the progress to GES. The third target in Table 53 
exemplifies such a description.   

Table  53.  Indicative  targets  reported  at  different  level  (Descriptor,  criterion,  species  group)  and  at  different  GES 
component for D1.  

Level  

MSFD 
subregion 

Description of targets 

Reduce the main causes of mortality and decrease 
populations of non-commercial species groups at the top of 
the trophic chain (marine mammals, reptiles, seabirds, 
pelagic and demersal industries) 

GES 
component 

D1 
biodiversity 

Criterion 

ABI 

Species 
group 

ABI 

Habitat 
theme 
and 
species 
groups 

NEA 

Descriptor  BAL 

Develop regulation to prevent commercial exploitation and 
by-catches of elasmobranchs included in the annexes of 
national legislation, European Directives or applicable 
international conventions. 

D1 
biodiversity 

Changes in habitats and, in particular, habitat functions (e.g. 
spawning, nursery and feeding grounds, or migration routes 
of fish, birds and mammals) due to man-made alterations of 
the hydrographical situation do not lead, alone or 
cumulatively, to a risk to species or habitats or to the loss of 
populations respectively. 

D1 
biodiversity 

Presence, species composition of species, and size 
distribution in the fish community must make it possible to 
maintain important functions in the food web. 

D1 
Biodiversity, 
D1C2 
Population 
abundance 
(1.2, 1.2.1), 
D1C3 
Population 
demographic 
characteristics 
(1.3, 1.3.1), 

142 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
Descriptor  BAL 

Use of natural resources is sustainable and does not risk-
achieving or providing good status. 

Contribute to the further development of bird population 
assessment and the identification of key pressure factors at 
regional level 

Species 
group 

NEA 

Criterion 

NEA 

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

D1C4 
Population 
distributional 
range and 
pattern (1.1, 
1.1.1, 1.1.2, 
1.1.3) 

D1 Mammals 

D1C2 
Population 
abundance 
(1.2, 1.2.1), 
D1C3 
Population 
demographic 
characteristics 
(1.3, 1.3.1) 

D1C4 
Population 
distributional 
range and 
pattern (1.1, 
1.1.1, 1.1.2, 
1.1.3) 

Theme 
habitats 

AMA 

Ensure that human activities not significantly increase the 
affected area and physical loss of the seabed with respect to 
the anterior cycle. 

D1 
biodiversity 

  The reported assessment periods for the targets.  

We explored patterns in the assessment periods of the targets that can potentially support regional 
coordination,  assuming  that  the  assessment  parameters  of  the  target  will  be  based  on  common 
monitoring programmes from RSCs or EU legislation (HD, BD CFP).  

Table 54. Number of targets reported per region and in total with the same assessment period.  

Assessment period 

BAL 

1983-2016 
1986-2015 
1992-2014 
1994-2016 
2002-2010 
2006-2016 
2009-2018 
2010-2016 
2011-2015 
2011-2016 
2012-2010 
2012-2014 

1 

12 
230 

18 

BLK  MED  NEA  Grand 
Total 
2 
58 
47 
6 
6 
2 
70 
4 
24 
454 
6 
18 

2 
58 
47 
6 
6 
1 
70 
4 
12 
224 
6 

143 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2012-2017 
2013-2013 
2013-2017 
2013-2018 
2014 
2015 
2015-2021 
2015-2024 
2018-2024 
2020-2025 
2012-2018 
None 
Total 

1 

6 
6 

102 

11 
2 
389 

21 

3 

22 

24 

2 
40 

12 
78 
14 
17 

9 
824 
534 
416 
605 
1011  2028 

1 
25 

22 
2 
43 
22 
6 
18 
102 
14 
119 
9 
1369 
1024 
3453 

As  shown  in  Table  54  there  were  reported  numerous  assessment  period  for  the  targets,  with  no 
obvious spatial pattern (e.g., like in section 1.1.5, following the RSCs assessments or the MSFD cycle, 
like in the assessment period of criteria in Art. 8). The duration of the assessment varies as well, from 
a  single  year  in  some  cases  to  several  decades  in  others.  One  third  of  the  targets  do  not  have 
associated assessment period (none in Table 54).  

6.2  Findings and Recommendations for D1 Art. 10 
Findings: The MS reported substantial amount of information for Art. 10, and partially covered all the 
aspects  that  were  expected.  Such  as,  link  with  key  pressures,  measures,  covering  all  ecosystem 
components and all criteria, providing qualitative  targets, able  to  measure the  distance  from GES. 
However, all these aspects were covered with a remarkable diversity in the quantity and quality of the 
reported information and with no regional coordination. Ultimately and despite the vast amount of 
reported information we did not manage to map the progress of the targets towards achieving GES 
for the reported components at regional or EU level. 

Regarding the number of targets, it was striking that 80% were reported by only three MS. A common 
structure  of  GES  components,  key  pressures  and  criteria  will  rationalise  the  number  of  reported 
targets. On the other hand, several MS that reported less very few targets failed to cover all relevant 
pressures and ecosystem components to measure the progress to GES.   

The inconsistency in the way criteria, GES components and level at which the targets were assigned 
indicate that more effort is required for a common understanding and harmonisation in the reporting. 
The staff working document (European Commission 2020) provides useful guidelines for the Art. 10 
target setting that can facilitate a common understanding. However, it was under development when 
the MS reported for this cycle’s obligation. The link with measures, key pressures and indicators could 
further developed with the contribution of experts and harmonised at regional level. 

Gaps: Lack  of harmonisation  in most of the  reported entries  for Art. 10 was  caused by  the  lack  of 
common understanding and misinterpretation of the MSFD requirements in relation to measurable, 
linked with key pressures and GES related target setting. Gaps of information exist for several GES 
components as shown in  Table  52.  Lack  of regional coordination was  observed because  of lack  or 
regionally  coordinated  targets,  as  well  as  from  inconsistency  in  many  reported  entries  across 
neighbouring species.  

144 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendations for reporting: The structure of the Art. 10 report was adequate  to retrieve the 
necessary information for required by the MSFD.  The different interpretation of some entries that 
cased inconsistent reporting and incomparable entries should be solved through an Art. 10 guidance 
document rather than further clarifications in the next reporting guidance document.      

Recommendations for implementation: To improve the implementation of Art. 10 the WG GES should 
prioritise  a guidance  document  to ensure common understanding of the scope of  the  targets and 
harmonised description at harmonised hierarchical level. Moreover, regional cooperation across the 
MS  can  further  harmonise  regional  targets,  which might  be  more  relevant  for  mobile  species  and 
widely distributed key pressures. The poor link of targets with GES and the poor report of measurable 
targets is partially caused by the inconsistent GES determination, which was evident for all species 
groups. So, the harmonisation of the GES determination for Art. 9, with the contribution of experts 
and RSC can improve the Art. 10 target setting. 

7.  Conclusions 
This report highlights at the end of each section the main gaps and recommendations to facilitate the 
prioritisation  of  outstanding  issues  and  gaps  for  the  MSFD  implementation  i.e.  assessment  and 
reporting. The recommendations should support any informed decision for the future work plan of 
the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy groups, the competent authorities of the MS and the 
European Commission’s units that coordinate the MSFD and other relevant policies. In addition, the 
detailed technical information, presented in this report, on reporting progress, developed methods 
and  good  practices  overview,  mainly  targets  the  experts  that  are  involved  in  the  MSFD  species 
assessments. Considering the  outcomes  of all species groups, criteria  and regions, this last  section 
aims to provide overarching conclusions and recommendations relevant to all species groups, and to 
cross-cutting MSFD implementation processes. 

First, the remarkable effort that the MS put into this reporting obligations should be acknowledged, 
covering the majority of the requirements that an ambitious policy such as the MSFD foresees. The 
progress made in the quality and number of assessments compared to the first reporting (2012) was 
impressive, especially regarding the coordination across MS and the convergence with the developed 
MSFD concepts described in the GES Decision (European Union 2017) and other relevant documents 
(European Commission 2018, European Commission 2020). Obviously, there are still many processes 
in progress, to further harmonise assessments and monitoring. To this end, considerable work that 
was recently developed in the frame of the MSFD CIS and was not reflected in this reporting cycle, 
tackles or will contribute to tackle many of the identified gaps. As concerns the processes in progress 
falling in this category, it should be mentioned the alignment and coordination of the MSFD with the 
RSCs work programmes and the alignment of the EU environmental policies (MSFD, HD and BH). The 
recently  developed  work  on  thresholds  and  integrations  rules  will  also  contribute  to  the 
harmonisation and comparability of the MS coming assessment and reporting. The  MS’ nominated 
experts offer substantial support to these processes, especially by bridging the national scientific and 
technical work with EU and regional activities. 

The MSFD Biodiversity expert network develops tailor-made solutions and recommendation for the 
assessment and monitoring for D1, in line with the Art. 8 guidance document (Walmsley et al. 2017) 
and the requirements from the GES Decision (European Union 2017). The evaluation of the MS reports 
showed  that  the  progress  is  evident  in  the  quality  of  the  reports  and  the  in  level  of  regional 
coordination, when active groups of experts are working on particular MSFD descriptors or groups of 

145 | P a g e  

 
 
species. Such cases include for instance, the work developed by the common OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES 
working  group  on  seabirds  (JWGBIRD),  and  the  expert  groups  in  OSPAR  and  HELCOM  for  marine 
mammals. Remarkable  effort was made  by the  marine  turtle  expert group on the  development of 
common indicators, covering all concerned MS. However, this work started just after the reporting 
deadline and it is not yet reflected in this analysis. On the other hand, for species groups like fish and 
cephalopods, the MSFD work is not yet fully developed and well-coordinated with other areas (notably 
fisheries), partially explaining  the identified gaps. To conclude, during the  first MSFD cycle  the  MS 
developed the conceptual frameworks to support the MSFD implementation and now the MS’ experts 
are called to materialise  the  implementation with well-coordinated and common agreed methods 
towards comparable and robust GES assessment of the marine biological diversity. To this end the MS 
are  encouraged  to  sustain  the  work  at  the  technical  level,  providing  the  proper  support  to  their 
experts.     

Regarding MSFD Article 8, the work for marine mammals is more evolved than other species groups. 
The assessment for the birds in the south MSFD regions and for fish and cephalopods in all regions 
need to be further developed. The progress made in the development of common methods for sea 
turtles is not reflected in the reporting, as it was started after the MS assessments. The available data 
cover mostly criteria D1C2 and D1C4, however, in many cases  there  are assessments for D1C1 for 
species sensitive to by-catch (e.g., harbour porpoise) and for D1C3 for species where this criterion is 
essential  for  the  overall  assessment  of  their  status  (e.g.,  breeding  success  for  some  bird  species). 
Common  methods  for  thresholds  and  common  integration  rules  will  further  improve  the 
implementation for all species groups.  

The main source of assessed parameters for the D1 species are the HD, BD and the RSCs indicators. 
Rarely the MS reported additional assessments for species with national interest. A better exploitation 
of  the  assessed  parameters  and  indicators  from  the  RSC  and  policies  (including CFP)  and  regional 
coordination  especially  for  species  with  distribution  beyond  the  national  jurisdiction  should  be 
prioritised to ease and harmonise the MS assessment effort and reporting burden. Each species group 
and region revealed different and varied gaps in knowledge and data to achieve assess GES. The MSFD 
introduced an ecosystem approach  to management  by bringing together several criteria elements 
(species and habitats for D1) with pressures and impacts assessments deriving from other Descriptors. 
The RSCs’ assessments are indicator based, while the HD are species based, although the MS made 
mostly use of the assessed parameters, rather than reporting the status assessment of the HD species. 
It was very challenging for the MS to move from the indicator and parameter level to the species group 
GES assessment, because of the lack of agreed integration rules and harmonised GES determination. 
The harmonisation of the GES determination from Art. 9 and agreed integration rules for each level of 
integration (from Art. 8) will highly contribute to an accurate estimation of the GES achievement per 
species group and region, which is the ultimate scope of the D1 assessment.  

With regards to Article 9, MS provided substantial information for the GES determination, however, 
more work is required to develop coordinated, and quantitative GES determination at the proper level 
(criteria  and  species  groups)  associated  with  agreed  threshold  values  at  regional  level.  GES 
determination should be consistent and comparable among MS, which can be achieved with regional 
agreement,  as  required  by  the  GES  Decision  and  is  ecologically  relevant  for  the  highly  mobile  D1 
species. A harmonised GES determination could be developed at the WG GES level, or at the technical 
level. A detailed reporting guidance on the level at which GES is achieved and against which value 
could support the GES harmonisation. MS need to consistently build their GES determination on the 
concepts described in SWD(2020)62 document (European Commission, 2020) and to request expert 
advice  to  develop  guidelines  and  for  a  quantitative  GES  determination  across  descriptors.  The 

146 | P a g e  

 
guidelines for the GES determination should include the level of determination as an indication of the 
minimum  level  where  GES  should  be  achieved,  a  common/comparable  set  of  elements  and 
common/comparable  methods  to  quantify  GES.  The  technical  work  for  Art.  8  can  support  the 
harmonisation  of  the  GES  determination.  The  expert  network  has  the  capacity  to  develop 
recommendations for quantitative GES determination based on scientific sound methodologies.  

For Article 10, inconsistencies were observed on how the MS have set their targets, even at national 
level.  Targets  were  rarely  measurable  and/or  associated  with  specific  thresholds,  which  will  also 
hamper  the  assessment  of  effectiveness  of  MSFD  measures.    The  evaluation  of  the  MS  reports 
revealed  absence  of  harmonisation  and  inconsistency  in  the  number  and  content  of  the  reported 
targets across MS. It was impossible to estimate the overall progress and to visualise the link between 
measures  and  targets  for  the  GES  achievement.  Across  Descriptors,  the  experts  and  the  WG  GES 
should further elaborate the conceptual development of target setting and their use within the MSFD 
concepts related to GES assessment and GES determination (Art. 8 and 9), building on the SWD(2020) 
62 final (European Commission, 2020). 

147 | P a g e  

 
 
 
8.  References 

BSC, 2002. The Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Protocol to the Convention on the 
Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution (Bucharest Convention), Annex II and Annex IV. 

European  Commission  2020.  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. Brussels, 25.6.2020 SWD(2020) 62 final. 

European Commission, 1992. Council Directive 92 /43 /EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of 
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. L. 206/7. 

European Commission, 1999. Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity 
in the Mediterranean.  Official Journal of the European Communities, L 322, 14 December 1999. 

European Commission, 2009. Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds. L 20/7. 

European Commission, 2013. REGULATION (EU) No 1380/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
AND OF THE COUNCIL on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 
1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) 
No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. 

European  Commission,  2018.  Reporting  on  the  2018  update  of  articles  8,  9  &  10  for  the  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive. DG Environment, Brussels. pp 72 (MSFD Guidance Document 14). 

European Union 2013, ‘Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  11  December  2013  on  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  amending  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No 
1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 
639/2004, and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. Official Journal of the European Union 28.12.2013, 40 
pp. 

European Union 2017, 'Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 of 17 May 2017 laying down criteria and 
methodological  standards  on  good  environmental  status  of  marine  waters  and  specifications  and 
standardised methods for monitoring and assessment, and repealing Decision 2010/477/EU (Text with 
EEA relevance.)', Official Journal of the European Union, Volume L 125, No 43, pp: 1-32. 

European Union, 2008, 'Directive 2008/ 56/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 June 
2008  establishing  a  framework  for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy 
(Marine Strategy Framework Directive)', Official Journal of the European Union, Volume L 164, No 19, 
pp: 1-22.  

HELCOM 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic 
Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 138. 

ICES 2018a, ICES, Report of the Workshop on MSFD biodiversity of species D1 aggregation 
(WKDIVAGG), 1–4 May 2018, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2018/ACOM:47. 53 pp. 
http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2018/WKDIVExt
inct/01%20WKDIVExtinct%20Report.pdf, 2018a. 

ICES 2018b, ICES, Report of the Workshop on extinction risk of MSFD biodiversity approach 
(WKDIVExtinct), 12–15 June 2018, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2018/ACOM:48. 43pp. 

148 | P a g e  

 
 
http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2018/WKDIVExt
inct/01%20WKDIVExtinct%20Report.pdf. 

IUCN, 2017. Red List database search following specific search criteria: 
http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/link/597b4cea-40d717bd 

OSPAR, 2008. OSPAR list of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats. OSPAR Commission 
(Reference number 2008-6). 

OSPAR,  2017.  Intermediate  Assessment  2017.  Available  at:  [https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-
assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017]. 

Palialexis A., A. C. Cardoso, L. Avellan, J. Batsleer, B. Campos, D. Connor, S. Greenstreet, L. Guérin, N. 
Häubner, J. Hawkridge, P. Heslenfeld, K. Coull, J. Krause, B. Mavri, L. Miossec, M. Orlando-Bonaca, , J. 
Reker,  C.  Romao,  H.  Teixeira  and  K.  Tsiamis,  2015;  Report  of  the  JRC’s  Descriptor  1  workshop  to 
support the review of the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU concerning MSFD criteria for assessing 
Good Environmental Status; EUR 27715; doi:10.2788/162330 . 

Palialexis, A., Cardoso, A.C., Somma, F., 2018. JRC’s reference lists of MSFD species and habitats, EUR 
29125 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-80074-0, 
doi:10.2760/794186, JRC110960. 

Palialexis,  A.,  Connor,  D.,  Damalas,  D.,  Gonzalvo,  J.,  Micu,  D.,  Mitchel,  I.,  Korpinen,  S.,  Rees  A.  F, 
Somma,  F.,  2019.  Indicators  for  status  assessment  of  species,  relevant  to  MSFD  Biodiversity 
Descriptor. EUR 29820 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-
92-76-09156-1, doi:10.2760/282667, JRC117126. 

Probst N. W. and V. Stelzenmuller 2015, A benchmarking and assessment framework to 
operationalise ecological indicators based on time series analysis, Ecological Indicators, Volume 55, 
Pages 94-106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.02.035. 

Walmsley, S.F., Weiss, A., Claussen, U., Connor, D., 2017. Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 
of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Integration of assessment results. ABPmer Report No 
R.2733, produced for the European Commission, DG Environment, February 2017. 

149 | P a g e  

 
List of abbreviations and definitions 

ABI 

ACS 

AMA 

ANS 

BAL 

Atlantic Bay of Biscay 

Atlantic Celtic Sea 

Macaronesia 

Atlantic North Sea 

Baltic Sea 

BARCON 

Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the 
Mediterranean 

BD 

BS 

EC 

EU 

Birds Directive 

Black Sea 

European Commission 

European Union 

GES 

Good Environmental Status 

HELCOM 

Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area 

ICES 

MAD  

MIC 

MRU 

MS 

MSFD 

MWE  

NIS 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 

Mediterranean Adriatic Sea 

Mediterranean Ionian Sea 

Marine Reporting Unit 

Member State 

Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

Mediterranean Western Basin 

Non-indigenous species 

OSPAR 

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic 

RSC 

Regional Sea Convention 

UNEP/MAP   United Nations Environment Programme - Mediterranean Action Plan 

WDF 

Water Framework Directive 

150 | P a g e  

 
 
List of figures 

Figure 1. Percentage of MS (out of 19) reported the use of Habitats Directive 
assessments (left) and number of MS reused HD parameters criteria D1C2-D1C5 (right) 
for marine mammals in 2018 MSFD cycle for Article 8.............................................. 20 

Figure 2. Number of MS per each region using the parameters listed in Table 7. 
Duplications allowed for same MS using more parameters in the same region (example: 
ES uses D in three regions). ................................................................................. 23 

Figure 3. Number of MS per each region using the parameters listed in Table 9. 
Duplications allowed for same MS using more parameters in the same region (example: 
ES uses D in three regions). ................................................................................. 24 

Figure 4. Number of MS per each region using the parameters listed in Table 10. 
Duplications allowed for same MS using more parameters in the same region (example: 
ES uses D in three regions). ................................................................................. 25 

Figure 5. Number of MS per each region using the parameters listed in Table 11. 
Duplications allowed for same MS using more parameters in the same region (example: 
ES uses D in three regions). ................................................................................. 26 

Figure 6. Number of MS per each region using the parameters listed in Table 12. 
Duplications allowed for same MS using more parameters in the same region (example: 
ES uses D in three regions). ................................................................................. 27 

Figure 7. Number of seabird species reported by MS in the outer cycle, grouped by their 
regions (inner cycle and same colour). MS with less than 10 species are not labelled in 
the figure to improve readability. .......................................................................... 57 

Figure 8. Average number of seabird species reported per region. BAL/NEA and 
NEA/MED include those MS with jurisdiction in both areas, namely DK, DE and SE for the 
first group and FR and ES for the second, respectively. ............................................ 58 

Figure 9. Number of fish species reported by MS. .................................................. 111 

Figure 10. Number of targets reported for D1 per MS. ........................................... 137 

Figure 11. Distribution of Art. 10 targets at regional and Subdivision scale. .............. 137 

Figure 12. Number of targets assigned to each D1 criterion, based on the quantification 
of the parameters reported for each target. .......................................................... 139 

Figure 13. Number of targets per region according to their status (targets not needed, 
same targets as in 2012, new targets and modified from the 2012 definition). .......... 140 

151 | P a g e  

 
 List of tables 

Table 1. The table below presents the names and abbreviations of MSFD regions and 
subregions, as well as of Members States (MS) allocated to their respective subregion(s). 
MS highlighted in grey had not submitted an electronic report for Art. 8, 9 and 10 by the 
end of September 2020 and they were not included in the current assessment. ............ 9 

Table 2. Marine seals reported by the evaluated Member States, and their geographical 
association with the MSFD regions and subregions. In black font the species reported, in 
blue the species that should be reported because of their distribution per MS, subdivision 
and region, and in red, MS that did not provide electronic reports. Grey cells correspond 
to regions or subdivisions where the species do not occur. Missing MS from a region 
denote that species does not occur in their national water. ....................................... 11 

Table 3. Small-toothed cetaceans reported by the evaluated Member States and their 
geographical association with the MSFD regions and subregions. In black font the species 
reported, in blue the species that should be reported because of their distribution per 
MS, subdivision and region, and in red, MS that did not provide electronic reports. Grey 
cells correspond to regions or subdivisions where the species do not occur. Missing MS 
from a region denote that species does not occur in their national water. ................... 11 

Table 4. Deep-diving toothed cetaceans reported by the evaluated Member States and 
their geographical association with the MSFD regions and subregions. In black font the 
species reported, in blue the species that should be reported because of their distribution 
per MS, subdivision and region, and in red, MS that did not provide electronic reports. 
Grey cells correspond to regions or subdivisions where the species do not occur. Missing 
MS from a region denote that species does not occur in their national water. .............. 12 

Table 5. Baleen whales reported by the evaluated Member States and their geographical 
association with the MSFD regions and subregions. In black font the species reported, in 
blue the species that should be reported because of their distribution per MS, subdivision 
and region, and in red, MS that did not provide electronic reports. Grey cells correspond 
to regions or subdivisions where the species do not occur. Missing MS from a region 
denote that species does not occur in their national water. ....................................... 12 

Table 6. Element source by region and MS for D1-Mammals ..................................... 15 

Table 7. Reported threshold values and/or estimated parameters are shown for each 
species and criterion as: i) green, for those criteria with both the threshold value and the 
value achieved reported, ii) orange, when either a threshold value is available, or the 
value achieved (estimated parameter), so assessment is not complete, and iii) red, when 
neither threshold values nor values achieved are reported. The numbers reflect the MS 
that reported each criterion to allow for an overview of the usage between primary 
against secondary criteria. The bold-framed cells show the criteria of the species that 
were reported to have a final assessment (positive or negative)................................ 16 

Table 8. Parameters reported and additional information for the use of parameters in the 
reports (also includes MS which reported parameters but did not assessed them for the 
criteria).............................................................................................................. 22 

Table 9. Parameters reported and additional information for the use of parameters in the 
reports (also includes MS which reported parameters but did not assess them for the 
criteria).............................................................................................................. 23 

Table 10. Parameters reported and additional information on use of parameters in the 
reports (also includes MS which reported parameters but did not assess them for the 
criteria).............................................................................................................. 24 

Table 11.  Parameters reported (first two columns) and additional information on use of 
parameters in the reports (also includes MS which reported parameters but did not 
assess them for the criteria). ................................................................................ 26 

152 | P a g e  

 
Table 12. Parameters reported (first two columns) and additional information on use of 
parameters in the reports (also includes MS which reported parameters but did not 
assess them for the criteria). ................................................................................ 26 

Table 13. Overview of the threshold values reported and their sources per criterion and 
species group. Explanations of the parameter are given in the previous section. The 
criteria in grey font correspond to the secondary ones. ............................................ 28 

Table 14: Assessment period per criterion and region based on which the MS performed 
the assessment of their parameters. The numbers indicate how many reported 
parameters have the same assessment period per criterion. ..................................... 32 

Table 15. GES status for marine mammals or provisional date of GES achievement as it 
was reported by each MS. .................................................................................... 33 

Table 16. Integration rule type parameter for all criteria. ......................................... 36 

Table 17. Integration rule type criteria for all criteria ............................................... 37 

Table 18. Analysis of the levels of detail provided by the MS in the GES determination by 
criteria and region. .............................................................................................. 38 

Table 19. Marine turtles reported by the Member States and their geographical 
association with the MSFD regions and subdivisions................................................. 41 

Table 20. Reported threshold values and/or estimated parameters are shown for each 
species and criterion as: i) green, for those criteria with both the threshold value and the 
value achieved reported, ii) orange, when either a threshold value is available, or the 
value achieved (estimated parameter), so assessment is not complete, and iii) red, when 
neither threshold values nor values achieved are reported. The numbers reflect the MS 
that reported each criterion to allow for an overview of the usage between primary 
against secondary criteria. The bold-framed cells show the criteria of the species that 
were reported to have a final assessment (positive or negative)................................ 43 

Table 21. Overview of the reported threshold values per criterion and the assessments 
and trends that come from other policies and RSCs. Red denotes no threshold values 
agreed or reported at regional level, green denotes existing threshold values (not the 
case for marine turtles) and light green refers to thresholds reported for the Habitats 
Directive. D1C3 is a secondary criterion for marine reptiles ...................................... 44 

Table 22. GES status for marine reptiles or provisional date of GES achievement as it 
was reported by each MS. .................................................................................... 46 

Table 23. Level of GES determination and examples of GES description. The count of 
entries corresponds to the total number of ecosystem component per MS and subregion 
for which GES was determined for D1 or its criteria. This is indicative to the variety of 
GES descriptions. ................................................................................................ 49 

Table 24. Seabirds reported by the evaluated Member States and their geographical 
association with the MSFD regions and subdivisions. In blue species that were reported 
in 2012, but not in 2018 and in red species that were reported in 2012 by MS that did 
not provide e-reports in 2018 and thus were not included in the evaluation. ............... 51 

Table 25. Reported threshold values and/or estimated parameters. Green: Indicates that 
for those criteria a complete assessment has been done by comparing the threshold 
value with the value achieved. Orange: Indicates that either a threshold value is 
available, or the value achieved (estimated parameter), so assessment is not complete. 
Red: Indicates that no threshold value or value achieved are reported. The numbers 
reflect the MS that reported each criterion to allow for an overview of the primary vs. 
secondary criteria usage. The bold-framed cells show the criteria of the species that were 
reported to be assessed (positive or negative). The species in light-green cells are from 
the BD annex...................................................................................................... 59 

153 | P a g e  

 
Table 26. Overview of the threshold values reported and their sources per criterion and 
species group. The secondary criteria are in grey font colour. ................................... 66 

Table 27. Assessment period per criterion and region on which the MS performed the 
assessment of their parameters. The numbers indicate how many reported parameters 
were assessed for each period per criterion and region (in bold). BLK MS did not report 
seabird assessments. ........................................................................................... 70 

Table 28. GES status for seabirds or provisional date of GES achievement as it was 
reported by each MS............................................................................................ 71 

Table 29. Integration rules reported across parameter for all criteria ......................... 79 

Table 30. Integration rules reported across criteria .................................................. 79 

Table 31. Level of GES determination and examples of GES description. The count of 
entries correspond to the total number of ecosystem component per MS and subregion 
for which GES was determined for D1 or its criteria. The examples are indicative to the 
variety of GES descriptions. .................................................................................. 81 

Table 32. Coastal shelf cephalopods reported by the evaluated Member States and their 
geographical association with the MSFD regions and subdivisions. ............................. 86 

Table 33. Deep-sea cephalopods reported by the evaluated Member States and their 
geographical association with the MSFD regions and subdivisions. ............................. 86 

Table 34. Element source by region and MS............................................................ 87 

Table 35. Reported threshold values and/or estimated parameters. Green: Indicates that 
for those criteria a complete assessment has been done by comparing the threshold 
value with the value achieved. Orange: Indicates that either a threshold value is 
available, or the value achieved (estimated parameter), so assessment is not complete. 
Red: Indicates that no threshold value or value achieved are reported. The numbers 
reflect the MS that reported each criterion to allow for an overview of the primary vs. 
secondary criteria usage. The bold-framed cells show the criteria of the species that were 
reported to be assessed (positive or negative). ....................................................... 88 

Table 36. Overview of the threshold values reported and their sources per criterion and 
species group. .................................................................................................... 90 

Table 37. Assessment period per criterion and region based on which the MS performed 
the assessment of their parameters. The numbers indicate how many reported 
parameters have the same assessment period per criterion. ..................................... 91 

Table 38. GES status for cephalopods or provisional date of GES achievement as it was 
reported by each MS............................................................................................ 92 

Table 39. Level of GES determination and examples of GES description. The count of 
entries correspond to the total number of ecosystem component per MS and subregion 
for which GES was determined for D1 or its criteria. This is indicative to the variety of 
GES descriptions. ................................................................................................ 94 

Table 40. Coastal fish reported by the evaluated Member States and their geographical 
association with the MSFD regions and subdivisions. Green cells correspond to species 
reported under more than one fish groups. ............................................................. 97 

Table 41. Demersal shelf fish reported by the evaluated Member States and their 
geographical association with the MSFD regions and subdivisions. ........................... 101 

Table 42. Pelagic shelf fish reported by the evaluated Member States and their 
geographical association with the MSFD regions and subdivisions. ........................... 108 

Table 43. Species reported in deep shelf fish by the evaluated Member States and their 
geographical association with the MSFD regions and subdivisions. ........................... 111 

154 | P a g e  

 
Table 44. Reef associated fish reported previously by the evaluated Member States and 
their geographical association with the MSFD regions and subdivisions. ................... 111 

Table 45. Reported threshold values and/or estimated parameters are shown for each 
species and criterion as: i) green, for those criteria with both the threshold value and the 
value achieved reported, ii) orange, when either a threshold value is available, or the 
value achieved (estimated parameter), so assessment is not complete, and iii) red, when 
neither threshold values nor values achieved are reported. The numbers reflect the MS 
that reported each criterion to allow for an overview of the usage between primary 
against secondary criteria. The bold-framed cells show the criteria of the species that 
were reported to have a final assessment (positive or negative). The table also indicates 
which species were reported under D3 for the same region. ................................... 113 

Table 46. Quantitative and qualitative (right column) reported threshold values per 
criterion and their sources. ................................................................................. 124 

Table 47. Regional consistency in the sources of the threshold value source (default 
options). .......................................................................................................... 127 

Table 48. Regional consistency in the sources if the threshold value source (additional 
reported sources). ............................................................................................. 127 

Table 49. Assessment period per criterion and region based on which the MS performed 
the assessment of their parameters. The numbers indicate how many reported 
parameters have the same assessment period per criterion. ................................... 129 

Table 50. GES status for fish or provisional date of GES achievement as it was reported 
by each MS per MSFD region. ............................................................................. 130 

Table 51. Level of GES determination and examples of GES description. The count of 
entries correspond to the total number of ecosystem component per MS and subregion 
for which GES was determined for D1 or its criteria. This is indicative of the variety of 
GES descriptions. In red those MS that provided GES determination to more than one 
levels. .............................................................................................................. 132 

Table 52. The left column lists what the MS reported as GES components and the right 
column shows the number of MS reported each component. ................................... 138 

Table 53. Indicative targets reported at different level (Descriptor, criterion, species 
group) and at different GES component for D1...................................................... 141 

Table 54. Number of targets reported per region and in total with the same assessment 
period. ............................................................................................................. 142 

155 | P a g e  

 
 
 
9.  Appendix 
9.1  Appendix 1 
The  table  in  Appendix  1  provides  a  summary  of  the  essential information  reported  by  the  MS  for 
marine  mammals  to  facilitate  an  easy  comparison  and  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  information 
analysed.  

Tab. Summary of the methodology used by the MS for the assessment. 

Table legend: 

A = 

B = 

C = 
D = 

Q = 

[ ] = 

MOR/F  

Mortality by catch rate 

Mortality rate from ship collision 
Percentage of (species name) stranded with signals compatible with bycatch 

Qualitative TV 

Not specified, extracted/assumed from info provided 

156 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
Region 

Parameter 

MS 

TV source 

Threshold 
value 

Value achieved 
reported 

Trend 
defined 

Parameter 
ach. reported 

Indicator 

Assessment based on 

Q. 

only for  grey seal 

HELCOM 

OSPAR 2017 for  Grey 
seal 

ASCOBANS 

National 

HELCOM 

OSPAR 

ASCOBANS 

CMS 

1.7 

Q 

1.7 

1.7 

1.0 

National 

1.7 + Q 

Other 

Q  (1.7) 

Yes 

no 

Stable 

Unknown 

HELCOM 

Unknown 

variable 

National 

Unknown 

No 

National 

OSPAR 2017 

Unknown 

Unknown 

OSPAR 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Stable 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

HELCOM 

OSPAR 

Nat.  (SCANS/ SAMM) 

HELCOM 

OSPAR 2017 

Mammal 
groups 

s
l
a
e
S

s
n
a
e
c
a
t
e
c
d
e
h
t
o
o
t

l
l

a
m
S

BAL 

A 

BAL 

A 
Phocoena phocoena 

A 
Phocoena phocoena 

NEA 

D  
Phocoena phocoena 

FI 

DK 

FI 

SE 

BE 

DK 

NL 

FR 

ES 

ES 

FR 

ES 

ES 

MT 

RO 

ES 

OSPAR 

National 

ES-ABI 

OSPAR 

OSPAR 

1.7 

Q 

Q 

[UNEPMAP] 

Q 

National 

National 

ES-AMA 

1.0 

ES 

ES 

ES 

A 

D 

D 

A 

B 

D 

C 

D 

A, D 

D 

MED 

BLK 

NEA 

MED 

NEA 

MED 

g
n
i
v
i
d
-
p
e
e
D

d
e
h
t
o
o
t

s
n
a
e
c
a
t
e
c

n
e
e
a
B

l

l

s
e
a
h
w

Not assessed  National 

Unknown 

No 

Nat. (SCANS/ SAMM) 

- 

Unknown 

Not assessed  National 

- 

Not assessed  National 

Unknown 

Not assessed  National 

Stable 

Yes 

Unknown 

Assessed 

Unknown 

Not assessed  National 

Unknown 

No 

National 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No  

Y only some 

Unknown 

Not assessed 

No 

Unknown 

Not assessed  National 

Stable 

Not assessed  National  

Lack of data 

157 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D1C2 

Mammal 
groups 

Region 

Parameter 

MS 

Value  
achieved 
present 
no 

Trend defined 

Parameter 
assessment 
reported 

TV 
source 

TV 

HD 

HD 

10000 

National 

Q 

10000 

HELCOM 

HELCOM 

0.6 

TV 

National 

Qual. 

HD 

HD 

TV + Q 

10000 

DE 

DK 

PL 

EE 

FI 

SE 

LV 

SE 

FI 

DE 

DK 

NL-  H. grypus 

National 

NL - P. vitulina 

HD 

Q 

Q 

SE 

HELCOM 

10000 

FR (ABI, ACS) 

FR (ANS) 

SE 

DE 

DK 

FI 

DE 

DK 

ES 

NL 

-6.0 

-25.0 

-10.0 

Q. 

22000 

Q. 

OSPAR 

OSPAR 

HELCOM 

HD 

HD 

HD 

HD 

National 

Q. 

Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

no 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

yes 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Unknown 

Unknown 

parameters integrated 

unknown 

unknown 

parameters integrated 

Stable 

BAL population 

BAL population 

Stable 

Stable 

unknown 

unknown 

BAL 

NEA 

BAL 

NEA 

s
l
a
e
S

s
n
a
e
c
a
t
e
C

l
l

a
m
S

A 

C 

B 

A 

D 

E 

C 

A 

A 

Indicator 

Assessment based on 

HD + National 

National 

National 

National + HELCOM 

National 

HELCOM 

National 

National + HELCOM 

 HD  

 HD  

Integration A + C  

Integration  A + C 

HD + national 

HD  

OSPAR 

OSPAR 

National 

OSPAR 

OSPAR 

National 

HD+SCAN +National 

HD+SCANS 

 Integrated with D 

OSPAR 2013 

OSPAR 2013 

 Integrated with A 

HD 

HD 

HELCOM 2017 

HD 

HD 

Yes 

Y/N 

Yes 

Yes 

no 

no 

no 

Yes 

Yes 

Lack of data 

National 

Yes 

OSPAR 

158 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
D 

E 

A 

A 

F 

G 

F 

A 

A 

D 

D 

E 

A 

A 

MED 

NEA 
AMA 

MED 

NEA 

NEA 

MED 

p
e
e
D

l

s
e
a
h
W

ES 

HR 

MT 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

FR 

FR (ABI, ACS) 

FR (ANS) 

National 
[OSPAR?] 
OSPAR 

-0.5 + 
Q  
-5.0 

Yes 

No 

 yes 

Yes 

unknown 

unknown 

unknown 

Stable 

Yes 

yes 

National 

OSPAR 

OSPAR 

OSPAR 

 Lack of data 

Y 

2/3 sp assessed 

Q 

TV 

[UNE]  

MISTIC 
SEA 

Lit/mistic 
sea? 
Lit/mistic 
sea? 

National 
[OSPAR?] 

FR- ABI 

National 

FR- ANS 

OSPAR 

ES 

ES 

-0.5 + 
Q. 
-0.5 + 
Q. 
-0.5 + 
Q. 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

 Lack of data 

 Lack of data 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

 Lack of data 

 Lack of data 

Parameters: 

A = 

B= 

C= 

D = 

E = 

F = 

G = 

ABU  

Population growth rate 

Trend in abundance 

Relative abundance within community (short term) 

Relative abundance within community (long term) 

Abundance DS 

Abundance spatial modelling 

National 

National 

National 

National 

National 

OSPAR 

OSPAR? 

159 | P a g e  

 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[ ] = 

Q. = 

Not specified, extracted/assumed from info provided 

Qualitative threshold  

D1C3 

Sp. gr 

Reg 

BAL 

PAR 

A 

B 

B 

B 

D 

MS 

DE 

SE 

PL 

FI 

FI 

HS(D?) 

FI H.gr 

Seals 

Small 

G 

E, F 

A 

B 

B 
E, F 

A 

A 

B 

C 

D 

H, I 

R 
A 

NEA 

NEA 

MED 

LV 

SE 

DE 

NL 

SE 

SE 

DE 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

FR 

HR 

TV source 

TV 

Value 

Trend assessed 

Para assessed 

Indicator 

HD 

90.0 

Qual 

90.0 

HELCOM 

National? 

HELCOM 

0.6 

HELCOM 

40.0,35.0 

HELCOM 

HD 

OSPAR 

HELCOM 

-0.1 

90.0 

40.0,35.0 

HELCOM 

HD 

Qual 

Y 

n 

Y 

y 

y 

y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

y 

y 

y 

Unknown 

y 

y 

y 

Unknown 

Assessed together 

y 

Unknown 

Y 

Assessed together 

Y 

unknown 

unknown 

Criteria assessment 
based on 

HD 

National 

National 

National + HELCOM 

National 

Par: FEC and SUR 

HELCOM 

Unknown 

BAL 

y 

y 

n.a  

BAL 

Unknown 

HD 

Y 

BAL 

BAL 

Y 

OSPAR 

National 

National 

Not assessed 

National 

Not assessed 

some 

unknown 

Not assessed 

National 

unknown 

Not assessed 

National 

most 

unknown 

Not assessed 

National 

Qual 

no 

unknown 

y 

y 

y 

National 

y./ 

y 

HD 

Lack of data 

Lack of data 

Lack of data 

Lack of data 

Lack of data 

160 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
y 

Q 

A 

D 

C 

R 

A 

A 

D 

H, J, K 

A, B, C, 
D 
K 

A 

D 

ES 

ES 

ES 

FR 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

NEA 

MED 

NEA 

MED 

NEA-
AMA 

Deep 

Whales 

Small 

deep 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

no 

n 

n 

Only for 
K 

Un/not ass 

National 

not ass 

Unknown 

Y 

Unknown 

National 

National 

Lack of data 

Lack of data 

Lack of data 

Unknown 

Nat (for 1 species) 

Not assessed 

Lack of data 

Not assessed 

Nat (for 1 species) 

Lack of data 

Unknown 

Not assessed 

Lack of data 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

N 

N 

Not assessed 

National 

Lack of data 

Unknown 

National 

Unknown 

National 

161 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D1C4 

Sp. 
gr 

Reg 

PAR  MS 

TV 

TV source 

Value 

Trend 
assessed 

Para 
assessed 

Indicator 

Criteria 
assessment 
based on 

2 param, per 
species 

Variable by 
MRUs 
HD 
HD 

HD 
OSPAR2017 

HD 
HD 
HD 

HD 
Lack of data 
HD 

Y 

Y 

y 

y 

y 
y 
Y 
Y 
y 
y 
Y 
Y 
y 
y 
Y 
y 
y 
Baltic pop   
y 
N/A 
y 

National 

National 

National, 
HELCOM 
National, 
HELCOM 
HD 

HELCOM 
National 
National 
National 

OSPAR 
National 
National 
HD 

HD 

HD 
National 

BAL 

A 

B 

EE 

EE 

Qual. 

HELCOM 

unknown 

Y 

HELCOM 

y 

unknown 

B 

B 

FI 
H.gry 
FI 
Phoca 
DK 
B 
DE 
C 
LV 
C 
PL 
C 
SE 
C 
SE 
B 
DE 
C 
FR 
C 
SE 
C 
SE 
B 
DK 
B 
DE 
C 
DK 
B 
FI 
B 
DK 
B 
A, B, C  ES 
DE 
C 
FR-
ABI, 
ACS 
FR-
ANS 
ES 
HR 
MT 
ES 

A, C 
B 
A, C 

C 

C 

Qual. 

HELCOM  

Qual. 

National  

Qual. 
0.6 
Qual. 
Qual. 
Qual. 
Qual. 
Qual 
Qual 
Qual 

HD 
HELCOM 
National 
HELCOM 
HELCOM 
HD 
OSPAR 
HELCOM 
HELCOM 

Qual. 

HD 

Qual. 

Q 

HD 

Qual 

National 

Qual 

OSPAR 

Q 

y 

y 

Y 
Y 
Y 
unknown 
unknown 
unknown 
y 
unknown 
unknown 
unknown 
Stable 
Y 
y 

y 
Unknown/y 
y 

unknown 

unknown 

U 
Y 
U 
y 

Y 
Y 

n 
n 
y 
n 
N 
n 
Y 
y 
y 

Y 

y 

n 

n 

n 

s
l
a
e
S

s
n
a
e
c
a
t
e
C

l
l

a
m
S

NEA 

BAL 

NEA 

MED  A 

D e e p
NEA 

Y 

Y 

n/a 
Y 
n/a 
n/a 

National 

OSPAR 

OSPAR2017 

Lack of data 

National 

162 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
C 

MED  A, C 
A, C 

  NEA 

l

s
e
a
h
W

C 
MED  A 

Qual 

National 

Qual 

National 

FR 
ES 
ES 

FR 

ES 

n 
n 
n 

n 

n 

Unknown 
y 
y 

Unknown 

y 

Yes 
n/a 
n/a 

Yes 

n/a 

National 

National 

Lack of data 
Lack of data 

Lack of data 

DiC4 

Sp
. 
gr 

s
l
a
e
S

s
n
a
e
c
a
t
e
c

l
l

a
m
S

TV 
sour
ce 

HD 

HD 
HD 

HD 
HD 

HD 

HD 

Reg  PAR  MS 

TV 

Q 

Q 
Q 

Q 

Q 

17.0 

BAL 

A 

NEA 

A 

BAL 

A 

A 

B 

G 

D, E 

C 

A 

B 

NEA 

MED 

DE 
DK 
FI 
DE 

DK 

NL 
DE 
DK 
DE 
DK 
NL 
ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

HR 
ES 
ES 

Criteria 
assessme
nt based 
on 
HD 
HD 
HD 
HD 

HD 

HD 
HD 
HD 
HD 
HD 
HD 
Lack of 
data 

Value 

Trend 
assessed 

Para 
assessed 

Indicator 

N 
N 
N 
no 

No 

N 

no 
no 

yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
Unknown 
Y 
Y 
Stable 
stable 
Unknown 

some 

Unknown 

Y 
Y/u 
Y/u 

yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
no 
Y 
Unknown 
Y 
Unknown 
y 
Not 
assessed 
Not 
assessed 
Not 
assessed 
Not 
assessed 
Not 
assessed 
Y 
Y/NA 
Y/NA 

HD 

HD 

National 

HD 

HD 
National 
National 

National 

National 

National 

National 

National 

163 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
p
e
e
D

NEA 

MED 

  NEA 

l

s
e
a
h
W

MED 

MT 

ES 

ES 

ES 
ES 

ES 

ES  

A, B 

A 

D, E, 
F 
A 

B 

A 

A 

Not 
assessed 
Unknown 

Not 
assessed 

Not 
assessed 
Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 
Unknown 

y/ Unknown 

Deteriorating 

Unknown 

n 

Y 

Y 

no 

n 

National 

* 

Lack of 
data 
Lack of 
data 

Lack of 
data 
Lack of 
data 
Lack of 
data 

164 | P a g e  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.2  Appendix 2 
The spreadsheets containing the reported information on which the evaluation was based. Each 
spreadsheet (or group of spreadsheets) corresponds to Art. 8, 9 and 10 respectively. Given the size 
of the reported information and the intrinsic differences across the species groups, five 
spreadsheets were generated for the species groups corresponding to marine mammals, marine 
reptiles, seabirds, cephalopods and fish.  

-  Art. 8 reported data 

-  Art. 9 reported data 

-  Art. 10 reported data 

165 | P a g e  

Art.8 mammals.xlsxArt.8 tutrles.xlsxArt.8 Birds.xlsxArt.8 fish.xlsxArt.8 cephalopods.xlsxArt 9.xlsxArt.10.xlsx 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre 
nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:  
- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 
- by electronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

 
 
 
K
J
-

N
A
-
3
0
6
6
4
-
E
N
N

-

doi:10.2760/27700 

ISBN 978-92-76-34256-4