GES under MSFD and WFD: similarities and differences Workshop on synergies and differences between MSFD and WFD How to facilitate their implementation? 18-19 June 2012 Paris David Connor & Marta Moren Abat DG Environment, Units D2 and D1 1

MSFD - Good Environmental Status (GEnS) Outline Each Directive provides a framework for determining and assessing GES MSFD - Good Environmental Status (GEnS) WFD - Good Ecological Status (GEcS) Outline general structure of each Directive Compare GEnS and GEcS Summary Key issues for discussion

General structure of each Directive MSFD (2008) WFD (2000) Marine strategy comprises elements below River Basin Management Plans 6 year cycle Initial assessment, determination of GES, environmental targets – 2012 + 6 yrs Environmental and economic analysis – 2004, 2013 + 6 yrs Monitoring 2014 Monitoring 2006 Measures 2015/16 + 6yrs Measures 2012/15 + 6yrs GEnS by 2010 GEcS by 2015

GES - similarities and differences Consider GES according to following framework: Assessment classes High-level aspiration/ambition Geographic scope Regional approach/coordination Topic scope Reporting/assessment scales Baselines and targets/threshold values Criteria, indicators Aggregation/overall assessment methods

1. Assessment classes – possible links Lower limit of target state High Good Moderate Poor Bad Good Ecological Status WFD Favourable Sub FCS Unfavourable - inadequate Unfavourable -bad HD MSFD Unimpacted state Unacceptable degree of impact Destroyed/ irrecoverable Sub GEnS Sub GEcS Favourable Conservation Status Good Environmental Status Deviation from unimpacted state Note: boundaries of status classes may not be equivalent 5

2. High-level aspiration - MSFD GES overview Definition (Art. 3.5) Ecologically diverse and dynamic seas which are clean, healthy and productive Use is at a sustainable level Fully functioning and resilient ecosystem Biodiversity decline is prevented, biodiversity is in balance and protected Hydro-morphological, physical and chemical state support above No pollution effects

MSFD GES – Annex I Descriptors No. Topic 1 Biological diversity 2 Non-indigenous species 3 Commercial fish & shellfish 4 Food-webs 5 Eutrophication 6 Sea-floor integrity 7 Hydrography 8 Contaminants 9 Contaminants in seafood 10 Litter 11 Energy, incl. underwater noise

2. High-level aspiration - WFD GES overview Purpose (Art. 1): Prevent further deterioration and protect and enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems Progressive reduction/cessation of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances/hazardous substances Protection of territorial and marine waters Environmental objectives (Art. 4) – surface waters Prevent deterioration of status Protect, enhance and restore to achieve GEcS Protect & enhance to achieve good chemical status (good ecological potential for HMWB) Specifications of GEcS in Annex V

3. Geographic scope of MSFD and WFD Marine waters: Inc. EEZs Continental Shelf areas Coastal waters (of WFD) For marine: Transitional Waters Coastal Waters (to 1nm) Source: Prescott & Schofield (2005) MSFD WFD 1nm Modified from MRAG (2012)

Used for intercalibration 4. Regional approach/coordination WFD ecoregions for Transitional and Coastal Waters Baltic Atlantic Black Used for intercalibration Regions 1, 2 & 4 aggregated Mediterranean GEcS is determined at Region level through Commission Decision Coherent and common approaches through intercalibration Achieved through CIS

MSFD regions and subregions 4. Regional approach/coordination MSFD regions and subregions Draft map 8 June 2012 Light shading are areas of non-MS waters within a region/sub-region Blue lines are Continental Shelf areas (seabed only) for IR, PT, UK White lines are sub-divisions (ES) GES is determined at Region or Subregion level (Art. 3.5) Coherent, coordinated and common approaches (Art. 5.2) Achieved through Regional Sea Conventions (Art. 6) & CIS

5. Topic scope MSFD WFD Physical & chemical characteristics Hydromorphology Chemical and physico-chemical elements Habitats & biological features (phyto+zooplankton, angiosperms, macroalgae, benthic invertebrates) Phytoplankton, aquatic flora, benthic invertebrates Birds, mammals, reptiles, fish Fish All pressures (8 main types) Pressure/risk assessment

6. Reporting/assessment scales MSFD WFD GEnS is determined at level of Marine region or subregion (by MS) GEcS is determined at EU level (in Directive) & at region level through inter-calibration Scales for assessment are determined by MS May vary by topic (e.g. could be a region, subregion, subdivision, or other area including WFD water bodies) MS-defined water bodies used as assessment units Same for all topics

HELCOM HOLAS assessment areas For use in MSFD: areas of different size inshore = WFD water body types offshore - larger areas may be aggregated for some topics

6. Assessment scale Scale affects outcome of assessments Impact Does red mean habitat is impacted – seabed and/or water column? Could assessment scales be better linked to D1? Are assessment classes fully linked to GES (quality) for relevant aspects of biodiversity? Source: OSPAR eutrophication assessment (QSR 2010) 15

7. Baselines and targets/threshold values MSFD WFD Approach No specific approach in directive, but: D1 – ‘biodiversity in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions’ D4 – ‘all elements of food webs are at normal abundance & diversity’ Art 1.2b ‘phasing out pollution’ Reference condition + sufficiently justified deviation Baseline & Targets/ GES threshold MS to define GEnS/targets – qualitative or quantitative, trend-based Regional cooperation to ensure coherence on GEnS/targets Directive provides basis for reference conditions and boundary-setting CIS & inter-calibration process to agree boundaries for different quality elements

8. Criteria, indicators MSFD WFD Specified criteria and indicators for each GES Descriptor (Commission Decision) Specified criteria in Directive and Commission Decision on Intercalibration MS to further define/add indicators Coherence of indicators via Regional Sea Conventions Indicators developed and agreed via CIS and Committee

9. Aggregation/overall assessment methods MSFD WFD Aggregation To be defined. Likely to need: Spatial aggregation (to region/subregion scale) Criteria aggregation (per descriptor or biodiversity component) Aggregation up to GES level - ??? No spatial aggregation (within or across water bodies) Criteria aggregation (per quality element) Quality element aggregation (to give water body status) Overall assessment To be defined One-out-all-out method

Summary MSFD & WFD follow same overall framework (assessment, implementation) WFD is generally more prescriptive than MSFD Need for regional coherence will drive further harmonisation in MSFD Geographical scale and topic scope are significant differences in the two Directives. Both provide an holistic approach to achieving GES/management of MS waters WFD assessments should contribute to MSFD assessments (latter typically at larger scale) Need to avoid duplication and ensure coherence on monitoring and reporting

Overall quality goals MSFD WFD HD ----FCS---- ----GEcS---- Good Very Good Favourable Good ----FCS---- Inadequate ----GEcS---- Moderate ----GEnS---- [?] Poor Bad Very poor

Overall quality goals – equivalence across policies? MSFD WFD HD Good Very Good Favourable Good ----GEnS---- ----GEcS---- ----FCS---- Moderate [?] Inadequate Poor Bad Very poor

Are we all in the same race? FR IT MSFD WFD HD Biscay West Med Adriatic

Key issues for discussion Where is harmonisation on GEnS/GEcS between MSFD and WFD desirable and possible? Aspects where harmonisation may not be feasible: Some quality elements – birds, mammals, reptiles, litter, underwater noise, commercial fish, food webs Scales of assessment (water body vs region/subregion) Aspects where harmonisation may be feasible: Agreement on equivalence of certain quality elements Agreement on certain quality levels through: Use of same baselines Use of same indicators/threshold values Proportion of assessment area to achieve the specified quality levels?? Overall assessment of reporting area (aggregation across all quality elements)??

Thank you for your attention !