1. In-Depth Assessment (IDA) of MS submissions for MSFD article 8, 9 & 10 compiled and presented by Nikolaos Zampoukas based on material provided by V. Tornero, A. Palialexis, E. Barbone, G. Hanke and D. Gonzalez

2. Aims of IDA Request from DG ENV as follow up of the Art 12 assessment
To evaluate comparability and coherence of methods and in particular their relation to the assessments under other frames (WFD, HD, BD, RSCs etc.)
To provide recommendations for improved implementation in the second MSFD cycle.
To support the possible revision of the COM Decision on criteria and methodological standards

3. Descriptors covered
Biodiversity, food webs and seafloor integrity - Descriptors 1, 4 & 6
Non indigenous species - Descriptor 2
Eutrophication - Descriptor 5
Contaminants - Descriptor 8 & 9
Marine litter - Descriptor 10
Energy and noise - Descriptor 11

4. 20 MS assessed
NEA (10): Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, Ireland, The Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom.
Baltic (7): Estonia, Finland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania, Latvia,
Med (6): Cyprus, Italy, Slovenia, Spain, France, Greece,
Black (2): Bulgaria, Romania
Material
Electronic spreadsheets (September 2013) & draft Art.12 reports

5. Difficulties extrapolating info from reporting sheets
heterogeneity (similar information in different cells, level of information not comparable, for some MS qualitative for others quantitative, differences between paper report and sheets)
important information missing or not adequately referenced (i.e. gray literature, national legislations, RSC documents, etc.).

6. Biodiversity D1
The Habitat Directive was considerably more often taken into account compared to other legislations and agreements but the overall level of integration is relatively low.
HELCOM and OSPAR agreements were considered by several of CPs

7. Food webs D4 Many MS considered the related CFP and ICES work
RSC agreements were considered mostly in the Baltic

8. Sea-floor integrity D6
Mostly WFD and HD have been considered but only by a third of MS
Consideration of RSC agreement was very low but higher in OSPAR countries

9. Non indigenous species
MS consider NIS as a main pressure in some regions.
By the time MS delivered their reports there was no EC legislation to cover holistically NIS. Other pieces of legislation were considered.
RSC agreements were considered mostly in the Baltic

10. Eutrophication D5
At EU level consideration of the WFD is 58% for the article 8 and 63% for the article 9 and 10. Additionally, there are just few references (but no indication on the methods or limits) on the Nitrate Directive (2 MS) and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (5 MS).
OSPAR assessment methodologies were highly considered (73%), followed by HELCOM (38%). UNEP/MAP and Black Sea Convention were considered only by few or no MS, respectively.

11. Contaminants
D8 & 9
High variability in the kind and degree of detail of provided information at Pan-European and regional level as well as in the way of presenting the data.
High variability with regard to the number and identity of contaminants for which information has been provided.
No information on a number of priority substances included in the WFD.
High variability in the matrices (water, sediments, biota) chosen to perform the assessments
The issues of biological-effects monitoring and of how to establish a cause/effect relationship have not been clearly addressed.
While oil spills are a well-known and investigated threat in marine waters, their potential impacts have received little attention.

12. Contaminants
D8 & 9
WFD EQS and the limits of the Regulation 1881/2006 for contaminants in seafood have been taken into consideration by most MS and marine regions in the initial assessments.
However, those standards have not been included in the definitions of GES and environmental targets of a significant proportion of MS.

13. Marine litter and noise
Some main findings:
Very high heterogeneity in the information provided.
Difficulties for MSs to report on the Descriptors: lack of methodologies and monitoring programs
Problematic data availability for most indicators.
Comparison of targets not possible due to their nature and lack of homogeneity.
Almost no baselines and thresholds defined.
Meanwhile guidance is already available through MSFD technical groups on Marine Litter and on Noise.

14. Marine litter D10 Marine Litter Information in Initial Assessment
Levels of pressure regarding micro-plastics considered
Levels of pressure on the coastline considered
Baselines defined for environmental targets

15. Energy/noise D 11 Energy and Noise Information in Initial Assessment
Other forms of energy (besides noise) detailed in GES
Data available on underwater noise levels
Baselines defined for environmental targets

16. Conclusions Recommendations
High heterogeneity concerning how MS interpreted articles 8, 9 & 10, how they submitted the information and how they have implemented MSFD
The required information in the reporting spreadsheets could be significantly reduced and the process could be automated by using drop-down boxes with specific options
Clear guidance is needed on how Articles 8, 9 & 10 relate to each other and with Annex III and the criteria and indicators
The IDA will be published as a JRC scientific and policy report and announced together with the Article 12 assessment.