1. Technical guidance for assessment under Article 8 MSFD
Experiences in using the guidance and way forward
WG GES co-lead Germany

2. Background Commission Decision 2017/848/EU
WG GES : Draft Guidance – testversion (Feb. 2017)
WG GES : Planning of work to follow up COM Dec
WG GES 17: Priorities for follow-up work
Ongoing work (agenda item 5a): List of elements as nomenclature for reporting, JRC proposals for work on D5 and D8, request for ICES advice on seafloor integrity, D1/D6 assessments
Questionnaire on experiences of Member States with Draft Guidance

3. Questionnaire: Use of Draft Guidance
Did you use the guidance in the preparation of your national assessment?
Did you use the guidance in relation to all or any of the descriptors or parts of them? Based on your experiences of the latest assessment, in which descriptors are you most interested in the future development of the guidance?
How useful was the guidance for your national assessment and review of GES?
Did you find the guidance easy to read and understand?
Where do you see need for improvement of the guidance in terms of contents and presentation? What are your top 3 priorities (topics) for further developing the guidance?
Responses from 8 MS:
BE, DE, DK, FR, NL, PL, RO, SE
Did you use the Guidance?

4. Use and interest in the guidance by Descriptor
Responses from 6 MS:
Overall good use
Responses depend on relevance of assessment and on maturity of assessment systems
Greatest interest in guidance development (4 MS each):
Fish
Birds
Food webs
Seafloor integrity
Hydrographical changes
Underwater noise
Followed by (3 MS each):
Benthic habitats
Eutrophication
Contaminants
Marine Litter

5. Usefulness of the guidance by Descriptor
Responses from 6 MS:
Overall positive feedback on usefulness
Responses dependent on relevance of assessment and maturity of assessment systems
Share of the 69 votes relating to guidance per Descriptor:
62% of votes: „useful“ or better
22% of votes: „not so useful“
16% of votes: „irrelevant
Greatest number of very/useful (4 MS each):
Marine mammals
Pelagic habitats
Non-indigenous species
Contaminants (D8)

6. Readability and understandability
Responses from 7 MS:
Overall good reception
Guidance useful to structure assessments

7. Suggestions for improvements and priorities
Suggestions for priorities:
In general (examples):
Balance between common methods and flexibility
Derive common view on integration and internationally agreed methods
Operationalise guidance: specific and clear recommendations
Refocus on practical approaches in line with data and knowledge availability
Include science-based references
Update guidance in light of progress
Specific issues (examples):
Assessment of benthic habitats
Using pressure criteria in biodiversity assessments
Clarify ecosystem-based assessment
Food webs
Mixed messages / levels of detail (examples):
Biodiversity topics: benthic habitats, species, food webs
Use of pressure criteria in biodiversity assessments
Combination of assessment results with habitat maps
Guidance on assessment of marine litter and underwater noise
Thresholds/integrations rules; resolving question in issues boxes; address linking activites and pressures with impacts and status in an ecosystem-based assessment
Data sources especially non-national data (RSCs, ICES, EMODnet)
Harmonisation with assessment results from other EU legislation including aggregation methodologies fit for MSFD

8. Proposal for way forward
DG GES to prepare a proposal for WG GES 20 on organising the follow-up work on COM Dec based on the clarification with JRC, ICES, MS represented in DG GES and EU Commission on
ongoing EU-level work
identified technical and overarching issues so far not addressed
issues that may arise from the latest assessment experiences
Aim:
Provide management tool for WG GES to coordinate EU-level work and priorities: who is doing what by when
Provide strategic and longer term planning with a view to 2024 (3rd reporting round on Art. 8 MSFD)
Provide suggestions for developing guidance on overarching assessment issues (e.g. risk-based approach, linking activities/pressures and impacts/status, ecosystem-based assessment). One option could be a WG GES Workshop in 2019

9. Thank you for your attention!