1. 15th meeting of MSCG, 9 February 2015, Brussels
WG GES: Decision review progress, outcomes of workshop on cross-cutting issues, next steps
European Commission
DG Environment
Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit

2. GES Decision review – progress
JRC and ICES leading technical reviews of Decision per Descriptor – started in spring 2014, supported by expert networks and/or expert workshops
Draft 'manuals' presented to WG GES (October 2014) – review of current use of Decision, initial proposals for revision of Decision and criteria (variable level of maturity)
MS comments on draft templates to end November 2014
JRC and ICES are considering comments and identifying outstanding issues
Identification of cross-cutting issues

3. Cross-cutting issues workshop - 21-22/01/2015, Copenhagen
Session themes
Integrating descriptors and other cross-cutting issues
Consistency with existing legislation and RSC methodologies
Scales and aggregation
Issues discussed in three sessions by 2 or 3 subgroups
Each subgroup discussed same issues
Aim was to draw (broad) conclusions to give direction to next phase of technical review
Also identify further issues needing more detailed work
Workshop was NOT about making decisions, but opportunity to discuss and give direction, based on current state of Decision technical review and practical experience of implementation to date

4. Integrating Descriptors
General agreement to have a more integrated approach to the biodiversity descriptors
Leads to merging of some criteria (eliminate overlaps), e.g.
for seabed habitats
for ecosystems/food webs
Assessments could be focused on following main elements:
Functional groups of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles (D1, D3)
Predominant habitats (D1, D6)
Ecosystem/food web (D1, D4)
Pressures and their impacts (D2, D5, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11 + D3.1, D6.1)

5. Ecosystem, food-webs (D1.7, D4)
10/04/2019
Assessment of specific pressures
and their impacts on ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1b)
D8/9
Assessment of ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1a) D5
Birds (D1)
Mammals (D1)
Reptiles (D1)
Fish (D1, D3.2/3)
Seabed (D1, D6)
Water column (D1)
Ecosystem, food-webs (D1.7, D4)
Other
pressures D7 D2
D11
D6.1
D10
D3.1 5

6. Use of reference lists for assessment
Existing lists (EU Directives, International conventions) are a good starting point, but do not always adequately represent the ecosystem or its pressures
For biodiversity, general preference to use ecosystem-based elements:
functional groups of birds, mammals, reptiles and fish
predominant habitat types
Need for consistent EU set of broad elements, but reflect ecological variation for (sub)region-specific lists
Specific elements should be selected as representative of functional groups and pressures
Need clear criteria for selecting (e.g. for D3 fish X% of landings) and de-selecting (e.g. species not present in MS)

7. GES – state/pressure relationship
What is 'in GES' and what is 'not in GES'?
Natural
state
Extinct/
destroyed
No pressure
Intense pressure
Good status
Level of impact acceptable
Level of pressure in sea and impact acceptable
GES boundary
GES boundary
GES boundary (pressure = proxy GES boundary)
Not good status
Level of impact not acceptable
Level of pressure in sea and impact not acceptable
State-based descriptors
D1, 3, 4, 6
Pressure-based descriptors
D2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

8. Defining GES boundaries
Use EU standards, where possible, but …
Where possible, aim to set quantitative boundaries, e.g. EQS values for contaminants
Can be single value per indicator (with a buffer)
Can be a range (e.g. maximum and minimum population sizes)
Alternatives are needed for some descriptors, e.g.:
Use of a pressure 'proxy'
Normative definitions
No further deterioration (plus trend of improvement as a target)

9. Consistency with existing legislation and RSCs methodologies
In principle, EU standards should be applied
Needs careful consideration to extend standards e.g. from coastal WFD to offshore, HBD to other species and habitats
If no EU standard, consider standards developed under RSCs e.g. common indicators with threshold values
Use and build upon the RSC work – progress especially on indicators in OSPAR and HELCOM. Indicator-based approaches in Mediterranean and the Black Sea under development

10. Harmonisation between MSFD and Habitats and Birds Directives
Overall, in favour of linking assessments for GES and FCS – possible to align criteria
A 'single assessment' for (certain) HBD species and habitats could potentially cover both directives.
Relevant for certain HBD species and habitats (e.g. those with links to RSC indicators)
FCS boundaries per criterion can vary by country – RSC indicators relevant
Many habitats and species are not covered by the HBD: extending HBD methodology needs more consideration

11. Aggregation rules between criteria
Use of One-out-all-out rule (OOAO) it is not straight forward, needs further thought
Use of integrated/multi-metric indicators may be an alternative to use of OOAO
Need to consider the purpose of assessment  information management actions (link to measures) and need to communicate progress
Guidance on aggregating per pressure-based descriptor is needed – i.e. whether OOAO is appropriate for the pressure and impact criteria associated with those descriptors
Need for agreement on approaches for pressure-based descriptors across regions

12. Example presentation of GES: commercial fish (from CFP)
(from Nov draft EEA marine baseline report)

13. Ways to express achievement of GES
Some favoured combining data for different species  community-level assessment – based on the indicators in place
Support for the expression of GES as a percentage of elements per broader biodiversity group (e.g. CFP and HBD examples of EEA baseline report)
Preliminary conclusion
Use proportion of species/ habitats/functional groups at GES within 'higher' biodiversity groups
Aim for all 'higher' biodiversity groups to be at GES
Aim for all pressure-based descriptors to be at GES

14. Assessment scales
One scale does not fit for all descriptors -> need system that addresses different scales
A HELCOM-like nested system is helpful - OSPAR is reflecting on this approach
Need to encompass administrative (national), ecological and measure aspects when defining scales
Need coherence for EU level (e.g. WISE-Marine) but flexibility per region/MS – accommodate characteristics of elements, regions and management needs

15. Follow up: issues to further develop
Cross-cutting paper
Integrated assessment of state-based descriptors
Relationship to pressure-based assessments
For D1: link to HBD assessments
Scales of assessment
Aggregation rules at descriptor level
GES Descriptor manuals
Boundaries (quantitative where possible, also others)
Reference conditions: difficult issue, indicator specific
Proposal on available lists (EU and RSCs) and their potential use in assessments
Simplification and streamlining: defining overlaps in criteria and indicators across descriptors and proposing methodological standards for streamlining descriptors
Aggregation rules below descriptor level (e.g. weighting, OOAO)
Recommendations on: i) input for possible revision of Commission Decision, ii) input for Work Programme
Common Understanding document
Issue of terminology

16. JRC workshops/correspondence
ICES workshops D3, D4, D6
Focused workshops on specific challenges that arose during the 2014 scientific review of the MSFD descriptors:
D3 - 10–12 February
D6 - 16–19 February
D4 - 24–25 February
All at ICES HQ, Copenhagen
JRC workshops/correspondence
D8/9 - working meeting of MSFD Expert Network on Contaminants: February 2015, Ispra, Italy
D10 - phone/Skype meetings, ad-hoc meeting of MSFD TG Marine litter (to be decided)
Other descriptors: exchange via
For each Descriptor, ICES is going to arrange a focused workshop on specific challenges that arose during the 2014 scientific review of the MSFD descriptors to:
a)Provide further input to the MSFD review manual following on from the initial ICES/JRC workshop and template
b) Consolidate and address relevant scientific comments and requests for clarification received from WG GES and DG ENV on the earlier version of the MSFD review manual.
c) Comment on implications for the MSFD review manual in light of the DG ENV cross-cutting workshop
The workshops will build on the previous work
The workshops will take place in ICES HQ, Copenhagen: 10–12 February (D3), 16–19 February (D6) and 24–25 February (D4)
For D10 there will be another consultation round based on the open issues identified (there was no much input from GES), also in view of the workshop outcome. Then we will proceed via a series of phone/skype meetings, or an ad hoc meeting (still to be decided).
For D8/9 we plan a dedicated meeting on 23./ (core participants set is confirmed), we distribute beforehand a questionnaire compiling the still open issues.
For all three Descriptors then a last consultation round before end of March will provide a final draft, to be sent out on 7.4. and then to be discussed in WG GES.
The TG Noise paper on energy noise descriptor (D11 criteria paper) will be presented at the next GES meeting, but not at the cross-cutting issues workshop.

17. GES Decision review - next steps
February-March 2015: consultation on revised manuals per descriptor and some meetings of expert working groups to address outstanding technical issues identified
25 March-7 April 2015: all draft documents to be circulated to WG GES
22-23 April 2015: WG GES to discuss finalisation of the technical phase and prepare progress report with recommendations for the way forward for the Committee or identify specific issues for further technical work (2016 and beyond)
5 May 2015 (tbc): Committee to review progress and discuss way forward (MSCG will be consulted as well)