1. 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

2. 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

3. 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 – yrs
Environmental and economic analysis –
2004, yrs
Monitoring 2014
Monitoring 2006
Measures 2015/16 + 6yrs
Measures 2012/15 + 6yrs
GEnS by 2010
GEcS by 2015

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

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

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

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

23. 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)??

24. Thank you for your attention !