JRC’s reference lists of MSFD species and habitats: MSFD reporting for Descriptors 1 and 6

JRC produced reference lists of species and habitats for the MSFD, following the recommendations listed in the COM DEC 2017/848/EU and shared them with the D1 experts, proposed by the Member States, to evaluate them. This task is part of the mandate to JRC (GES_18-2017-03) to facilitate Member States data entry in the EEA reporting web-forms, while increasing consistency and harmonization across Member States. The scope of the technical report is to describe the synthesis of the reference lists, to provide directions to the experts to evaluate and update them and to allow Member States to consult the reference lists (embedded in the document) for any future MSFD related task.JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resource

In-Depth Assessment of the EU Member States’ Submissions for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive under articles 8, 9 and 10 on Hydrographical Conditions Descriptor 7

According to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), in 2012 Member States had to report on the initial assessment of their marine waters (art. 8), on the determination of good environmental status (art. 9) and on the establishment of environmental targets and associated indicators (art. 10). At the request of DG Environment, the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission has carried out an in-depth assessment (IDA) of the reporting done by Member States. This document presents the result of this IDA for MSFD Descriptor 7 (Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems), carried out on the basis of reporting from the following Member States (MS): Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. The aims of the IDA were: i) to evaluate comparability and coherence of methods and in particular their relation to the assessments under other European and international frames and the latest scientific evidence, ii) to provide recommendations for improved implementation of the MSFD in the second cycle (2018) and iii) to support the review and the possible revision of the Commission Decision (2010/477/EU). In this IDA document, relevant issues are addressed, followed by suggestions and potential actors regarding the MSFD Descriptor 7.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Review and analysis of Member States’ 2018 reports Descriptor 1: Species biological diversity

The report analyses the information provided by the European Union’s Member States (MS) for the species theme of Descriptor 1 (D1) – species groups of birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods (relating to Descriptor 1) – of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The reported information by the MS follows the MSFD Article 17 requirement to update Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Directive, for the current 6-year MSFD reporting cycle. By September 2020, 20 MS reported on D1 in electronic format. The MS made a huge and respectable effort to fulfil the demanding requirements of an environmentally ambitious Directive like the MSFD. The second reporting obligation for Art. 8, 9 and 10 was remarkably improved compared to the 2012 reporting, especially regarding the regional coordination, the consistency in the reporting (which can be further improved) and good understanding of the reporting and assessing requirements. Regarding the species groups, marine mammals had more complete assessments and good regional coordination for the GES determination. For marine reptiles, there were no agreed methods for assessments and GES determination, and this was reflected in the poor reporting. Seabirds are well coordinated in terms of methods and assessment in the Baltic and North East Atlantic Seas, however important gaps exist in data availability in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. For fish and cephalopods reported under D1, critical gaps in assessment methods, species selection and data did not allow a comprehensive EU GES evaluation. The input from other EU policies, mostly the Habitats and Birds Directives, and the Regional Sea Conventions was critical for the improvement between the two reporting cycles. However, there is still room for aligning the EU policies and further develop regional indicators and methods towards harmonised and comparable regional GES assessments for the highly mobile species. With regards to Article 9, a general lack of harmonization in the GES determination was evident. In most cases, GES was not specified in a quantitative manner or associated to a threshold values to discriminate good from bad status. With regards to Article 10, discrepancies were observed in the way the Member States have set their targets, while many of the reported targets were not consistently assigned to the Descriptor and to the GES components. Targets were not harmonised across MS and they were rarely measurable and/or associated with specific thresholds. The present report provides recommendations for the implementation of MSFD for D1 species. As an overarching recommendation for D1 species, the GES Common Implementation Strategy should prioritise the work to harmonise the GES determination and the common understanding on how to develop quantitative GES description with agreed thresholds, which will be regionally coordinated. Although these key actions for the harmonised MSFD implementation are conceptually well developed in the GES Decision (2017/848/EU) and in the SWD(2020) 62, more should be invested to harmonise their operationalisation. This work will positively affect the target setting for Art. 10. Obviously, across the species groups, criteria and regions there are significant differences regarding the developed methodological standards for GES and data availability.JRC.D.2 - Water and Marine Resource

Marine Strategy Framework Directive – Review and analysis of EU Member States’ 2018 reports – Descriptor 6: Sea-floor integrity and Descriptor 1: Benthic habitats

The current report analyses the information provided by the European Union Member States (MS) on Themes – sea-floor integrity and benthic habitats, relating to Descriptors 6 and 1 - of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, EU 2008). The reported information by the MS follows the Article 17 requirements of the MSFD for updating Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Directive, for the last 6-year MSFD reporting cycle. By September 2020, 20 Member States reported on D6/D1 in electronic format.JRC.D.2 - Water and Marine Resource

In-Depth Assessment of the EU Member States’ Submissions for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive under articles 8, 9 and 10

According to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), in 2012 Member States had to report on the initial assessment of their marine waters (art. 8), on the determination of good environmental status (art. 9) and on the establishment of environmental targets and associated indicators (art. 10). At the request of DG Environment, the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission has carried out an in-depth assessment (IDA) of the reporting done by Member States. This document presents the result of this IDA, carried out on the basis of reporting from the following Member States (MS): Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. The aims of the IDA were: i) to evaluate comparability and coherence of methods and in particular their relation to the assessments under other European and international frames and the latest scientific evidence, ii) to provide recommendations for improved implementation of the MSFD in the second cycle (2018) and iii) to support the review and the possible revision of the Commission Decision (2010/477/EU). The IDA covers all MSFD descriptors expect D3 and D7 and is presented in six chapters (biodiversity: descriptors 1, 4 and 6; non indigenous species: descriptor 2; eutrophication: descriptor 5; contaminants: descriptor 8 and 9; marine litter: descriptor 10; underwater noise and other forms of energy: descriptor 11). This IDA presents a set of suggestions that can be pursued to strengthen the further implementation of the MSFD.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

Getting better odds: a risk-based approach for the monitoring and assessment of biodiversity within the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive

The MSFD introduced a holistic approach to the management of anthropogenic activities that impact the marine environment. The ecosystem approach to management is based on 11 qualitative and interconnected Descriptors for the Good Environmental Status of the marine environment. The implementation of the MSFD generated a dynamic across the European seas where significant resources were invested to develop new methodological standards, exploit current knowledge, and increase regional coordination for monitoring, assessing, and managing the marine environment. The risk-based approach to management can contribute to efficient economic environmental monitoring and assessment, a necessity considering the wide spatial implementation of the MSFD across the European seas. However, the implementation of such tools from numerous authorities and institutions creates the need for harmonized, transparent, and consistent applications. To this end, we developed a conceptual framework and a proof-of-concept tool, in line with the MSFD requirements, to apply the risk-based approach for the MSFD biodiversity Descriptor. The operationalization of the tool could fit to any environmental management framework, where monitoring and assessment components demand harmonization and consistency for the sake of comparability and efficiency of the assessments.JRC.D.2 - Water and Marine Resource

Alignment of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive:current state and future perspectives

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) foresees the contribution of several European Union (EU) policies to complete the ambitious assessment of ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES). For biodiversity Descriptor (D1), the contribution of the Habitat and Birds Directive (HBD) is critical considering that there is a huge overlap in species which are of the MSFDs concern, and which the HBD includes in both their assessments and well-established monitoring programmes which generate information for the Directive. The GES Decision encourages EU Member States (MS) to re-use the HBD assessments. Despite the overlaps across those policies, there is still room to improve the alignment of key concepts, timing, methodological standards for assessments, threshold values, scales, and integration rules. Moreover, the evaluation of MS’ MSFD reports revealed an inadequate exploitation of existing assessments for common species. However, MS’ justification for not fully exploiting existing Habitat Directive (HD) assessments is not always clear, raising issues concerning their suitability to the MSFD objectives. The multidimensional overlap of the MSFD and HD was explored by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) through several efforts to support the MSFD implementation. These efforts include the JRC’s work on methods to set threshold values for species, the evaluation of MS reports for the MSFD (monitoring and GES assessment), and the determination of species which are of MSFD D1 concern. This technical report collates the knowledge derived from such efforts to pave the road towards an MSFD-HD scientific, political, and technical alignment. The analysis is based on a comparison of the policy documents’ key concepts, and on a comparison of assessments and reported information from the MS.JRC.D.2 - Water and Marine Resource

Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Review and analysis of EU Member States’ 2018 reports - Descriptor 3: Commercial species

The current report analyses the information provided by the European Union Member States (MS) on Descriptor 3 (D3) – populations of commercial species - of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The reported information by the MS follows the Article 17 requirements of the MSFD for updating Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Directive, for the last 6-year MSFD reporting cycle. By September 2020, 20 MS reported on D3 in electronic format. Concerning Article 8, all reporting MS assessed the primary criterion D3C2 and 19 of them assessed the primary criterion D3C1 for at least a single element (i.e. population of a commercial species). However, only a few MS assessed the primary criterion D3C3. Nevertheless, even the more advanced criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were not assessed for the majority of reported elements indicating a significant knowledge gap. Coverage in terms of reported taxa was adequate for most MS, but improved coverage is needed by some MS, particularly in the western Mediterranean Sea. There was a gradient between MS reporting a low number of elements with most information completed, and MS reporting a large number of elements with most information missing. Additionally, we detected several issues that need to be rectified to achieve comparable assessments across MS, such as the assessment period varying significantly, gaps in reporting threshold values, threshold value sources, reported values and trends, and inconsistent integration rule types. There was also a general lack of consistency in the reporting terminology. With regards to Article 9, only half of the MS provided information on Good Environmental Status (GES) description at the Descriptor level and slightly more reported at the level of criteria. A general lack of harmonization in the GES determination was detected. In most cases, GES was not specified in a quantitative manner or in terms of threshold values. With regards to Article 10, inconsistencies were observed in the way the MS have set their targets, while many of the targets reported were not directly relevant to D3. Targets were largely not harmonised across MS and they were rarely quantitative and/or associated with specific thresholds. The present report provides recommendations for the application of D3 criteria, GES determination and on Article 10 targets.JRC.D.2 - Water and Marine Resource

Marine Strategy Framework Directive – Review and analysis of Member States’ 2018 reports – Descriptor 4: Food webs

The current report analyses the information provided by the European Union Member States (MS) on Theme – ecosystem, including food webs, relating to Descriptor 1 and 4 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The reported information by the MS follows the Article 17 requirements of the MSFD for updating Articles 8 (GES assessment), 9 (GES determination) and 10 (targets) of the Directive, for the last 6-year MSFD reporting cycle. By September 2020, 20 Member States reported on D4 in electronic format. Regarding Article 8, most of the Member States reported for the primary criteria D4C1 (trophic guild species diversity) and D4C2 (total abundance between trophic guilds) and less for the remaining two secondary ones. Additionally, we detected several issues that need to be harmonized to achieve comparable assessments across MS, such as the assessment period. Moreover, the current gaps in threshold values, threshold value sources, reported values and trends did not allow to get an overview of the GES status across Europe for food webs. Evidently, the gaps of data could not support harmonised integration rules for criteria and harmonised trophic guilds at regional or subdivision level. With regards to Article 9, a general lack of harmonization in the GES determination was detected. GES was not specified in a quantitative manner or in terms of threshold values. With regards to Article 10, inconsistencies were observed in the way the MS have set their targets, while many of the targets reported were not directly relevant to food webs. Targets were largely not harmonised across MS and they were rarely quantitative and/or associated with specific thresholds, pressures and measures. The present report provides recommendations for the application of D4 criteria, GES determination and target setting for food webs.JRC.D.2 - Water and Marine Resource

Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Review and analysis of EU Member States’ 2018 reports - Descriptor 1: Pelagic habitats

This report builds on the 6-year reporting cycle of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). It presents the main results of the European Union Member States’ (MS) reports on the Descriptor 1, criterion D1C6 – Pelagic habitats - of the MSFD. As such, it serves as reference for the progress on the pelagic habitats as for the assessment (Article 8), determination of good environmental status (Article 9), and establishment of environmental targets (Article 10). The scope of this report is to analyse and evaluate the MS reports from a technical and scientific perspective, to assess good practices and prioritise the gaps. Moreover, the recommendations address key players for improving the implementation of reporting on these articles for pelagic habitats. The findings show that environmental indicators are often used in place of criterion elements (i.e. habitat types), while also being characterized by same source but different thresholds values across marine regions. In a few reporting areas, Good Environmental Status (GES) was declared as achieved but information was lacking on how to discriminate good from not good status. To this end, environmental targets were too qualitative to suitably inform on the state to achieve GES, and to consider relevant pressures quantitatively. In order to improve the MSFD assessments for pelagic habitats, this report underscores the need to: i) cooperate between MS to harmonise the GES definition, ii) establish a coherent set of pelagic habitat types, agreed for each region and preferably across EU (equivalent to the MSFD benthic habitat types in GES Decision Table 2 and linked to EUNIS) that suitably reflect the GES of the pelagic habitat across their spatial and temporal variations, iii) set common agreed indicators to assess the state and pressures of the pelagic habitats at (sub)-region scale, and iv) develop quantitative threshold values for each indicator to allow assessment of progress towards GES.JRC.D.2 - Water and Marine Resource