Common Implementation Strategy
17th meeting of the
Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES)
10 March 2017
Conference Centre Albert Borschette, Rue Froissart 36, 1040 Brussels (Room 2/B)
Agenda Item: / 5b
Document: / GES_17-2017-05
Title: / Follow-up note to the 2011 Common Understanding of EU-Member States of 22 November 2011
Prepared by: / Lead DG GES
Date prepared: / 6.03.2017
Background / Marine Directors and the Regulatory Committee agreed a revision package in order to address the shortcomings of the implementation of Art. 8, 9 and 10 MSFD as reported by Member States in 2012. As part of this package the 2011 Common Understanding Document of (Initial) Assessment, Determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) and Establishment of Environmental Targets (Articles 8, 9 and 10 MSFD) (the ‘CU 2011’) should be revised.
MSCG 17 noted the recommendation of WG GES 14 on the way forward in the review/revision of the CU 2011 (MSCG 17-2015-05). Accordingly, DG GES worked to prepare a ‘CU follow-up document’ in the style of the ‘Recommendations for implementation and reporting’ so far developed by MS in the MSFD CIS process for Art. 11 and Art. 13 MSFD. This ‘CU follow-up document’ was intended to supplement the CU 2011 by providing a high-level overview with key messages and to provide an umbrella over the various guidance documents.
In the course of the drafting work, the question was raised again as to the usefulness of the approach and best use of resources. WG GES 15 consequently endorsed the following alternative approach for the ‘CU follow-up document’:
- to draft a short complementary note (the ‘CU follow-up note’) for inclusion at the front of the CU 2011 which would highlight the progress since 2011 while referring to other relevant documentation (such as the ‘cross-cutting issues' document) for this purpose.
- to use the development of guidance on Art. 8 MSFD assessments (GES 16-2016-02) for MS to draft a common understanding on the MSFD assessment processes.
DG GES developed a draft ‘CU follow-up note’ to the CU 2011 in written procedure and presented it to WG GES 16 (GES-16-2016-04). The draft ‘CU follow-up note’ includes text elements drawing on the explanatory note of the Commission services which accompanied the first draft for a revised Commission Decision on GES criteria and methodological standards, as presented to the 11th meeting of the Regulatory Committee (27 January 2016). The text elements have been adjusted to reflect the Decision on which the Art. 25 MSFD Regulatory Committee gave a positive opinion on 10 November 2016.
WG GES 16 recommended the ‘CU follow-up note’ to MSCG for inclusion and publication at the front of the 2011 Common Understanding Document, noting
- that Italy was not in a position at WG GES 16 to support the publication of the ‘CU follow-up note’;
- the final comments received prior to (Spain) and at the meeting.
An updated ‘CU follow-up note’, implementing comments received at WG GES, was circulated to WG GES members following WG GES 16 for information.
After this, the attached draft ‘CU follow-up note’
- went through a Commission services copy editing process
- was further updated to address comments submitted by Italy on 13 February 2017 in order to allow the document to go forward to MSCG.
The latest amendments are shown attached in tracked changes.
WG GES is invited to:
a. to note the updated ‘CU follow-up note’.
b. to note that, following informal Commission interservice consultation, the updated ‘CU follow-up note’ will be submitted to MSCG for endorsement.
Follow-up note to: the
2011 Common Understanding of EU-Member States of (Initial) Assessment, Determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) and Establishment of Environmental Targets (Articles 8, 9 and 10 MSFD) of 22 November 2011
The Common Understanding (CU) document Common Understanding (CU) document was endorsed by Marine Directors at their meeting on 8/9 December 2011 as a living document. The CU was intended to support EU Member States in implementing Art. 8, 9 and 10 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) on which reporting was required in 2012.
In its 2014 assessment[1] under Art. 12 MSFD of Member States’ first reports on Art. 8, 9 and 10 MSFD, the EU Commission concluded that there were important differences in the interpretation and implementation of the requirements of the MSFD in EU Member States and that more efforts were urgently needed if the Union’s marine waters are to achieve good environmental status (GES) by 2020. The Commission report identified that while Member States generally applied CommissionOM Decision 2010/477/EU, which set out criteria and methodological standards for GES, their determination of good environmental statusGES varied considerably both within marine regions or subregions and across the EU. Existing EU legislation and Regional Sea Convention standards were not systematically integrated into their strategies. A consistent determination of good environmental status, as required by the Directive, had thus not been achieved. Moreover, Member States’ determination of their good environmental statusGES often remained general, making it difficult or impossible to assess whether it has been achieved or not. Part of the problem lay in the fact that Commission Decision 2010/477/EU did not set out criteria and methodological standards in enough detail for certain descriptors.
Given the shortcomings of the implementation of Art. 8, 9 and 10 MSFD and to ensure that the next cycle of implementation of the MSFD (2018 and beyond) yields greater benefits, the Marine Strategy Coordination Group agreed a package of actions under the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) work programme 2014 and beyond Work Programme for 2014 and beyond–2020 to improve the coherence, consistency and adequacy of the Directive’s implementation, including through:
· the revision of the 2011 Common Understanding document;
· the review/revision of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU;
· the review of Annex III MSFD and its alignment with Annex I MSFD based on Art. 24(1) MSFD..
The reviews of Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD Annex III were undertaken under a mandate in 2013 of the Art. 25 MSFD Regulatory Committee. Future work on the implementation of the MSFD will require continued alignment of technical work and timelines with work in the Regional Sea Conventions.
Given different views of Member States on the interpretation implementation of the Directive, the revision of the Common Understanding document progressed with difficulties. In view of this slow progress and the need to provide guidance to the Decision review process, theEuropean Commission services developed the a document on cross-cutting issues (MSCG-17-2015-06, hereinafter the “cross-cutting issues document”) to clarify certain conceptual approaches to the implementation of the Directive in relation to Articles 8, 9 and 10. Theis ‘cross-cutting issues document provideds the basis orientative direction for Commission’s rationale behind the EU Commission’s revision of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and for the Drafting Group GES’ development of associated guidance on Art. 8 MSFD assessments. The Commission services are preparing an updated version of this document to reflect the finalised versions of the revised GES Decision and MSFD AnnexIII.
The Commission’s ‘cross-cutting issues document’ provides clarification that the concept of ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) is the starting point and end point of the Directive, as a. All operational MSFD provisions link to GES (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: The concept of ‘Good Environmental Status’ is the starting point and end point of the Directive.
GES therefore needs to be determined in a manner that allows a conclusion on whether or not GES is being achieved or maintained, or not. The Commission’s ‘cross-cutting issues document’ clarifies addresses inter alia:
- the distinct roles of Art. 9 and Art. 10 MSFD, thereby dismissing the understanding in Chapter 4 of the CU 2011.
- the role of ‘associated indicators’ under the MSFD (Art. 10 MSFD).
- the links between Art. 8 and Annex III MSFD with Art. 9 and Annex I MSFD, as well as with Art. 10 MSFD. To clarify those links, the Art. 25 MSFD Regulatory Committee adopted issued a positive opinion on a revised draft Annex III to MSFD on 10 November 2016.
- the terminology of the Directive and of the MSFD CIS process through revising the glossary of the CU 2011.
- the assessment framework and conceptual approaches for determinations of GES under under Art. 9 MSFD and assessments of whether it has been achieved or maintained under Art. 8, building on Annex 6 of the CU 2011. The assessment framework was not fully developed in the CU 2011.
- questions of geographic scales which were not fully developed in the CU 2011.
Therefore, the CU 2011 document is to be read in the light of the progress made in the EU CIS MSFD CIS process following the first reporting of EU Member States in 2012 on Art. 8, 9 and 10 MSFD, in particular in light of the revised Commission Decision on criteria and methodological standards for good environmental status on which was delivered with a positive opinion of the Art. 25 MSFD Regulatory Committee delivered a positive opinion on 10 November 2016 (the ‘new Decision’). The CU 2011 document should also be read in the light of the following supporting documentation:
- the conclusions of the EU Commission on the evaluation of the first implementation reporting on Art. 8, 9 and 10 MSFD;
- the Commission’s ‘cross-cutting issues document’,
- explanatory and supporting documentation presented by the EU Commission services to the Art. 25 MSFD Regulatory Committee in the course of the revision of COM Decision 2010/477/EU[2];
- the evolving Art. 8 MSFD assessment guidance, whose drafting started in 2016 and is developed in the context of the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy. This guidanceIt is intended to help Member States in the application of the new Decision, including agreements required under the new Decision on methodological standards, and of the conceptual assessment framework set out in the Commission’s ‘cross-cutting-issues document’.
- the Deltares report “Coherent geographic scales and aggregation rules in assessment and monitoring of Good Environmental Status – Analysis and conceptual phase. – Towards a guidance document.”
In addition, the EU Commission commissioned studies in the MSFD CIS process to support technical discussions.[3]
The general principles underlying a changed common understanding and the new Commission Decision are the following:
a. Assessment framework along pressure-related and state-related descriptors: In order to establish a clear link between the determination of a set of characteristics for good environmental status and the assessment of progress towards its achievement, the new Decision organises the criteria and methodological standards on the basis of the qualitative descriptors laid down in Annex I to MFSD. Criteria are grouped into state-related and pressure/impact-related assessment aspects according to points (a) and (b) of Article 8(1) MSFD and revised Annex III MSFD. Figure 2 provides a generic overview of the assessment framework for Art. 8(1)(a) and (b) MSFD and an integrated scheme for presenting assessment results on the (good) environmental status. To ensure a coherent implementation of the assessment framework through Regional Sea Conventions and Member States, further guidance is being will be developed at Union level in the context of the MSFD Common Implementation StrategyCIS (Article 8 MSFD assessment guidance).
b. Use of available EU standards, where appropriate: To make the determination of good environmental statusGES more effective, the new Decision supports the links of MSFD with existing Union legislation, such as the Water Framework Directive, Habitats and Birds Directives, the Common Fisheries Policy and others. Such cross-references will facilitate Member States' assessments under the MSFD, particularly by enabling assessments for other purposes to be used also for the MSFD and thereby reducing administrative burden. The cross-reference ensures greater consistency and comparability at Union level and between EU policies.
Figure 2: Integrated scheme for presenting assessment results (adapted from MSCG-17-2015-06 to the new Decision).
c. Where EU standards are not available, Member States should use or development of suitable standards for the marine region or subregion:
Where the new Decision does not set criteria, methodological standards, specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment, provision is made in the new Decision for Member States to use the ones agreed at international, regional or subregional level or to develop jointly such standards. Establishing such standards should build, where practical and appropriate, upon existing and ongoing work within , for example the Regional Sea Conventions (e.g. common/core indicator processes). This recognises the ongoing work of the Regional Sea Conventions, as provided under Article 6 MSFDof Directive 2008/56/EC. The requirement also allows for use of other regional mechanisms, such as Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs). These processes to develop regional/subregional standards are essential to ensure coherence and compatibility in the assessment of the status of the marine ecosystems and determination of GES, and should be carried out in accordance with the specifications in Article 4 of the new Decision.
Article 5 of the new Decision requires Member States to endeavour to develop these standardso so within the time-limit set for the first review of their initial assessment and determination of good environmental statusGES (i.e. by 15 July 2018). W; where this is not possible, Member States shall establish these as soon as possible thereafter, on condition that they provide justification to the Commission in the 2018 notifications pursuant to Article 9(2) or 17(3) MSFD.
d. Criteria elements: Where possible, the elements for assessment for each criterion have been more clearly specified in the new Decision (and linked to the generic elements of the revised Annex III). In some cases these refer to already existing EU lists (e.g. hazardous substances), or, alternately, provide for Member States to draw up suitable lists for the marine region or subregion, as part of the process of developing regional/subregional coherence in the implementation process. When appropriate, there is provision for a deselection procedure for elements from EU lists (provided there is a suitable justification) to allow for the regional variation in their relevance, including use of risk-based approaches. The risk-based approach should allow Member States to focus their efforts on the main elements and the main anthropogenic pressures affecting their waters.