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 Member States reporting for the Marine Strategy’s biodiversity monitoring

This work aims to develop recommendations and propose emerging reporting requirements for the update of the monitoring programmes pursuant to MSFD Article 17. Such recommendations will enhance the consistency, comparability and coherence in the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity. The results are tailored according to the requirements of the new Commission Decision (2017/848/EU) for criteria and methodological standards to determine Good Environmental Status. The application of the risk-based approach in the European marine waters is amongst the emerging reporting requirements, being less tackled in the first MSFD cycle. The analysis goes deeper than the MSFD Art.12 evaluation performed by the European Commission (COM/2017/3; SWD/2017/1) after the Member States reporting. Its scope goes beyond the evaluation of the individual Member States performance and compliance, being focused on the technical assessment and evaluation of the reports at regional/subregional scales. The perspective of this analysis is to improve the current approach of the MSFD biodiversity Descriptors’ monitoring reports, but the conclusions are relevant to all MSFD Descriptors.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

Towards a common approach to the assessment of the environmental status of deep-sea ecosystems in areas beyond national jurisdiction

Many of the marine policy frameworks developed to protect biodiversity in deep-sea areas, including areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), include indicators to assess policy objectives. These frameworks often have specific guidance on how the indicators should be applied and interpreted. Selection of indicators is an important process and those with strong scientific underpinnings are more likely to produce the expected outcomes. We reviewed three policy and assessment frameworks which include ABNJ regions or were developed specifically for ABNJ: (1) Oslo and Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) ecosystem assessments, (2) the frameworks adopted to implement the UN General Assembly (UNGA) sustainable fisheries resolutions for the management of bottom fisheries to prevent Significant Adverse Impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems, and (3) the Aichi Biodiversity Targets adopted by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). We examined whether an assessment approach based on evaluation of Good Environmental Status (GES) under the European Union's Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), could be applied to ABNJ. We examined each MSFD descriptor for its applicability to deep-sea habitats considering the work of two European projects concluding that the MSFD could be applied to ABNJ to support OSPAR, UNGA and CBD policy objectives towards a common approach to the assessment of the status of deep-sea ecosystems in ABNJ. In achieving this we also introduce readers outside of Europe to the work conducted within the MSFD

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

Status of pelagic habitats within the EU-Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Proposals for improving consistency and representativeness of the assessment

Anthropogenic activities have transformed the pelagic habitat in the last decades with profound implications for its essential functions. While the EU-Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC and the Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 have set criteria and methodological standards for the assessment and determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) for pelagic habitats in EU waters, there is strong evidence that Member States have not yet harmonized the pelagic GES assessment across EU marine waters. Today, pelagic habitats are assessed by evaluating whether good status is achieved by each of the pelagic indicators, but this approach fails to observe the high variability of the pelagic environment. To this end, GES is not estimated at pelagic habitats scale but only for each individual indicator. This paper synthesises the latest developments on pelagic habitats assessment and identifies the main factors limiting the consistency of the assessment across Member States: i) coarse spatial and temporal scales of sampling effort as regards to the pelagic habitat dynamics, ii) little consideration of the whole range of plankton (and, to some extent, of zooplankton) size and trophic spectra, iii) lack of integrated hydro-biogeochemical and biological studies and collaboration among experts from different scientific fields, iv) limited availability of pressure-based indicators, and v) lack of integration methods of the pelagic indicators’ status for the GES determination. This analysis demonstrates the importance of maintaining a consistent sampling frequency and a spatially extensive network of stations across the gradient of anthropogenic pressures, where spatial environmental data can help objectively extrapolating field data.The authors would like to thank the Pelagic Habitats Experts, part of the MSFD Biodiversity Expert Network for the fruitful discussions on the harmonisation of the MSFD assessment and monitoring for pelagic habitats. CM, MP, JND, and AP were funded by the Joint Research Centre of Ispra (Italy). IV wishes to acknowledge support from the program “Monitoring and recording the situation of the marine sub-regions of Greece / Upgrading and functional updating of the MSFD monitoring network”, funded by national and EU funds under National Strategic Reference Framework 2014–2020 (MIS 5010880), and the European project ABIOMMED: Support coherent and coordinated assessment of biodiversity and measures across Mediterranean for the next 6-year cycle of MSFD implementation, funded by DG Environment (11.0661/2020/839620/SUB/ENV.C2), coordinator Dr. Kalliopi Pagou, HCMR.Peer reviewe

Assessing the environmental status of selected North Atlantic deep-sea ecosystems

The deep sea is the largest biome on Earth but the least explored. Our knowledge of it comes from scattered sources spanning different spatial and temporal scales. Implementation of marine policies like the European Union’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and support for Blue Growth in the deep sea are therefore hindered by lack of data. Integrated assessments of environmental status require tools to work with different and disaggregated datasets (e.g. density of deep-sea habitat-forming species, body-size distribution of commercial fishes, intensity of bottom trawling) across spatial and temporal scales. A feasibility study was conducted as part of the four-year ATLAS project to assess the effectiveness of the open-access Nested Environmental status Assessment Tool (NEAT) to assess deep-sea environmental status. We worked at nine selected study areas in the North Atlantic focusing on five MSFD descriptors (D1-Biodiversity, D3-Commercial fish and shellfish, D4-Food webs, D6-Seafloor integrity, D10-Marine litter). The objectives of the present study were to i) explore and propose indicators that could be used in the assessment of deep-sea environmental status, ii) evaluate the performance of NEAT in the deep sea, and iii) identify challenges and opportunities for the assessment of deep-sea status. Based on data availability, data quality and expert judgement, in total 24 indicators (one for D1, one for D3, seven for D4, 13 for D6, two for D10) were used in the assessment of the nine study areas, their habitats and ecosystem components. NEAT analyses revealed differences among the study areas for their environmental status ranging from “poor” to “high”. Overall, the NEAT results were in moderate to complete agreement with expert judgement, previous assessments, scientific literature on human-pressure gradients and expected management outcomes. We suggest that the assessment of deep-sea environmental status should take place at habitat and ecosystem level (rather than at species level) and at relatively large spatial scales, in comparison to shallow-water areas. Limited knowledge across space (e.g. distribution of habitat-forming species) and the scarcity of long-term data sets limit our knowledge about natural variability and human impacts in the deep sea preventing a more systematic assessment of habitat and ecosystem components in the deep sea. However, stronger cross-sectoral collaborations, the use of novel technologies and open data-sharing platforms will be critical for establishing environmental baseline indicator values in the deep sea that will contribute to the science base supporting the implementation of marine policies and stimulating Blue Growth

Technical guidance on monitoring for the Marine Stategy Framework Directive

The Marine Directors of the European Union (EU), Acceding Countries, Candidate Countries and EFTA Countries have jointly developed a common strategy for supporting the implementation of the Directive 2008/56/EC, “the Marine Strategy Framework Directive” (MSFD). The main aim of this strategy is to allow a coherent and harmonious implementation of the Directive. Focus is on methodological questions related to a common understanding of the technical and scientific implications of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. In particular, one of the objectives of the strategy is the development of non-legally binding and practical documents, such as this technical guidance on monitoring for the MSFD. These documents are targeted to those experts who are directly or indirectly implementing the MSFD in the marine regions. The document has been prepared by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC) with the contribution of experts from Member States, Regional Seas Conventions and ICES and following consultation of the Working Group on Good Environmental Status.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Descriptor 2, Non-Indigenous Species, Delivering solid recommendations for setting threshold values for non-indigenous species pressure on European seas

Marine Non-Indigenous Species (NIS) are animals and plants introduced accidently or deliberately into the European seas, originating from other seas of the globe. About 800 marine non-indigenous species (NIS) currently occur in the European Union national marine waters, several of which have negative impacts on marine ecosystem services and biodiversity. Under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Descriptor 2 (D2), EU Member States (MSs) need to consider NIS in their marine management strategies. The Descriptor D2 includes one primary criterion (D2C1: new NIS introductions), and two secondary criteria (D2C2 and D2C3). The D2 implementation is characterized by a number of issues and uncertainties which can be applicable to the Descriptor level (e.g. geographical unit of assessment, assessment period, phytoplanktonic, parasitic, oligohaline NIS, etc.), to the primary criterion D2C1 level (e.g. threshold values, cryptogenic, questionable species, etc), and to the secondary criteria D2C2 and D2C3. The current report tackles these issues and provides practical recommendations aiming at a smoother and more efficient implementation of D2 and its criteria at EU level. They constitute a solid operational output which can result in more comparable D2 assessments among MSs and MSFD regions/subregions. When it comes to the policy-side, the current report calls for a number of different categories of NIS to be reported in D2 assessments, pointing the need for the species to be labelled/categorised appropriately in the MSFD reporting by the MSs. These suggestions are proposed to be communicated to the MSFD Working Group of Good Environmental Status (GES) and subsequently to the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG) of MSFD. Moreover, they can serve as an input for revising the Art. 8 Guidelines

Non-indigenous species refined national baseline inventories : A synthesis in the context of the European Union's Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Refined baseline inventories of non-indigenous species (NIS) are set per European Union Member State (MS), in the context of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The inventories are based on the initial assessment of the MSFD (2012) and the updated data of the European Alien Species Information Network, in collaboration with NIS experts appointed by the MSs. The analysis revealed that a large number of NIS was not reported from the initial assessments. Moreover, several NIS initially listed are currently considered as native in Europe or were proven to be historical misreportings. The refined baseline inventories constitute a milestone for the MSFD Descriptor 2 implementation, providing an improved basis for reporting new NIS introductions, facilitating the MSFD D2 assessment. In addition, the inventories can help MSs in the establishment of monitoring systems of targeted NIS, and foster cooperation on monitoring of NIS across or within shared marine subregions. Highlights • Refined MSFD baseline inventories of non-indigenous species (NIS) are set in EU. • The inventories are given per EU Member State (MS) and MSFD subregion up to 2012. • The NIS lists provide a basis for reporting new NIS introductions in EU after 2012. • Our work constitutes a milestone for the MSFD Descriptor 2 implementation