The Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Interim results
1

Good Environmental Status
“Do we have a common understanding?”
• GES defined in Article 3.5 and Annex I
• Decision 2010/477/EU gives GES criteria and methodological standards
• SWP (2011) 1255 looks at the relationship between Annex III and Annex I
• 2011 Common Understanding Document sets out some aspects on how to approach setting of GES and targets
2

Descriptor
10
Descriptor
8
27%
53%
13% 7% 13% 7% 13%
20% 13%
13% 7%
13%
Descriptor
7
0%
40%
25%
13%
50%
7% 13%
75%
13% 13%
Different descriptor definition / at least 1 different criteria
Exact copy descriptor / different criteria
Different descriptor definition / exact copy criteria (COM decision)
Different descriptor definition / no criteria
Exact copy descriptor (Annex 1) / exact copy criteria (COM decision)
Exact copy descriptor (Annex 1) / no criteria
Not determined
* 100% = 15 Member States
100%

Percentage of MS which have set F and SSB at MSY levels for all stocks
4

GES state-of-play / interim conclusions (Art. 12)
• Not all MS have “determined” GES in accordance with the Directive
• Limited coherence within marine regions and no coherence across
EU
• Significant differences between GES definitions in terms of level of detail, reference to appropriate legislation or standards and use of criteria and indicators
• Confusion between Art. 9 (GES) and Art. 10 (targets), limited link to
Art. 8 (assessment)
• GES often not “measurable” – therefore, we do not know current
GES levels in the marine waters
• Monitoring and measures depend on clear and measurable GES
5

Initial Assessment
D.10
14% 29% 43%
D.8
17% 42% 33%
D.7
38% 13% 50%
0% 25% 50% 75%
Level of impact assessed using GES Determination
Level of impact assessed using various standards
Level of impact not assessed
Unclear
14%
8%
100%

Interim conclusions I.A.
- Only a small proportion of MS have used their GES determination to make a judgment on the level of impact of the relevant pressures in their initial assessment.
- For D10 and D8, a larger group of MS has used other standards to make this judgement (e.g. RSC standards)
- For D7, the relatively broad definition of GES can explain why
GES determination is more frequently used in the IA.

Planning
• 30th April deadline updated MS information
• Ongoing assessment of adequacy, consistency and coherence based on text reports and RS
• End of May first results from consultant analysis
• Summer: drafting the art 12 assessment report and country annexes
• Autumn: ISC, translation, publication
8

9

D8: Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects.
 Example 1:
Concentrations of contaminants in water, sediment, or biota are kept within agreed levels (national/EU/RSC level) and are not increasing;
The effects of contaminants on selected biological processes and taxonomic groups, where a cause/effect relationship has been established, are kept within agreed levels (national/EU/RSC levels)
 Example 2:
Contaminants concentration levels do not cause pollution, meaning in practice that less than 10% of the area under evaluation is subjected to impacts and threats to the ecosystems, i.e. positive deviations to the reference conditions established.
 Example 3:
Set of GES conditions:
Concentrations of contaminants for which a threshold is available (WFD and
OSPAR) do not exceed these thresholds;
Concentrations in biota do not increase over time;
Concentrations in top predators do not increase over time;
The effects of contaminants are assessed as insignificant.