The Marine Strategy Framework Directive “good environmental status”

and the Water Framework Directive “good ecological/chemical

status/potential”

ECOSTAT meeting 20 April 2009 Gert Verreet, DG Environment Unit D.2 – Marine team

GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE

MSFD: from baseline outward, + WFD coastal waters but only for issues that WFD doesn't address (possibly e.g. issues such as higher trophic levels (marine mammals, fish) or litter affecting coast) WFD: includes territorial sea for chemical status, important especially for those areas where that is the main part of MS 'marine waters' (e.g. Mediterranean Sea, no EEZs)

geographic complementarity to be respected, no intention whatsoever to complicate life on the WFD side!

Water Framework DirectiveRiver Basin Districts

Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Marine waters (light blue)in Regions and Sub-Regions

The two framework directives link up in coastal waters, where MSFD will complement WFD for

issues not covered by WFD.

NORMATIVE APPROACH

MSFD: "good" only not necessarily a simpler judgement.- "qualitative descriptors" + "criteria and methodological standards" to be defined- Status expression at level of level of (MS marine waters in) region/sub-region hence enormous importance of how to handle scale issues WFD: "good" / "moderate" boundary most important, but continuous scale approach (EQR).- "type/reference based" + "normative definitions“- Status expression at level of water body MSFD coarser, and articulation of 'good status' expression versus diversity of natural conditions not (sufficiently) extensively described.

CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGICAL STANDARDS NEED TO BE ELABORATED FAST (1)

Prior to the determination by MS of the set of characteristics that constitute 'good environmental status', an EU-wide methodological basis needs to be established ('HOW' to express GES) including the allowed criteria to judge on 'good' vs. 'non-good'. This means some results must be available by 2010…

CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGICAL STANDARDS NEED TO BE ELABORATED FAST (2)

DG ENV has asked DG JRC, DG SANCO and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to provide the scientific and technical basis for these criteria and methodological standards (with the exception of 2 descriptors, on litter and hydrographical conditions – yet to be covered)

JRC, ICES (+ SANCO) have established their own expert 'Task Groups' to deliver the basic input.COM will bring this basis into discussion with MS.

Work Division on descriptors of GES

JRC● 1- biodiversity● 2 - non-indigenous species ● 3 (co-lead) - fish populations● 5 - eutrophication● 8 – contaminants (vs. effects)

SANCO● 9 - contaminants (vs. food

standards)

ICES● 3 (co-lead) fish pop.● 4 - food web● 6 - sea-floor● 11 - energy (noise)

Not covered● 7 - hydrographics● 10 - litter

Coordination

COMMON WORK MECHANISMS BY JRC AND ICES

- similar work patterns (with JRC more reliant on inside expertise) on basis of common terms of reference.

- Task Groups to ensure coherence between them for linked issues.

- Input to Working Group on Good Environmental Status via DG ENV for structured feedback from the WG.- Working Group on Good Environmental Status to discuss first progress report from JRC and ICES (+ SANCO) at first WG meeting 14 May

CONTINUITY AND COHERENCE WITH WFD …

and other legislation Normative concepts of Birds & Habitats Directives ('favourable conservation status') and of WFD should be used further to the extent possible. (1/2)

JRC tasked (Task 2a, deliverable 2.1) specifically to examine the applicability of environmental quality elements used in the assessment of WFD coastal waters on the seaward side of the limit of those waters, and where the applicability might extend, the formulation of boundary conditions for that applicability (e.g. water depth, light conditions, habitat types). In the field of contaminants (chemicals, priority substances etc.) this is also necessary.

CONTINUITY AND COHERENCE WITH WFD …

and other legislation Normative concepts of Birds & Habitats Directives ('favourable conservation status') and of WFD should be used further to the extent possible. (1/2)

Similarly, we need to examine in the sphere of biodiversity what the continuity with concepts from Habitats Directive may mean for descriptors of good environmental status (both for species and habitat types).

OVERALL WORK EU-LEVEL MSFD SET-UP

- Marine Directors / back-to-back with Water Directors (first on 29 May)- Marine Strategy Coordination Group to hold first meeting 15 May in preparation of above, includes a range of stakeholders (20+ expressions from organisations to participate received). This will also be asked to reflect on the question of 'overall status' assessment, as the MSFD itself does not include an aggregation mechanism.

Committee: MS only

JRC/ICES/SANCO

Task groupDescriptor X

Y Z

Marine Directors

Marine Strategy Coordination Group

MS, neighbouring countries relevant international organisations,

stakeholders

Working group on good

environmental status

Working group on … information …

exchange

Maritime policy: experts, focal points

… Other relevant groups e.g. Nature Directors

COM MS RSC, … Input to WG

INITIAL STRUCTURE (2009-2010)

Work at different levels, with strong emphasis on

co-operation in « Regions »

Strategy elements

Art. 8 Art. 9 Art. 10 Art. 11 Art. 13

Initial Assessment

Determining 'good

environmental status'

Setting environmental

targets and indicators

Monitoring Programme

Programme of

Measures

National level

XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

Regional level

XX XX X ? XX X ?

EU-wide X: ‘social and economic’ aspects

XX: common criteria and

methods

X ? - X ?

XX: common reporting (data, information and knowledge sharing across countries and regions) – WISE-Marine