Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Common ...ec.europa.eu › environment › marine › eu-coast-and-marine-policy... · Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Common

1

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

Common Implementation Strategy (CIS)

Strategic document including a work programme for 2014 and beyond

"Learning the lessons and launching a re-enforced phase of implementation"

[Final version agreed by Marine Directors on 5/12/2013]

2

The Common Implementation Strategy for the Marine Strategy Framework

Directive

"Learning the lessons and launching a re-enforced phase of implementation"

(Strategic document including a work programme for 2014 and beyond)

[Final version, 5/12/2013]

1. Introduction

The Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) has supported the implementation of the Marine Strategy

Framework Directive (MSFD – 2008/56/EC) since its adoption. The CIS together with similar ways under

other directives of working between the European Commission, the Member States and other

interested parties, are recognised as a useful process to implement EU legislation and an example of

good governance at EU level.

The aim of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) is to allow, as far as possible, a coherent and

harmonious implementation of the MSFD within the EU. Implementing the MSFD is first and foremost a

Member State responsibility. Each Member State faces specific questions and challenges related to

national, regional and/or local situations and conditions, which can be resolved only by that particular

Member State. The Common Implementation Strategy is developed in full recognition of this.

Nevertheless, each Member State sits within and shares one or more marine (sub)regions and is

explicitly required by the Directive to both determine Good Environmental Status (GES) at the level of

the marine (sub)region and to work with neighbouring Member States and third countries in order to

implement the Directive and achieve GES. A common understanding and approach is therefore crucial to

successful implementation, and is required by the MSFD to not only ensure a sufficient degree of

commonality in the determination of GES but also to ensure a 'level playing field' for economic uses of

the marine environment. A common understanding also limits the risks of poor, diverse or inadequate

implementation of the Directive and of subsequent disputes and should encourage proactive and

aspirational implementation.

The Common Implementation Strategy of the MSFD has efficiently backed up the MSFD implementation

in Member States so far, and registered many successes. Now however, following completion of the first

phase of the Directive (Art. 8, 9 and 10), the MSFD enters a new, ambitious phase of implementation,

and the CIS will need to meet new challenges, while making the best possible use of existing resources in

a challenging economic climate.

This document summarises the lessons learned from the CIS and the Article 12 assessment report (so

far), sets out the future challenges and suggests possible way forward including the main areas of work

3

and activities to be carried out beyond 2013. The document is based on the outcome of the strategic

discussions at the MSCG (see Annex 2).

2. Achievements and lessons learnt

Several years of running the CIS have yielded good results. Among these, one could note for instance

that the CIS (see Annex 1 for overview):

Supported the preparation of the Decision on Good Environmental Status and developed a

number of other useful products which contributed to the good implementation of the

directive.

Created a considerable network of experts and expertise on the MSFD at EU level and

contributed to build trust and understanding on its implementation.

Worked transparently and attracted attention from numerous stakeholders.

Contributed to help MS meeting important implementation deadlines.

Some groups work well and are productive and practical. For example, TGs have made good

progress and the Project Coordination Group (PCG) offers unprecedented opportunities to

develop jointly actions that directly contribute to the concrete implementation of the Directive,

and to reaching its objectives.

In addition, the CIS has delivered results while remaining light and streamlined, with only three

permanent working groups (GES/DIKE/ESA). It has also tested successfully some ad-hoc and temporary

working structures (e.g. dedicated workshops and the task groups) which allow flexibility and reactivity.

Still, despite these important successes, a number of points now deserve attention:

Over time, the roles and responsibilities of the working groups, the MSCG and the Marine

Directors have become blurred with some discussions repeated at various levels,

Lessons have been drawn from the first major reporting exercise in 2012 and need to be

translated rapidly into action in order to improve future reporting cycles

Regional specificities need to be reflected in the work planning and the regional cooperation

including the coordination with the Regional Sea Conventions can be improved to enhance

synergies and improved sharing of work.

Some of the discussions are general or on an abstract level, too often based on lengthy

presentations (e.g. GES group looking at all descriptors and mainly based on presentations) and

other discussions may have been too detailed and technical on what is needed at EU level (e.g.

on reporting).

4

It is difficult to deal with cross-cutting issues and the groups are often too large in numbers to

have an interactive and fruitful debate.

The quality and quantity of results of meetings has been variable.

3. The next challenges of MSFD implementation

The CIS process is entering the next phase following the finalisation of the implementation of the first

phase (articles 8, 9 and 10) and the Commission is in the process of finalising its Article 12 assessment.

According to the Commission, the preliminary results of this exercise revealed a number of issues for

concern, in particular:

The majority of Member States were delayed in reporting, some as late as summer 2013.

Although this was to some extent the result of complex reporting system which ideally could

have been available earlier, it is a matter of concern, in particular, for the implementation of

Article 9 and 10.

The approaches of Member States are very different; coordination within the Regional Sea

Conventions did not yet ensure a sufficient level of coherence and comparability.

While some time lag is inevitable, the information reported often related to past assessments

and methodologies as they existed (well) before 2012. In the meantime, it appears, many

Member States reports (especially on Art. 9 and 10) may be outdated because newer work is

being undertaken on these issues within the Regional Sea Conventions (e.g. in OSPAR and

HELCOM).

In this next phase the CIS process is facing the following additional implementation challenges:

The calendar of MSFD implementation is ambitious, especially as it must integrate the need for

regional cooperation and coherence across borders.

The MSFD addresses a complex, multi-dimensional and changing subject matter (the marine

environment), where diverse possible solutions to scientific, technical and practical issues exist.

MS, RSCs and the Commission may have a different understanding of MSFD provisions.

More dialogue is needed on different levels (e.g. EU, RSC) in order to jointly define good

environmental status taking into account the requirements of the MSFD that this definition is

ultimately the responsibility of Member States.

The interaction with other policies is complex. More discussions and decisions are needed to be

able to benefit from other policies and legislations and avoid duplication.

Capacity must be built at various levels in parallel to the implementation of the MSFD and the

still incomplete technical and scientific basis must be improved. This is true especially on a

5

number of fundamental issues in the Annexes (in particular I and III) and in the GES Decision

(2010/477/EU), which need to be further elaborated to make the transition from principles and

general definitions to practical implementation successful;

Today, in addition:

The MSFD enters in its decisive phase. The monitoring programmes and the programme of

measures will have to be prepared within a short timeframe.

Member States and the European Commission must deliver on the ambitious objectives of the

MSFD with limited resources and increased efficiency.

The 2020 deadline for GES is getting closer.

It seems therefore particularly timely to look into possible improvements of the CIS process.

4. Mission and objectives of the CIS

At the start of this new phase, it is important to re-launch the commitment of all involved towards the

partnership that the Common Implementation Strategy represents. This partnership has the following

mission:

Working together at EU level to achieving “ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas in the EU

which are clean, healthy and productive within their intrinsic conditions, and the use of the marine

environment is at a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the potential for uses and activities by

current and future generations”, i.e. to achieve good environmental status (GES) in their marine waters

by 2020.

This will be promoted and realised, inter alia, through the following specific objectives:

1. Ensure the best possible implementation of the MSFD and the 2020 objective to achieve GES, in

particular through making sure Good Environmental Status is clearly defined and can be

assessed in a comparable way, so that it is possible to clearly determine, also at EU level,

whether GES has been reached or not (and thus making it enforceable);

2. Maintain or ameliorate the status of the marine environment through conservation and, where

practicable, restoration of its ecosystems, and by securing sustainable use of the marine

environment within the limits of marine ecosystems, through more effective management of

activities. Through this and other action, the objectives of the MSFD should be achieved which

will support sustainable Blue Growth and the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) and thereby

applying the ecosystem-based approach in practice;

3. Improve the marine knowledge base for assessing and managing the marine environment, in

particular on pressures and impacts from human activities (including climate change) and the

ability to assess progress in achieving GES;

6

4. Strengthen the regional capacities and coordination to implement the MSFD, in priority in

cooperation with the Regional Sea Conventions;

5. Enhance investments and (co-)financing for marine protection and management, where and

when required or necessary.

The partners in the Common Implementation Strategy, namely the EU Member States and the European

Commission, supported by close link with the Regional Sea Conventions, the Accession and

Neighbouring or other Third Countries sharing a marine region with the EU, other international

organisations, stakeholders including industry and NGOs, can only achieve these objectives through

close cooperation. The key milestone which will allow an indication on how much progress has been

made towards achieving GES will be the review of the assessments in 2018.

The CIS process could also help ensure that the necessary evidence has been gathered to prepare for a

review of the MSFD if and when it is decided (at the latest in 2023 as required by Article 23).

5. Working areas and priorities for the Common Implementation Strategy beyond 2013

The MSFD implementation is already now characterised by three main working areas, namely:

1. Assessment and Monitoring of the marine environment (Good Environmental Status)

2. Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange on the marine environment (WISE-Marine)

3. Management, measures, economic and social analysis of human activities affecting the marine

environment

These three working areas are mainly addressed by the three Working Groups (GES, DIKE and ESA) but

activities are also going on well beyond the remit of the WGs already. In future, the WGs should re-focus

and prioritise their tasks and activities in support of the MSCG addressing the core issues in the Directive

including the coordination with the work under the Regional Sea Conventions which work on similar

issues (in support of achieving specific objective 4 above). It will also become increasingly important to

cooperate closely between the Working Groups and address issues jointly, when necessary.

In addition, other demand-driven activities are carried out in these working areas using existing fora and

groups under other Directives or ad hoc set ups to progress the agenda. It is the role of the MSCG to

mandate, coordinate, oversee and approve the results of these activities since all of the activities report

directly to MSCG.

For each working area, the structured list of the main future activities is provided below. The detailed

mandates of the various groups under the MSFD CIS is provided in Annex 3 to this document which will

be reviewed and amended, if necessary, on a regular basis.

7

5.1. Working Area: Assessment and Monitoring of the marine environment

Operational objective

This working area aims at developing a common understanding of the assessment and monitoring

requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to ensure a high level of coherence,

comparability and consistency of the approaches within and between the marine regions in support of

achieving specific objectives 1 and 2.

Activities of WG GES

The Working Group should focus in future on overall conceptual and cross-cutting questions related to

assessment and monitoring (but not reporting). It will deal in particular with descriptors 1, 4, 6 and 7

with the aim to develop an ecosystem-based assessment framework in line with Article 3.5 and establish

links to descriptor 3 whose assessment should be consistent with the CFP-based assessments. The WG

should integrate these descriptors into a holistic framework and establish links to the pollution-based

descriptors 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 which are dealt with by more specialised groups (see below). In doing

so, the WG GES shall address the following tasks beyond 2013 (tentative timing in brackets):

Further develop a common understanding of GES (mid-2014), clarifying and simplifying the

terminology, where possible, and translate it into some common elements or even

requirements (ensuring still flexibility for Member States to reflect their particular

circumstances) for descriptors 1, 4, 6 and 7;

Develop an assessment framework and methodology for GES, including for cumulative effects

as well as temporal and spatial aggregation to allow for the combination of different scales (first

phase by mid-2014);

If agreed by the MSFD Committee, advise the Committee on the possible revision of the GES

Decision 2010/477/EU based on Articles 9.3, 11.4 and 24 of the MSFD (2015);

Common understanding on application of descriptor 2 in close collaboration with the

implementation of new instrument.

Ensuring coherence of the objectives and targets for MSFD with related EU policies, and vice

versa, in particular WFD, CFP, CAP, Birds and Habitats Directives and the EU Biodiversity

Strategy, through streamlining and developing comparable monitoring and assessment

methods, as appropriate (see above);

Where current knowledge is insufficient to make GES descriptors operational and there are

significant risks to the marine environment, apply the precautionary principle and launch

necessary initiatives to develop tools and mechanisms to issue early warnings and undertake

risk analyses to close knowledge gaps including needed research and demonstration projects.

8

This work will be also discussed in the context of the exemption guidance (see p. 13) and it will

be complementary to developing the risk-based approach and adaptive management as

introduced by MSFD and aims also at exchanging best practices.

Analyse effectiveness of existing measures to improve the status of marine ecosystems jointly

and in close cooperation with WG ESA.

Identify necessary additional measures to improve the status of marine ecosystems, contribute

to the analysis of their cost-effectiveness and coordinate the definition of necessary measures

from a scientific and ecosystem-related point of view (mid-2014) in close cooperation with WG

ESA.

Other activities1

In addition, the following activities will be undertaken:

Common understanding on application of descriptors 10 and 11 through the work of the two

Technical Groups.

Common understanding on the application of descriptor 3 and its link to the other relevant

descriptors as well as other activities proposed by the workshop of 9/10 April 2013 (through ad

hoc workshops supported by ICES).

Common understanding on the application of descriptor 5 (through the work carried out under

the WFD ecological status e.g. through the WFD Eutrophication Guidance Document).

Common understanding on the application of descriptors 8 and 9 including additional work on

criteria 8.2, if necessary (through the work carried out under the WFD priority substances e.g. in

the respective WFD working group).

Common understanding on coherence and representativeness of MPAs in support of GES

(through Marine Expert Group under the Habitats Directive).

Possible input from RSCs

In order to ensure a coordinated approach with the work carried out by the Regional Sea Conventions,

the RSC are invited to contribute to the above activities. In particular, the RSC could contribute the

following input, if available, in accordance with the timeframes agreed in this work programme:

1 These activities are part of the same working area but will not be led by WG GES and its role will need to be

defined. Details on how these activities will be carried out, by whom and with what deliverables and timetable will

be defined later.

9

Joint coordinated regional monitoring programmes and, as appropriate, joint monitoring

programmes to address all or selected parts of MSFD requirements (by July 2014);

A regionally agreed set of common GES criteria and characteristics, environmental targets and

associated indicators and other methodological agreements on assessment and monitoring to

feed into the Common Understanding at EU level and the possible review of the GES Decision ;

A revised initial assessment and a review of GES and target requirements by July 2017 in order

to feed into the MS reports on Article 8, 9 and 10 MSFD in July 2018 taking into account national

processes, i.e. of public consultation (e.g. as an integral part of the MS report demonstrating this

coordinated approach).

5.2. Working Area: Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange on the marine environment


This working area aims at developing and implementing a concept and arrangements for a shared,

streamlined and efficient management of data, information and knowledge between the EU, the

Regional Sea Conventions and the Member States as well as other partners based on (but not limited by)

the obligations under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and building on the experience of the

Water Framework Directive and WISE. This process should thereby improve the marine knowledge base

resulting in sound, available and targeted EU-level assessments on compliance, on the state-of-the-

marine environment, assessments at European and regional levels, information to support MS

implementation of the Directive, on trends/scenarios, on policy evaluations and on impact assessments

in support of achieving specific objective 3.

Activities of WG DIKE

The Working Group should focus on the practical arrangements for reporting under the MSFD as well as

for data sharing and/or making data available.. In addition, the WG will explore the links to other

relevant initiatives where the MSFD can benefit from, in particular, Marine Knowledge, EMODnet,

Copernicus (ex-GMES), INSPIRE and others.

The WG DIKE is supported by a Technical Group on Data which is subject to a separate mandate within

the MSFD CIS work plan. The TG shall work in close collaboration with WG DIKE on the deliverables; WG

DIKE shall set the direction for the TG's work, but it formally reports to MSCG as regards its mandate and

activities.

In doing so, the WG DIKE shall address the following tasks beyond 2013 (tentative timing in brackets):

Develop the reporting system further, in particular on the programme of measures (in close

collaboration or even jointly with the WFD reporting), the revision of the initial assessment, GES

and targets in 2018 and the next revision of monitoring programmes in 2020.

10

Develop and implement a concept for shared data and information management by 2016 by

making data available on the marine environment, building on Article 19.3 and involving the

data management at the RSCs as well as ICES and other data providers which streamlines data

flows, ensures interoperability and reduces administrative burden on all involved taking fully

into account the legal issues related to the collection, reporting and transmission of data (in

particular those whose transmission is not legally required);

Discuss the assessment approaches by the Commission and EEA (on the basis of the MS

reports), e.g. in accordance with Articles 12 and 16, and advise the Commission and the EEA

when preparing assessments across the EU’s marine regions (starting with the EEA's EU

baseline assessment);

Launch of WISE-Marine portal as a platform to share data and information under the MSFD (by

2014) to make MSFD data and information available and interoperable (e.g. with other similar

portals such as IPChem).

Other activities2

In addition, the following activities are carried out:

Establish reference datasets and other technical specifications to support EEA, Commission,

Member States and others work in making available data and information that is coherent and

comparable (through the Data Technical Group led by EEA).

Develop a MSFD “modelling toolbox” and related data needs for the assessments and future

scenario-building by developing or refining indicators and assessment techniques, better

understanding of the relationships between pressures and impacts and development of models

(through specific ad-hoc activity led by JRC).


In order to ensure a coordinated approach with the data and information management carried out by

the Regional Sea Conventions, the RSC are invited to contribute to the above activities. In particular, the

RSC could contribute the following input, if available, in accordance with the timeframes agreed in this

work programme:

Develop a concept for sharing data and information between EU/EEA, ICES and RSCs and

translate it in a formal arrangement (e.g. MoU) taking into account legal issues, where necessary

(by end 2014);

2 These activities are part of the same working area but will not be led by WG DIKE and its role will need to be


be defined later.

11

Align data flows and data needs for next round of initial assessment (to be agreed by end 2016).

5.3. Working Area: Management, measures, economic and social analysis of human activities

affecting the marine environment


This working area aims at developing a common understanding and a coordinated approach as regards

the management of the marine environment, the measures to be taken, in particular at EU or regional

level, and the economic and social analysis to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the

Marine Strategy Framework Directive, building on the experience under the Water Framework Directive.

It also seeks to ensure a similar high level of ambition and a level playing field across the EU in support

of achieving specific objectives 2 and 5.

Activities of WG ESA

The Working Group focuses in future on overall conceptual and cross-cutting questions related to cost-

effectiveness of measures, introduction of new measures including associated impact assessment (and

cost-benefit analysis) and benefits of taking action (or the costs of inaction) including from ecosystem

services. In doing so, the WG ESA shall address the following tasks beyond 2013 (tentative timing in

brackets):

Develop a common understanding on cost-effectiveness of measures, building on WFD

methodologies and experience, recognizing their differences, and appropriate scales (national,

regional, EU) for dealing with (types of) measures (mid-2014);

Contribute to the sharing information on cost-effective measures in particular those specific to

the MSFD not addressed elsewhere (mid-2014) together with WG GES;

Further develop the discussion on measures based on the outcome of the GES/ESA workshop in

June 2013 including possible concept paper, information sheets and/or exchange of best

practices, in close cooperation with WG GES.

Analyse effectiveness of existing measures to improve the status of marine ecosystems jointly

and in close cooperation with WG GES.

Building on the relevant experience of the WFD, sharing information on the identification of

specific MSFD measures beyond existing measures and obligations at regional and EU level and

improvement of the effectiveness of existing measures which contribute to the achievement of

GES in close collaboration with WG GES.

Develop a common understanding how ecosystem services and the costs for inaction can be

accounted or other approaches can be used for when preparing measures and/or justify

exemptions, building on WFD methodologies and experience.

12

Other activities3

In addition, the following activities are carried out:

Establish an exchange of best practices for certain types of (marine) measures based on the

outcome of the GES/ESA workshop in June 2013 (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity).

Discuss measures of regional and EU-wide importance and the related financial support

available (including through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), Cohesion Funds,

(including through EMFF, etc. and supported by the macro-regional strategies e.g. EU Strategy

for the Baltic Sea Region) and thereby develop a common understanding of the possible

applications of Articles 15 and 22 MSFD (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity or organised

through the Project Coordination Group).

Common understanding on the application of spatial protection measures as part of the

programme of measures (through Marine Expert Group under the Habitats Directive).

Common understanding on exemptions (Article 14) including significant risk and how the

precautionary principle can be applied and how the precautionary principle can be applied in

the development of programmes of measures (trough ad-hoc activity led by the Commission).

Making fisheries and other Blue Growth sectors sustainable and compliant with

achieving/maintaining GES and demonstrating the contribution of marine/coastal environment

protection measures to sustainable use and growth (through link to Integrated Coastal

Management). Specific activities to be defined, starting with developing MSFD-compliant

guidance for sustainable aquaculture (through dedicated ad-hoc activities).

Exchange information on effectiveness of public participation processes and approaches and

encourage best practices of MS public participation and information requirements, building on

the WFD experience (Art. 19) (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity).

Assessment of economic benefits from marine and coastal ecosystem services (e.g. in the

Mediterranean and Baltic) WG MAES (Mapping and Assessing of Ecosystems and their Services).



the RSC are invited to contribute to the above activities. In particular, the RSC could contribute the

following input, if available, in accordance to the timeframes agreed in this work programme:

3 These activities are part of the same working area but will not be led by WG ESA and its role will need to be


be defined later.

13

Coordinated programmes of measures and, as appropriate, a joint programme of measures (by

2015) including:

o Valuation of ecosystem services, assessment of cost of degradation or other relevant

approaches,

o Contribution to the identification of cost-effective measures of a transboundary nature

taking into account/building upon the existing frameworks of measures (e.g.

recommendations, action plans, strategic plans) in the RSCs (e.g. management of

environmentally adapted shipping, management of MPAs, gas/oil exploitation in open

seas).

5.4. Working Area: Cross-cutting issues


This working area aims at developing some cross-cutting activities in support of different areas in the

implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to ensure an effective and efficient

application.

Activities

Project coordination (coordinated through the Project Coordination Group): exchange

information on relevant projects and activities with the aim to maximise their benefits for the

MSFD implementation.

Scientific advice: A JRC-based Competence Centre on GES (CC4GES) will be established to

manage flexible experts networks responding to needs and requests of Member States and

RSCs identified through the CIS with the aim to produce predefined deliverables feeding directly

to the implementation of the MSFD. The CC4GES could, inter alia, contribute to several

activities of the MSFD implementation, such as compiling an agreed glossary of MSFD terms,

developing an inventory of methodological standards and supporting the WG GES in the

possible revision of the GES Decision 2010/477/EU. Any output of the CC4GES with relevance to

the MSFD implementation will be presented to the MSCG or the Committee, if necessary for

agreement. More detailed information on the establishment and functioning of the CC4GES will

be presented to the MSCG in 2014.

Relevant international organisations, in particular the International Council for the Exploration

of the Seas (ICES), are also invited to provide a systematic scientific input to deliverables under

the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy according to their expertise and in close

collaboration with the CC4GES.

Science-policy interface (coordinated through the Project Coordination Group): development

and establishment of a science-policy interface addressing aspects of dissemination, relevance

14

for the MSFD implementation and identification of future short-, mid- and long-term research

needs (supported by STAGES and JPI Oceans).



the RSCs are invited to contribute to the above activities. In particular, the RSCs could contribute the

following input, if available, in accordance with the timeframes agreed in this work programme:

Active participation in the Project Coordination Group;

Identification of regional short-, mid- and long-term research needs as a contribution to an EU

process;

Identification of regional scientific advice needs from ICES and others.

6. Working arrangements and structures

The overall structure and arrangements of the CIS to date have been proven useful. However, the role of

the various groups needs to be clarified and strengthened, in particular in the light of the new Rules of

Procedures (RoP) adopted for the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG) on 4 February 2013

which also apply to all sub-groups (Working Groups, TGs, workshops) mandated by the MSCG (in

accordance with Article 7 of these RoP). A simplified organisational structure of the MSFD CIS process in

provided in Figure 1.

In accordance with Article 1 of the RoP, the role of the MSCG is, in particular, to:

Coordinate and monitor the different working groups and activities under the Common

Implementation Strategy, evaluates and agrees the outcome of the different working groups. It

gives guidance on key activities and addresses cross-cutting issues. Moreover, it is in charge of

preparing, agreeing and further developing the CIS work programme and reviewing its functioning.

Advise and assist the Commission in the preparation of the Article 25 Committee and delegated

acts.

Assist in the preparation of meetings of the Marine Directors and, as appropriate, call on the Marine

Directors to resolve open issues.

15

Figure 1: Simplified organisational structure of the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy

The role of the Working Groups and other ad-hoc structures (such as the Technical Groups or

workshops) are defined through Article 7 RoP. This role can be generally summarised as preparing the

work of the MSCG, find technical and scientific solutions and aim to prepare concise documents

summarising work done so far and indicating clearly when input is needed from the MSCG. The WGs

may also advise the MSCG if new activities would be useful. There may need to be a differentiation of

approaches between WG GES, WG DIKE and WG ESA and collaboration between WGs should be

promoted, if and when necessary still respecting the lead role of a particular WG on a subject. The

groups are different in nature and this may need to be reflected more clearly in the mandate and the

way in which they are operating. In addition, more flexible, ad-hoc ways of working such as the TGs or

workshops on selected topics can also be useful to achieve concrete progress on selected issues. This

ad-hoc approach would be mandated by the MSCG and the relationship to the permanent working

groups would be clarified from the outset (e.g. monitoring workshop). Finally, the use of existing groups

under other legislation, in particular the Water Framework Directive or the Habitats Directive, may be

considered, as appropriate. Again, the relationship to the permanent WGs and the MSFD should be

clear.

16

The main role of the Marine Directors is their function as the initiator and driver of the CIS, focusing on

more political and high level issues or difficult technical issues that could not be resolved in MSCG. In

practice this could be translated into A points (more technical documents agreed by MSCG which can,

but do not have to be, endorsed additionally by Marine Directors) and B points (documents prepared in

MSCG which need further input from Marine Directors).

The informal and consensual nature of the Marine Directors meeting is key to its efficiency and allows

exchanges of views, geared towards finding solutions, building trust and understanding and, where

necessary, consolidating the results of the CIS process.

Another important aim of the future CIS process is to further strengthen the role of the Regional Sea

Conventions (RSCs), namely the Oslo-Paris Convention (OSPAR), the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM), the

Barcelona Convention (UNEP MAP) and the Bucharest Convention (BSC). Where the EU is a Contracting

Party to a Regional Sea Convention, the implementation of the MSFD should also be seen as the

European commitment to these conventions, which, per se, are directly linked to marine good

environmental status. The EU invests considerable financial and human resources in RSCs and this

investment is continuously assessed, in the light of RSCs' contribution to MSFD implementation, taking

also into account the utilisation by MS of RSC deliverables to facilitate compliance with their MSFD

obligations. A coherent implementation within the marine regions is largely dependent on the

opportunities for coordinating activities by the RSC. It is clear, however, that there may be a need for a

differentiated approach. Proposals for specific elements for the work programme for the different

marine regions are laid down in Annex 4. It is ultimately up to the Contracting Parties of each

Convention to accept this role or develop it into a different direction.

In order to make this role operational, it would be necessary to agree a clear, specific and timely input of

the RSCs into the CIS process, through the following elements:

Contribution to CIS work programme: an initial and specific list of inputs is provided above

under the different working areas. This would have to be further developed and regularly

revised.

Reporting: If the RSC provide timely input to the MSFD implementation, it would imply that EU

Member States have fulfilled their obligations pursuant to Article 6 provided that Member

States incorporate the results of the RSC work into their national implementation and report it

accordingly to the Commission. In order to achieve this, an idea could be to formalise the RSCs'

input through a “roof report” to the Commission which is identical for all EU Member States

which are Contracting Parties to a particular Convention and which is complemented by a more

detailed “national report” (or sub-national, as appropriate). Should such input not be available

(on time), Member States would have to organise and demonstrate the coordination of their

work in another way.

Information exchange: Developments within RSCs should be more consistently reported and be

the basis for further EU level work. The MSCG should have a regular agenda item where RSCs

17

report and make recommendations for collaboration. This reporting can be done by a MS which

is Party to the RSC, on behalf of all the other MS which are Parties to the same RSC.

Furthermore, the Project Coordination Group (PCG) could address issues which can possibly be

resolved in the short to mid-term by research groups (such as the PERSEUS) or other projects.

Practical cooperation: a number of practical and concrete steps could be taken to facilitate the

cooperation, e.g. joint time / calendar planning (for more issues see also Annex 2).

Encouraging transfer of knowledge between different regions, as in the Baltic to Black Sea

project which is considered as good practice and develop joint research projects or twinning

projects between countries or regions.

In addition, the role of other existing Regional Conventions within the catchment area of a marine

region or subregion like established structures under the WFD (2000/60/EC), i.e. especially River

Protection Conventions and their Commissions (e.g. ICPDR, ICPR, IKSE, IMK, ...), is, where appropriate,

to extend coordination and cooperation between Member States with marine waters and landlocked

Member States (cf. MSFD Art. 6). Four key issues were identified of particular relevance to landlocked

Member States:

1. Abundance/distribution of key trophic groups/species, including, where appropriate, long-

distance anadromous and catadromous migrating species (Descriptor 4.3);

2. Minimising human-induced eutrophication (Descriptor 5);

3. Concentration of contaminants (Descriptor 8);

4. Marine litter (Descriptor 10).

Moreover, the role of Member States in the CIS process can be strengthened, bearing in mind their

main responsibility for implementing the directive. This can be achieved through giving Member States a

more active role in leading the work on MSFD implementation, notwithstanding the specific Commission

duties and responsibilities in this area. To that end, a Member States, or a group of Member States

could lead, on a voluntary basis, together with the Commission, the preparatory work on a specific issue

of common interest (possibly focussed on a (sub-)region) and present results for discussion, comments,

and eventually approval, in the relevant working groups, the MSCG or the MD. This would be in line with

the proactive role Member States take for instance in some RSCs. Ideally, the leading role of some

Member States in the RSCs could be combined with such a role in the CIS process leading also to some

kind of burden sharing where not all MS have to develop the same expertise on all issues (e.g. regarding

different groups under the biodiversity descriptor). Member States could also co-chair working groups,

and/or lead countries could be designated to advance work on specific issues (i.e. prepare first draft

concept papers etc.) prior to consideration by the relevant working group and/or MSCG.

Last but not least, stakeholders, NGOs, other interest groups or public and private organisations can

play an important role in supporting the implementation process. Many organisations are already

18

registered as observers in the Marine Strategy Coordination Group and participating actively in the

Common Implementation Strategy. Others are able to join this process, provided they fulfil the criteria

laid down in the RoP. At regional and national level as well, these partners can and already do make a

substantial contribution. Their role can become increasingly useful, e.g. in the context of identifying and

implementing measures and sharing their wealth of relevant experience in identifying and implementing

practical and cost-effective environmental protection measures (e.g. from industry, NGOs, etc).

Finally, the future CIS process can benefit from improvements in the quality and timing of the

preparation including the forward planning, the procedural and organisational aspects. A CIS calendar

should therefore be prepared by May every year for the subsequent year, discussed at the MSCG and

updated via the MSCG on a regular basis.

7. Conclusions and outlook

Following the first milestone in the implementation of the MSFD, the CIS process is entering into a new

phase in which monitoring and measures will demonstrate and realize the added and concrete value of

MSFD for the marine and coastal environment. The Marine Directors, the MSCG and the WGs have

discussed the future orientation of the CIS process and drawn conclusions from lessons learned as a

basis to tackle the challenges at hand. This outline for a work programme beyond 2013 sets the scene

for the next important milestones, namely the implementation of the monitoring programmes (2014),

the preparation (2015) and implementation (2016) of the programme of measures and the revision of

the initial assessment leading to possible reviews for GES and environmental targets in 2018). Therefore,

this CIS work programme is going to be essential for delivery of the 2020 objective to achieve GES, as set

by the MSFD. At the same time, it is important to make the CIS more effective, while not putting

additional stress on available resources.

This document outlines the mission, the objectives and the main priorities for the coming years. It does

so by clarifying and streamlining the roles and working arrangements, in particular strengthening the

role of the Marine Directors, the MSCG, the RSCs and the Member States. It also mirrors and

complements the work programme under the CIS process for the Water Framework Directive by

establishing closer cooperation and synergies.

Based on this document, the detailed work programme including, in particular, the mandates of the

Working and other Groups (Annex 3) and specific work programmes for the marine regions (Annex 4)

have been incorporated. These mandates and regional specific activities can be amended, updated and

further developed as the implementation progresses without changing the main part of the work

programme. The MSCG will review the progress of the work programme and ensure that it is "fit for

purpose". The MSCG can also make suggestions if and when the work programme needs to be adapted,

e.g. in the light of future findings of the Article 12 assessments of the Commission.

19

ANNEX 1

Overview of deliverables of the Common Implementation Strategy 2008-2013

Date Title Brief description Link

A1 - Official Documents

25 of June 2008 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 17 June

2008 establishing a framework for

community action in the field of marine

environmental policy

Marine Strategy Framework Directive http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=O

J:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF

1 September 2010 Commission Decision on criteria and

methodological standards on good

environmental status of marine waters

(2010/477/EU)

Decision on criteria to be used by the Member States to

assess the extent to which good environmental status is

being achieved, accompanied with references to

applicable methodological standards where available, are

set out in the Annex.

http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=O

J:L:2010:232:0014:0024:EN:PDF

14 October 2011 Staff Working Document (SEC(2011)

1255)

The document provides supplementary technical

information on certain elements contained in the

Commission Decision on GES criteria (descriptors

definition)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/

SEC_2011_1255_F_DTS.pdf

16 November 2012 Report from the Commission to the

Council and the European Parliament -

Contribution of the Marine Strategy

Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) to the

implementation of existing obligations,

commitments and initiatives of the

Member States or the EU at EU or

international level in the sphere of

This report aims to meet the requirements of Article

20 (2) of the MSFD: to assess the Directive's

contribution to the implementation of existing

obligations, commitments and initiatives of the

Member States or the EU in the sphere of

environmental protection in marine waters. While

recognising some constitute obligations originating

from international agreements, these various strands

http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=C

OM:2012:0662:FIN:EN:PDF

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF






http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/SEC_2011_1255_F_DTS.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/SEC_2011_1255_F_DTS.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0662:FIN:EN:PDF



20

environmental protection in marine

waters COM(2012) 662 final

will be addressed under the term 'commitments' for

the purpose of this report.

A2 - Interim and Final Guidance documents

22 November 2011 Common Understanding of (Initial)

Assessment, Determination of Good

Environmental Status (GES) &

Establishment of Environmental Targets

(Articles 8, 9 & 10 MSFD)

This is a living document which should be revisited and

revised due to increased knowledge and/or

experiences with the MSFD implementation.

The document is available on CircaBC :

> A – Documents

> A2 – Guidance documents

20 May 2011 ESA Guidance document This Guidance Document focuses on the economic and

social analyses required for supporting the

development of the Initial Assessment (art. 8.1 of the

MSFD). It describes what the MSFD says, and presents

some methods that could be applied.


> A – Documents


https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/1dfbd5c7-

5177-4828-9d60-ca1340879afc

05 December 2011 Recommendation on reporting in 2012

for the Marine Strategy Framework

Directive

Annex 1 : Approach to reporting for the Marine

Strategy Framework Directive; Annex 2 : Reporting

sheets


> A – Documents


https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/1dfbd5c7-

5177-4828-9d60-ca1340879afc

22 May 2012 Guidance for 2012 reporting under the

Marine Strategy Framework Directive

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/54e95b2e-

ab7d-4dfe-a9be-20c96e19b1e9

07 May 2013 MSFD recommendation on monitoring

and reporting

This document aims to set out some basic monitoring

principles for the establishment of monitoring

programmes under MSFD. It has been drafted

following a discussion within the MSFD Common


> A – Documents


https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/1dfbd5c7-5177-4828-9d60-ca1340879afc




https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/54e95b2e-ab7d-4dfe-a9be-20c96e19b1e9

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/54e95b2e-ab7d-4dfe-a9be-20c96e19b1e9

21

Implementation Strategy. A more detailed and

technical guidance document on MSFD monitoring

was developed in parallel which is in accordance with

this concept document. It includes examples, practical

experiences, best practices as well as emerging

knowledge and tools and builds on the results of the

JRC workshops held in autumn 2012.

13 November 2013 Technical Guidance on MSFD

monitoring

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. It complements the Monitoring

Recommendations and provides good examples and

technical details on monitoring aspects building on

other existing documents (for litter and noise more

detailed documents, see below, were prepared and

reference is made).


> A – Documents



Monitoring of Marine Litter in European

Seas

The document was prepared by the Technical Sub-

Group for Marine Litter which is led by DG ENV and

chaired by IREMER, the EC Joint Research Centre (JRC)

and the German Environment Agency. The group

consists of MS delegates, relevant organizations and

invited experts. The guidance document should

support EU Member States in implementing

harmonized monitoring programmes for marine litter.

It complements the general technical guidance on

monitoring.


> A – Documents



Monitoring for Underwater Noise in

The document was prepared by the Technical Sub-

Group on Noise which is led by DG ENV and chaired by


> A – Documents

22

European Seas representatives from the UK and the Netherlands. The

group consists of MS delegates, relevant organizations

and invited experts. This document provides

monitoring guidance that could be used by MS in

establishing monitoring schemes to meet the needs of

the two MSFD indicators of underwater noise in their

marine waters. It complements the general technical

guidance on monitoring.


A3 - Technical reports

March 2010 Scientific Support to the EC on the MSFD

- Management Group Report

This report prepared by the Management Group

provides information on a number of issues that are

common to all of the Descriptors. Executive

summaries and tables summarising key information

for each of the Descriptors are also included. Readers

are referred to the individual Task Group reports for

more details on scientific and technical

recommendations associated with each Descriptor.

Discussion on implementation should be based on the

full Task Group reports and not just this Management

Group report. The Management Group has also

provided some comments on what it believes are

important next steps as they relate to scientific

support of the MSFD.


> A – Documents

> A3 - Reports from Task Groups and

Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 1 Report on Biological

Diversity


> A – Documents


Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 2 Report on Non-Indigenous The document is available on CircaBC :

> A – Documents

23

Species > A3 - Reports from Task Groups and

Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 3 Report on Commercially

Exploited Fish and Shellfish


> A – Documents


Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 4 Report on Food Webs The document is available on CircaBC :

> A – Documents


Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 5 Report of Eutrophication The document is available on CircaBC :

> A – Documents


Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 6 Report on Seafloor

Integrity


> A – Documents


Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 8 Report on Contaminants

and Pollution Effects


> A – Documents


Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 9 Report on Contaminants in

Fish and Other Seafood


> A – Documents


Management Group

24

April 2010 Task Group 10 Report on Marine Litter The document is available on CircaBC :

> A – Documents


Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 11 Report on Underwater

Noise and Other Forms of Energy

The report outlines the limited extent of knowledge of

the effects of underwater energy, particularly noise,

and particularly at any scale greater than the

individual/group level. These limits on knowledge give

difficulties in proposing indicators, more so than most

other descriptors. The report contains much

background scientific information and has suggestions

for possible further indicators in the future for noise,

as well as on the assessment of the effects of

electromagnetic fields and heat on the marine

environment.


> A – Documents


Management Group

A4 - Other documents

25 January 2013 Marine Protected Areas under the

Marine Strategy Framework Directive

2008/56/EC

This working document presents Commission's views

on MPA provisions under Article 21 and Art 13(4) of

MSFD for information purposes. The Commission also

intends to present it at WG GES in March and to the

Marine Directors meeting in May, 2013.

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/7edf330c-

7d25-4fa3-a19c-b1f59f691995

03 February 2012 Report - Marine Strategy Framework

Directive - Descriptor 3+

Report of a process undertaken by ICES to provide

guidance to support EU. Member States (MS) in the

implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework

Directive (MSFD, Directive 2008/56/EC). The process

focused on Descriptor 3 (D3), commercially exploited

fish and shellfish, but fisheries-related information

relevant for the other Descriptors is also identified and

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/5ccaa29e-

d1b4-4e58-bda4-3b78250205f5

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/7edf330c-7d25-4fa3-a19c-b1f59f691995

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/7edf330c-7d25-4fa3-a19c-b1f59f691995

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/5ccaa29e-d1b4-4e58-bda4-3b78250205f5

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/5ccaa29e-d1b4-4e58-bda4-3b78250205f5

25

reported on.

13 February 2012 Concept paper on the technical

assessment of Member States

submissions required under Article 12 of

the Marine Directive (version 3.0)

Description of the overall approach for the technical

assessment of Member States’ products required

under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Marine Directive, that

were due to be notified to the Commission by 15

October 2012.

Document prepared by Milieu Ltd Consortium.

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/6c0050f6-

5c69-486d-bb22-a6518abc053a

30 May 2013 Results of the Marine Litter Conference Outcome of the International Conference on

Prevention and Management of Marine Litter in

European Seas, 10 - 12 April, co-organized by the

German Federal Ministry of the Environment, the

German Federal Environment Agency and the

European Commission.

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/2b2eaafe-

edf7-409a-8fe8-6118208e65dc

A5 - Workshops results

19 May 2011 Outcome of the workshop on the initial

assessment (10 May 2011) and way

forward

On 10 May 2011, the Marine Strategy Coordination

Group (MSCG) met in form of a workshop on Initial

Assessment (IA). This document summarizes the main

findings of the workshop. It also highlights a number

of points which were raised at the workshop and

would benefit from further discussion and where

possible a common understanding concluded by

Marine Directors.


> A – Documents

> A5 –

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/5498d947-

1d3d-4423-85c3-93413ff2f5ea

13 September 2011 ICES Report of the Workshop on Marine

Strategy Framework Directive -

Descriptor 3+

The document summarizes the main points of

discussion of the first workshop in a process leading to

a technical/scientific ICES report aiming to support EU

Member States (MS) in the implementation of the

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/d9769d05-

d4ae-44b0-8861-48fd557c555c

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/6c0050f6-5c69-486d-bb22-a6518abc053a

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/6c0050f6-5c69-486d-bb22-a6518abc053a

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/2b2eaafe-edf7-409a-8fe8-6118208e65dc

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/2b2eaafe-edf7-409a-8fe8-6118208e65dc

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/d9769d05-d4ae-44b0-8861-48fd557c555c

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/d9769d05-d4ae-44b0-8861-48fd557c555c

26

process of elaborating a technical/scientific ICES

report is focusing on Descriptor 3 (D3), commercially

exploited fish and shellfish, but fisheries-related

information relevant for the other Descriptors is also

going to be identified and reported on.

A6 – CIS work programmes and mandates

June 2012 MSFD CIS work programme 2012-2014 Work plan agreed by Marine Directors in June 2012. The document is available on CircaBC :

> A – Documents

> A6 – CIS work programmes and

mandates

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/0410daee-

415b-41ad-8b72-cee019ff0780

5 December 2103 MSFD CIS work programme 2014 and

beyond

Latest work-plan agreed by Marine Directors in Vilnius

(Dec 2013) superseding the earlier one of June 2012

including specific mandates of groups and regional

contributions.


> A – Documents

> A6 – CIS work programmes and

mandates

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/0410daee-415b-41ad-8b72-cee019ff0780

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/0410daee-415b-41ad-8b72-cee019ff0780

27

ANNEX 2

Outcome of discussion at MSCG of 4/5 February 2013

The Commission underlined it was a good timing when starting to assess the first MS reports to reflect on

lessons learnt. It presented the discussion document prepared to initiate the debate on lessons learnt,

challenges and future strategy, including clarification of roles and responsibilities (Document

MSCG/9/2013/5 and presentation 9/2013/3).

The Netherlands presented its contribution to the discussion underlying that proportionality and

subsidiarity are at the heart of the Directive along with a risk-based approach, and should therefore guide

discussions on future strategy (presentation 9/2013/4).

Denmark also presented inputs to the debate looking at the EU process, cooperation with the RSC and

coordination aspects (presentation 9/2013/5).

OSPAR presented their views and experience with regard to planning mechanisms for delivering tools

whereby work plans are made with clear deliverables and actions. They also addressed the issue of

constraints in resource and advocated improved cooperation.

Discussion

A tour de table and discussion showed a general agreement on the strategic vision and its implications for

the CIS at a strategic level and in terms of concrete steps. The discussion resulted in the following points

which were shown and amended at the meeting:

The strategic aim of the Directive is seen as the sustainable use of the seas while protecting and preserving

the marine environment.

MSFD has to demonstrate added value through:

Promoting integration across and building on relevant policies: Blue Growth/IMP, water, fisheries, transport, CAP, biodiversity, chemicals, Marine Spatial Planning, etc.

Encouraging investments and financing for marine protection - link with measures and EMFF.

Ensuring that GES is reached, maintained and understood the same way across EU, including shared vision among stakeholders.

Improving knowledge of the marine environment.

For the CIS this means:

At strategic level:

More focus is needed as the implementation of the MSFD faces serious time and resources constraints. This can be achieved through not loosing time on details, gap analysis and strategic approach (including risk based approach) concentrating on what is the heart of the MSFD: reaching GES (measures) and better understanding GES.

The programmes of measures should be coordinated.

Bridging with other environmental policies and other sectors, but also with international processes e.g. IMO, UN, is key.

A meaningful RSC involvement in the MSFD implementation process should be secured, avoiding redundancy in the work carried out at EU or RSC level. The RSC should not be an echo chamber for

28

what is happening in the MSFD. A strategy should be developed on how to work with the RSC, recognising differences between the four RSCs, exploring various options (joint reporting, request for advice, align work programmes), in the short, mid and long term.

The roles and responsibilities within the CIS and across various actors in marine policy should be clarified (EU, MS, RSC, etc).

Coordination at national, (sub)regional level (including through RSCs) and pan-European should be improved.

Addressing emerging issues such as for instance climate change is important and is not so well expressed under the MSFD.

Through concrete mechanisms:

Clarify roles and responsibilities within the CIS o Tighten the work plan o Avoid duplications and repetitions between the CIS. o Implement practice of A and B points for the preparation of the Marine Directors’ meetings by

the MSCG. o Designate lead countries to advance work on specific issues or play a role as facilitator at

regional scale o Set ad-hoc, focused expert groups

Improve coordination with other sectors: o Workshops, including on CFP and transport, bringing together people from different sectors.

Simplify reporting: o Assist MS with monitoring and data handling and simplify the reporting of the monitoring. o Streamline reporting between MSFD, Nature Directives and WFD. Adopt comparable

definitions and parameters in advance.

Improve dissemination: o Marine conference at high political level and addressing stakeholders. o MSFD library: development of guidance e.g. on GES by 2020, on geographical assessment scale

or classification of coastal/marine waters, avoiding the tendency to write down every detail.

Improve link with RSC: o Permanent reporting process from RSCs to MSCG and / or Marine Directors. o Encouraging RSC to make the initial assessment and MS to use it, discussing early enough with

parties future assessment products which would support the MSFD implementation o Encouraging transfer of knowledge between different regions, such as Baltic to Black Sea

project which is considered as good practice. o Asking RSC to give advice to the MSFD / CIS. o Aligning work programmes. o Memorandum of Understanding o Joint research projects or twinning projects between countries or regions

29

ANNEX 3

Mandates of Working Groups, Technical Groups and the Project Coordination Group

Part 1: Mandate of Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES)

1. INTRODUCTION The Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES) is overseeing technical work on issues related to the assessment and determination of good environmental status (Article 8, 9), the related environmental targets and indicators (Article 10) and the monitoring obligations (Article 11). It provides a platform for expert exchange at EU level between the Member States, other countries, stakeholders and NGOs as well as the related ongoing work in the Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs). 2. OBJECTIVES The WG GES contributes to developing a common understanding of the assessment and monitoring

requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to ensure a high level of coherence,

comparability and consistency of the approaches within and between the marine regions in support of

achieving specific objectives 1 and 2 set out in the work programme. Building on the past work, the WG GES

should in particular aim at:

Continuing the development of common approaches for determining GES and, as appropriate, environmental targets in order to ensure coherence and consistency of GES across all marine regions/subregions;

Overseeing the application of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters and provide technical oversight for the [possible] review of the Decision;

Addressing the linkages between the Habitats Directive, Birds Directive, Water Framework Directive, Biodiversity Strategy, CFP and CAP and MSFD in relation to the definition and achievement of GES and associated objectives in the other directives;

Further improving the development of a framework for coordinated monitoring programmes which will deliver data to assess whether GES and associated environmental targets are being achieved;

Support or provide expertise to Member States for coordinated programme of measures in the marine regions in cooperation with WG ESA.

The WG GES should keep an oversight of the various aspects relevant for GES but should not duplicate the work of other groups. It should identify and focus on a few priorities which it can pursue directly and otherwise rely on the input and expertise from other groups. 3. MAIN ISSUES – SCOPE OF WORK The Working Group should focus in future on overall conceptual and cross-cutting questions related to

assessment and monitoring (but not reporting). It will develop an ecosystem-based holistic assessment

framework to assess the state of the marine environment against GES in the meaning of Art. 3.5 MSFD. For

this purpose, it will deal in particular with descriptors 1, 4, 6 and 7 and on ensuring coherence with

descriptor 3 work, whose assessment should be consistent with the CFP-based assessments. The WG

should integrate these descriptors into the holistic framework and establish links to the pollution-based

descriptors 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 which are dealt with by more specialised groups (explained in more detail

below). In doing so, the WG GES shall address the following tasks beyond 2013:

30

Further develop a common understanding of GES, clarifying and simplifying the terminology,

where possible, and translate it into some common elements or recommendations (ensuring still

flexibility for Member States to reflect their particular circumstances) for descriptors 1, 4, 6 and 7;

Common understanding on application of descriptor 2 in close collaboration with the

implementation of the new instrument on invasive species.

Develop a framework for ecosystem-based assessments to determine the state of the marine

environment against determined GES and develop associated methodologies, including for

assessing cumulative impacts as well as for aggregating different temporal and spatial scales;

If agreed by the MSFD Committee, oversee the review of Commission Decisions 2010/477/EU and

Annex III MSFD and advise the Committee on the possible revision of the Decision based on

Articles 9.3, 11.4 and 24 of the MSFD and of Annex III MSFD;

Aiming at greater coherence of the objectives and targets for MSFD with related EU policies, and

vice versa, in particular WFD, CFP, CAP, Birds and Habitats Directives and the EU Biodiversity

Strategy

Streamline and develop comparable monitoring and assessment methods, as appropriate (see

above) for MSFD and other related policies in particular WFD, CFP, CAP, Birds and Habitats

Directives and the EU Biodiversity Strategy and RSCs.

Where current knowledge is insufficient to make GES descriptors operational and there are

significant risks to the marine environment apply the precautionary principle and launch necessary

initiatives to develop tools and mechanisms to issue early warnings and undertake risk analyses to

close knowledge gaps including needed research and demonstration projects. This work will be

also discussed in the context of the exemption guidance (see p. 13) and it will be complementary

to developing the risk-based approach and adaptive management as introduced by MSFD and aims

also at exchanging best practices.

Contribute to developing conceptual principles and guidance for the development and

implementation of measures under Article 13. Contribute to the analysis of their cost-effectiveness

and coordinate the definition of measures from a scientific and ecosystem-related point of view.

This work will be led by WG ESA in collaboration with WG GES.

The WG GES will also oversee and advice, as appropriate, the other activities in this working area which are

predominantly carried out in other groups.

In order to ensure a coordinated approach with the work carried out by the Regional Sea Conventions, the

WG GES may want to review and exchange information regularly. The representatives of the regional sea

conventions (experts from Member States or secretariats) shall make proposals for the agenda on relevant

issues, as appropriate.

4. ORGANISATION The WG GES is a sub-group of the MSCG and is there to advice the MSCG and, where appropriate, the MSFD Committee on matters related to GES. The WG is organised in line with the MSCG rules of procedures.

31

The WG GES will be chaired by the Commission (ENV and JRC) and co-chaired by Germany. Participants are nominated representations of the EU Member States, other countries (in particular from EEA and Candidate Countries), regional sea conventions and other international organisations such as ICES, stakeholders and NGOs which are registered at the MSCG. The criteria in the rules of procedures for the MSCG apply. The WG GES meets regularly, usually twice a year in time to prepare the MSCG meetings. In addition, thematic workshops or specific meetings may be organised, as appropriate, and following approval of the MSCG. The WG GES is supported by a Drafting Group consisting of the co-leaders and GES members of EL, FI, FR, NL, RO, SE and UK which prepares the WG GES by facilitating the planning and drafting preparatory documents. The DG is mandate by the WG on an inter-sessional basis. 5. TIMELINES AND DELIVERABLES

Task Timelines Output

1. Revision and further development of Common Understanding Document (including risk analysis, application of the precautionary principle and how to deal with knowledge gaps)

Mid-2014 [end-2014]

Guidance / Recommendations to be adopted by MSCG

2. Guidance on scales / aggregation (based on project – could be combined with CU)

Mid-2014 Guidance / Recommendations to be adopted by MSCG

3. Technical preparation for revision of 2010 GES decision 2010/477/EU

End-2014 Recommendations for MSFD Committee

4. Guidelines on measures as a contribution to the WG ESA work on Programme of measures

Early 2014 Guidance / Recommendations to be adopted by MSCG

5. Cost-effectiveness of measures (together with WG ESA)

Ongoing See WG ESA

6. Link to assessments and monitoring under other EU legislation and policies

Ongoing

7. Link to related work of RSCs and regular review of their work with relevance to GES

Ongoing

6. LINKS TO OTHER ACTIVITIES The WG GES will work closely with the other WGs under the MSFD CIS process, namely DIKE and ESA, contributing with its areas of expertise without duplicating or developing the issues under the responsibilities of other WGs. The WG GES will also keep an oversight of all activities going on in more detail in other EU groups which have more specific expertise, in particular the link to the Water Framework Directive and its groups dealing with good ecological status and chemical substances, to the Birds and Habitats Directive, in particular its Marine Expert Group and the link to the Technical Groups on Litter and Noise, as well as the fisheries experts gathering regularly in workshops. The WG GES will ensure that the detailed discussions result in comparable and coherent approaches across descriptors and will advise the MSCG on such issues, as appropriate. The WG GES does not, however, have to endorse results from other EU groups but rather takes note of what other groups are presenting to the

32

MSCG. The WG GES also plays an important role in bringing together the results of the related work taking place in the Regional Seas Conventions and should be used as a platform to exchange information and improve coherence and comparability between the four regions. The WG GES should, as appropriate, foster these collaborations with the view to improving coherence, comparability and streamlining of work and ensure that all relevant expertise is considered. Such cooperation can be achieved through many means, such as joint workshops, etc. There is a need to establish effective working routines and feedback mechanisms between WG GES and groups under other EU policies (e.g. WFD CIS, Habitats/Birds-Directive) without duplicating discussions or decision-making processes.

33

Part 2: Mandate of Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (WG DIKE)

1. INTRODUCTION

The Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (WG DIKE) is overseeing technical work

on issues related to the data, information and knowledge exchange for the Marine Strategy Framework

Directive (MSFD), including in relation to assessments of good environmental status (Article 8) and

monitoring obligations (Article 11). It provides a platform for expert exchange at EU level between the

Member States, other countries, stakeholders and NGOs as well as the related ongoing work in the

Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs).

2. OBJECTIVES

The WG DIKE contributes to developing and implementing a concept and arrangements for a shared,

streamlined and efficient management of data, information and knowledge between the EU, the Regional

Sea Conventions and the Member States as well as other partners based on (but not limited by) the

obligations under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and building upon the experience of the Water

Framework Directive and WISE. This process should thereby improve the marine knowledge base resulting

in sound, available and targeted EU-level assessments on the state-of-the-marine environment, contribute

to Commission’s assessments foreseen in MSFD articles 12 and 16, and support assessments at regional

and national levels to support Member State implementation of the Directive. It should also contribute to

trend/scenario development, policy evaluations and impact assessments in support of achieving CIS work

plan specific objective 3.

The WG DIKE should keep an oversight of the various aspects relevant for data, information and knowledge

exchange, including reporting, but should not duplicate the work of other groups. It should identify and

focus on a few priorities which it can pursue directly and otherwise rely on the input and expertise from

other groups.

3. MAIN ISSUES – SCOPE OF WORK

WG DIKE should focus on the practical arrangements for reporting under the MSFD as well as for data

sharing and/or making data available. In addition, the WG will explore the links to INSPIRE and to other

relevant initiatives which the MSFD can benefit from including, in particular, Marine Knowledge, EMODnet,

Copernicus (ex-GMES) marine service.

In doing so, the WG DIKE shall address the following tasks beyond 2013 (tentative timing in brackets):

Any necessary further work on reporting systems for monitoring programmes by mid 2014,

including, for example fostering decentralised systems and joint documentation; in any case,

decentralized systems should be an option for the reporting in 2014;

Define/ design the reporting system on the programme of measures (in liaison with WG ESA leading

the work on programmes of measures, as appropriate and pertinent) and in close collaboration

with the WFD reporting by mid 2014 and develop the reporting tools/sheets by end of 2014;

Revise the reporting system by 2016 for the 2018 updating of the initial assessment, GES and

environmental targets and by 2019 the next revision of monitoring programmes in 2020; taking into

account the experiences gained during the first cycle and suggestions for reducing member states’

administrative burden.

34

Develop and implement a concept for shared data and information management by 2016 by

making data available on the marine environment, building upon MSFD Article 19(3) and involving

the data management at the Regional Sea Conventions, ICES and other relevant data providers,

which streamlines data flows, ensures interoperability and aims to reduce administrative burden on

all involved

Discuss the use of the reported information by the Commission and EEA (on the basis of the MS

reports), and advise the Commission and the EEA when preparing assessments across the EU’s

marine regions (starting with the EEA's EU baseline assessment);

Assist in the preparation of WISE-Marine portal, in conjunction with the Data TG, as a platform to

share data and information under the MSFD (phase I by 2014) to make MSFD data and information

available and interoperable (e.g. with other similar portals such as IPChem);

Develop integrated and streamlined reporting flows between MSFD and other EU policies and

those of international conventions, with a view to improving coherence of the information and

reducing administrative burden in is preparation and exchange.

4. ORGANISATION

The WG DIKE is a sub-group of the MSCG and is there to advice the MSCG and, where appropriate the

MSFD Committee, on matters related to data, information and knowledge exchange. The WG is organised

in line with the MSCG rules of procedures.

The WG DIKE will be chaired by the Commission and co-chaired by [MS] and the EEA.

Participants are nominated representations of the EU Member States, third countries (in particular from

EEA and Candidate Countries), stakeholders and NGOs which are registered at the MSCG. The criteria in the

rules of procedures for the MSCG apply.

The WG DIKE meets regularly, usually twice a year in time to prepare the MSCG meetings. In addition,

thematic workshops or specific meetings may be organised, as appropriate, and following approval of the

MSCG.

The WG DIKE is supported by a Technical Group on Data which is subject to a separate mandate within the

MSFD CIS work plan. The TG shall work in close collaboration with WG DIKE; WG DIKE shall set the direction

for the TG's work, but it formally reports to MSCG.

35

5. TIMELINES AND DELIVERABLES

Task Timelines Output

1. Finalise reporting arrangements for monitoring

programmes under Art. 11

Mid-2014 Reporting sheet, guidance

and tools/mechanisms

2. Reporting arrangements for Programmes of

measures under Art. 13

End 2014 Reporting sheet, guidance


3. Revised reporting arrangements for Art. 8, 9 and

10

Mid-20164 Reporting sheet, guidance


4. Revised reporting arrangements for monitoring

programmes under Art. 11

End 2019 Reporting sheet, guidance


5. Develop and implement shared data and

information systems between MS, RSC and EU

levels

2016 Operational data and

information systems within

RSCs

6. WISE-Marine portal for access to MSFD data and

information, linked to BISE, EMODnet, Copernicus,

RSC systems and other systems

Phase 1 by the

end of 2014

Phase 2 by the

end of 2016

Operational WISE-Marine

giving access to MSFD-

relevant information

7. Review, streamline and harmonise, where

appropriate, reporting streams under EU policies

and international conventions

Progressively

to 2016

Streamlined and harmonised

reporting of marine relevant

data and information

Work plan to be reviewed periodically in view of progress made and future priorities.

6. LINKS TO OTHER ACTIVITIES

The WG DIKE will work closely with the other WGs under the MSFD CIS process, namely GES and ESA,

contributing with its areas of expertise without duplicating or developing the issues under the

responsibilities of other WGs. WG DIKE will maintain oversight of the work of the Technical Group on Data,

receiving regular reports from it and guiding its ongoing work. The WG DIKE will also maintain oversight of

activities which are relevant for its work but which are undertaken in more detail by other groups with

more specific expertise, in particular the link to the Water Framework Directive, Birds and Habitats

Directives and their groups dealing with reporting and data/information issues. The WG DIKE will ensure

that the detailed discussions result in comparable and coherent approaches across Member States and will

advise the MSCG on such issues, as appropriate. The WG DIKE does not, however, have to endorse results

from other groups but rather takes note of what other groups are presenting to the MSCG. The WG DIKE

also plays an important role in bringing together the results of the related work taking place in the Regional

Sea Conventions and should be used as a platform to exchange information and improve coherence and

comparability between the four regions. The WG DIKE should, as appropriate, foster these collaborations

with the view to improving and streamlining data and information flows work and ensure that all relevant

expertise is considered. Such cooperation can be achieved through many means, such as joint workshops,

etc.

4 To allow for input to assessment by Regional Sea Conventions

36

Part 3: Mandate of Working Group on Economic and Social Analysis (WG ESA)

1. INTRODUCTION

The WG ESA was established in 2009 to act as a forum for the discussion of all social and economic matters

covered by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The initial focus was the development of a

Guidance Document on the economic and social analyses required to support the development of the

Initial Assessment5. Since then WG has focused on sharing experience in the preparation of initial

assessments, reaching a common understanding of Articles 13 and 14 and identifying research needs.

2. OBJECTIVES

The Objectives for WG ESA are:

(a) To analyse lessons learnt from Member States' initial economic and social assessment and conclusions from related activities under the Regional Seas Conventions. In light of this, review and as necessary update the WG ESA guidance document on initial assessment.

(b) Consider approaches to the development and analysis of measures in close cooperation with WG GES and drawing on experience from the WFD CIS, in particular:

• socio-economic analysis of potential common measures needed to close the gap between BAU and targets for GES; and

• exchange of information and experience on approaches to assessing social and economic impacts of measures, including cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit analyses and application of disproportionate cost.

(c) Identify priorities for research and address knowledge gaps to support social and economic matters covered by the Directive.

(d) Promote communication, cooperation and coordination between marine regions and sub-regions in order to improve the consistency and coherence of social and economic assessments.

(e) Facilitate cooperation and links between WG ESA and other MSFD CIS work, especially with WG GES on measures.


The WG’s remit is to act as the focus point for all MSFD related socio-economic issues. It is responsible for

discussing and providing advice to MSCG on these issues and in particular Articles 8 (c), 13 (3), 14 (4) and

Annexes IV (9) and elements of Annex VI. More generally, it is responsible for advice on:

(a) overall conceptual and cross-cutting questions relating to the cost effectiveness of measures;

(b) Analyse effectiveness of existing measures to improve the status of marine ecosystems in close cooperation with WG GES

(c) introduction of additional measures including associated impact assessments (including cost-benefit analysis);

5 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/bdcafa98-1ede-4306-997e-ec2d991dcb6f

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/bdcafa98-1ede-4306-997e-ec2d991dcb6f

37

(d) benefits of taking action (or the costs of inaction) including from ecosystem services; and

(e) disproportionate costs.

4. ORGANISATION

Sweden, the UK and EC will co-lead and co-chair the working group. WG group meetings will be held in

Brussels, Sweden or the UK, or other Member States that offer to host. The secretariat of the ESA working

group will be held by Sweden. The WG will meet at least twice a year. If necessary, the WG ESA can set up

sub-groups with responsibility for certain tasks. These subgroups will be appointed by and report directly to

the WG. The WG ESA will report to the MSCG.

The working group will comprise of

• European Commission (DGs: ENV, JRC, others on occasion, and the EEA);

• Member States;

• Representatives of regional sea conventions (Secretariats and/or specific Member States), other

marine protection conventions, international marine scientific organisations; and

• European stakeholder organisations.


Task 1 Coordination and chair of the Working Group ESA

Objective To ensure the effective delivery of the working group’s aims and objectives

Principal tasks (a) Coordinate the delivery of agreed “products”.

(b) Convene and chair WG ESA meetings including drafting agendas and minutes of

meetings

(c) Promote communication, cooperation and coordination between marine regions

and sub-regions in order to improve consistency and coherence on social and

economic assessment issues

(d) Report the WG’s advice to MSCG and facilitate cooperation and links with other

MSFD CIS work programmes, especially WG GES.

Deliverables Milestones

WG ESA work programme

Update at least annually (in consultation with MSCG)

Meetings, meeting records and papers At least two meetings per annum (invitations and draft

agendas) sent out at least 15 working days before the date of

the meeting

Papers circulated/uploaded on to CIRCABC 10 working days

38

before meetings

Draft summary minutes of the meeting to be circulated for

comment no later than 10 working days after the meeting.

Task lead Mats Ivarsson (Sweden)

Task

contributors

Dominic Pattinson (UK), Cyril Michel (EC)

Task 2 Further develop the draft document “Programmes of Measures under MSFD

Recommendations for implementation and reporting”

Objective To develop a common understanding on key definitions and messages for the

establishment of programme of measures, to identify where existing policies contribute

to MSFD objectives, and set out a «mixed» approach for engaging with others policies.

Principal tasks Draft the document including:

a focus on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost benefit analysis (CBA)

Lessons learnt from experience of implementing the Water Framework Directive

(WFD) and Habitat and Bird Directive

Explaining the link with measures of existing policies

In close collaboration with:

WG GES on the definition of measures and understanding the link between

pressures and impacts; and

WG DIKE on reporting and reporting links with other relevant Directives.


Final draft Recommendation Adoption at Feb 2014 (MSCG) or May 2014 at the latest.

Task lead Dominic Pattinson (UK); Cyril Michel (EC); Uli Claussen (DE)

Task

contributors

UK, SE, NL, DE, FR plus WG GES volunteers

Task 3 Contribute to the sharing of information on cost-effectiveness of measures, in

particular by building on WFD methodologies and experience, and on cost benefit

39

analysis.

Objective To support Member States implementation of the MSFD by providing examples and

best practices on the practical application of such analysis

Principal tasks Member States to identify suitable materials, particularly practical examples of how

problems/issues were resolved on:

- how MSFD specific measures not addressed elsewhere have been or are to be

implemented;

- how existing measures e.g. existing obligations under existing Directives could be

improved to contribute to the achievement of GES;

- how the CEA and CBA can be addressed for various measures and marine

environmental problems (descriptors).


Dedicated workshop and outcome of it By spring 2014

Task lead NL

Task contributors DE, UK, FR, LT, FI, LV

Task 4 Develop a common understanding of how ecosystem services and the costs for

inaction can be accounted or other approaches can be used when developing options

for measures and/or to justify exemptions, including building on WFD methodologies

and experience.

Objective To help Member States in their assessment of measures by providing common

guidance on how ecosystem services or other suitable approaches can be used.

Principal tasks Draft guidance document detailing common understanding.


Common understanding document By end 2014

Task lead ? Volunteers still need to be identified

Task

contributors

? Volunteers still need to be identified


The following activities are related to the work of WG ESA but will not be led by WG ESA.

40

The following activities are considered as priorities:

Common understanding on exemptions (Article 14) and how the risk based approach and the

precautionary principle can be applied in the development of programmes of measures (through

ad-hoc activity led by the Commission in close collaboration with WG ESA and WG GES).

Role of WG ESA: ESA would like to play an active role in the development of the common

understanding on exemptions especially as far as disproportionate cost is concerned.

Establish an exchange of best practices for certain types of (marine) measures based on the

outcome of the GES/ESA workshop in June 2013 (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity).

Role of WG ESA: ESA will contribute through the task 3 on sharing best practice.

Discuss measures of regional and EU-wide importance and the related financial support available

(including through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), Cohesion Funds, (including

through EMFF, etc. and supported by the macro-regional strategies e.g. EU Strategy for the Baltic

Sea Region) and thereby develop a common understanding of the possible applications of Articles

15 and 22 of MSFD (through dedicated ad-hoc activity or organised through the Project

Coordination Group).

Role of WG ESA: ESA would like to be consulted by PCG on that point and contribute to the

development of a common understanding on Articles 15 and 22 . The PoM Recommendation (task

2) will tackle this issue (Annex 2).

Common understanding on the application of spatial protection measures as part of the

programme of measures (through Marine Expert Group under the Habitats Directive).

Role of WG ESA: ESA would like to play an active role as it should be part of task 2 (PoM

Recommendation paper)

Concerning the following activities, WG ESA should receive updates from relevant experts at WG ESA

meetings and will assess the need for further inputs/actions:

Making fisheries and other Blue Growth sectors sustainable and compliant with

achieving/maintaining GES and demonstrating the contribution of marine/coastal environment

protection measures to sustainable use and growth (through link to Integrated Coastal

Management). Specific activities to be defined, starting with developing MSFD-compliant guidance

for sustainable aquaculture (through dedicated ad-hoc activities).

Assessment of economic benefits from marine and coastal ecosystem services (e.g. in the

Mediterranean and Baltic) WG MAES (Mapping and Assessing of Ecosystems and their Services).

Concerning the following activity, it is not clear for the time being what would be the added value of ESA

involvement:

Exchange information on effectiveness of public participation processes and approaches and

encourage best practices of MS public participation and information requirements, building on the

WFD experience (Art. 19) (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity).

41



RSC have been invited to contribute to the above activities.

42

Part 4: Mandate of Technical Group on Marine Litter (TG Litter)


EU Member States had requested the set-up of a technical group on marine litter according to a mandate

by the Marine Directors from 2.12.2010. Work in 2011 resulted in the report “Marine Litter –

Recommendations for the Implementation of MSFD Requirements” (EUR 25009). EU Marine Directors have

requested on 8.12.2011 a continuation of the technical group based on the roadmap developed as part of

the recommendations by the group. Particular focus should be on issues related to the identification of

sources of marine litter. The WG GES in February 2012 amended slightly the Terms of Reference. Particular

focus was given to the harmonization of protocols including prediction for the cost of monitoring, the

further identification of sources of marine litter and the assessment of the harm it causes to the coastal and

marine environment.

2. ORGANISATION

The TG Marine Litter will be chaired by France and co-chaired by JRC IES and Germany.

The Group will continue to support Member States in implementing the MSFD with particular focus placed

on identifying and collaboratively addressing common evidence gaps, developing and promoting common

monitoring and assessment protocols, and the sharing of best practice.

The work of the technical group on litter will be reported to the Marine Strategy Coordination Group

(MSCG) where relevant actors (Member States, neighbouring countries, international organisations such as

regional sea conventions and marine scientific organisations, stakeholder organisations) are represented.

Membership

The technical group consists of persons who should be able to:

a. Demonstrate expertise applicable to the task,

b. Demonstrate experience in providing practical scientific advice,

c. Ensure the range of expertise necessary for the task

The membership of the group will remain the same and regular consideration will be given as to whether

the appropriate expertise is available for the issues under consideration.

Most of the work of the TG Marine Litter will take place via correspondence through a web based

communication tool (Basecamp). The TG Marine Litter will have a maximum of two physical meetings per

year in order to plan and coordinate the programme of work. Intermediate progress reports will be used to

inform the MSCG.

Since February 2013, The Coastal & Marine Union (EUCC) and Arcadis have been contracted to support

administrative, organisational and logistic support to the TGs on Marine Litter and Underwater Noise

(2013-2014).


The group has finalised a draft version of the first guidance report, entitled Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas (EUR 26113). The full report and each of the chapters separately are

43

available on CIRCABC6. These were submitted to Members of the MSCG and WG-GES in July 2013 for their perusal and feedback. This document will be finalized and published in November 2013.

The TG Marine Litter will address the following items in the year 2014:

1. Sources and pathways of marine litter

The group will continue to support work currently underway to provide better identification and

quantification of sources and pathways of marine litter. Technical options such as backtracking modeling

will be evaluated and communicated more widely. The evaluation of source strengths will also be

considered and an approach developed to support the selection of management measures by Member

States.

2. Riverine litter

The need of quantification of riverine litter as important source to the marine environment has been

recognized. The group has started to collect information on available approaches and data. Coordination

with the WFD WG chemicals has started. The Commission recently (October 2013) launched a contract for

Identification and assessment of riverine input of (marine) litter. This contract will apply the monitoring

guidance as developed by the TG Marine Litter in a river basin setting and in close cooperation with River

basin authorities. The results of this study and national studies (e.g. monitoring activities on river Lee and

Weser) will be reviewed by the TG Marine Litter for the further development, testing and harmonization of

methods.

3. Monitoring guidance follow-up and implementation support on open issues

After the publication of the guidance document, further work will be carried out on the harmonization of a

number of methods which have not yet been fully developed (such as e.g. those for microplastics and

floating litter) and the specification of protocols in the light of national experiences and considerations, the

possible establishment of a network for microplastic measurements, and further discussions and advise on

a database with litter information from MS states which can serve as a baseline for marine litter.

4. Possible review of COM decision

If a revision of the MSFD Commission Decision (2010/477/EU) will take place, the TG would be the logical

place for a transparent discussion on the marine litter related criteria within the MSFD CIS. The TG can

advise on the formulation of adequate criteria for descriptor 10 and the linkage to regional dedicated

aspects.

5. Science - policy interface

The TG will review on-going research efforts in the field of marine litter and based on this, prioritize and

propose further research needs as an input to the science agenda related to the MSFD. The TG will make

important research findings available to the MSCG and the Member States.

6. Communication exchange platform for regional sea action plans

Three of the four Regional Sea Conventions with European relevance (HELCOM, OSPAR, Barcelona) are

developing or plan to develop Regional Action Plans on marine litter. For the Black Sea, an update of the

6 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/6dfdb7af-a74c-4191-81f1-d07a813aa8f6

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/6dfdb7af-a74c-4191-81f1-d07a813aa8f6

44

Strategic Action Plan includes marine litter. The TG Marine Litter can act as a platform to exchange

knowledge and experiences for these regional seas action plans.

7. Assessing harm

There is no consolidated common understanding of what constitutes 'harm' from marine litter or how it

can be assessed with respect to the implementation of the MSFD. Research efforts to develop robust

approaches for assessing biologic and socioeconomic harm will be identified. The group will consider and

assess the available evidence base and attempt to develop a consensus on how to approach the issue.

8. Harmonizing protocols for assessments

There are some potential environmental impacts arising from marine litter which are not currently being

considered, for example due to a lack of monitoring or uncertainty over how best to approach the issue i.e.

assessing levels of entanglement or ingestion of litter by other target species such as marine mammals or

shellfish. The group will identify where potential gaps in our understanding exist and develop proposals for

assessment and monitoring to address them in a coordinated, realistic and cost effective manner.

9. Reporting

Interim reports will be required prior to the meetings of the MSCG. These brief reports should indicate the

status of the technical group work. The final report should explicitly address the issues identified in the ToR

and will be available at the latest by October 30th 2014.


A linkage with the WG Chemicals of the WFD exists for setting up monitoring litter in river basins. A linkage

with regular ICES surveys exist, e.g. in terms of the annual surveys for fish stock assessments and fish

diseases.

Input from RSCs

The work in the Technical Group is also related to activities undertaken in Regional Sea Conventions with

regard to monitoring and setting up regional action plans on marine litter.


RSC are contributing to the above activities.

45

Part 5: Mandate of Technical Group on Underwater Noise (TG Noise)

1. MAIN ISSUES – SCOPE OF WORK EU Member States had requested the set-up of a technical group on underwater noise according to a

mandate by the Marine Directors from 2.12.2010. TG (Underwater) Noise in 2011 has focussed on

clarifying the purpose, use and limitation of the indicators and described methodology that would be

unambiguous, effective and practicable.

For both the impulsive as for the ambient noise indicator it has been possible to make significant progress

towards practical implementation of the indicators. TG Noise further has identified knowledge gaps and

future work, and advises on the way forward in 2012 and beyond. The EU Marine Directors have requested

on 8.12.2011 a continuation of the technical group based on the recommendations by the group.

The TG Noise has identified potential priority work items for support to the operational implementation of

Descriptor 11. In 2012 and 2013, the main focus of TG Noise was on developing a practical guidance for

monitoring and noise registration for member states.

2. ORGANISATION The TG Noise will be chaired by UK and the Netherlands. The work of the technical group on underwater

noise will be reported to the Marine Strategy Coordination Group where relevant actors (Member States,

neighbouring countries, international organisations such as regional sea conventions and marine scientific

organisations, stakeholder organisations) are represented.

Membership The technical group consists of persons who have:

a. Demonstrated expertise applicable to the task,

b. Demonstrated experience in providing practical scientific advice,

c. Ensuring the range of expertise necessary for the task

In principle the same group of people will continue. In the near future, it is advised that a wider range of

Member States representatives will take part, especially those involved in monitoring, as well as a

representation of the regional sea conventions. Additionally, for some meetings additional experts on a

certain topic (for example electromagnetic fields) may be invited.

Establishment and implementation of monitoring by Member States should be coordinated within the

regional sea context (as required by MSFD art. 11), but it is useful to share knowledge and experience in a

wider European context.

Most of the work of the technical group will be by use of a web communication tool. The technical group

will have a maximum of two physical meetings per year, to ensure work is planned and coordinated

efficiently. Intermediate progress reports will be used to inform the MSCG.

Since February 2013, The Coastal & Marine Union (EUCC) and Arcadis have been contracted to support

administrative, organisational and logistic support to the TGs on Marine Litter and Underwater Noise

(2013-2014).

3. TIMELINES AND DELIVERABLES TG Noise was tasked to deliver guidance so that European Member States could initiate programmes for

46

underwater noise monitoring. The draft Monitoring Guidance for Underwater Noise is available at CIRCABC

(https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/0e019015-9373-4287-a04b-122797a69d99) (Executive Summary,

Monitoring Guidance Specifications and Background information). The final version of this document is

under preparation and will be submitted early November for the MSCG.

Based on the existing Terms of Reference, the TG Underwater Noise will address the following items in the

year 2014:

1. Develop criteria to select additional indicators for noise and other forms of energy

In 2011 the TG Noise identified high-frequency impulsive sounds and electromagnetic fields as the most

relevant other possible forms of energy under Descriptor 11. Criteria will be developed, based on possible

impacts on the marine ecosystem and abundance and extent of the pressure to assess the need and a

justification for addressing these sources in additional indicators.

2. Review of the work under the Framework contract ENV.D2/FRA/2012/0025

Under this Framework contract the European Commission has commissioned a study on impacts of noise

and use of propagation models to predict the recipient side of noise. Under this contract, a roadmap

towards defining sound limits for Good Environmental Status will be developed, for instance by identifying

indicator species and defining thresholds for the different impacts (e.g. physical injury and relevant

displacement as regards impulsive sounds; zones of masking as regards continuous sources). Also, the

contractor will assess propagation models to come to sound maps. Those two tasks have a strong relation

to elements of the existing Terms of Reference. In the October 2013 meeting of the TG Noise it was

discussed that the TG Noise is capable and has an added value to give a review of the results of the draft

final product of the contractor. The contractor, (who includes some 4 members of the TG Noise) would

then incorporate these comments and observations in the final deliverable under the contract. This review

need to be carried out before the summer of 2014.

3. Participate in impact workshop

The above mentioned contract will also compile existing information on impacts and organize a workshop

to propose methodologies and guidelines on how to evaluate impacts of underwater noise, especially to fill

the identified gaps. The members of the TG Noise with the relevant knowledge will be invited to participate

in this workshop.

4. Assistance on implementation of Monitoring Guidance

Monitoring and assessing underwater noise is a complex issue which requires dedicated expertise. This

expertise is organized, for Europe, in the Technical Group. The TG Noise is prepared to deliver, on request

by MSCG, assistance to (groups of) Member States on a number of issues related to the monitoring and

assessment such as:

Setting up the monitoring of ambient noise in a (sub)region;

Setting up and interpretation of the noise register

Applying the developed criteria and provide advice on additional indicators for noise and other forms of energy

Review and revise the COM decision with regard to descriptor 11

Assessment of Good Environmental Status

Review outcomes of relevant projects

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/0e019015-9373-4287-a04b-122797a69d99

47

NB: Originally, there was the following additional task in the ToR for 2012-2013: Develop recommendations

on noise reduction and mitigation measures. This task requires another expertise than available in the TG

Noise such as expertise with regard to building wind farms and other structures at sea. Within OSPAR, an

ICG was established on developing guidance on best practices to mitigate the emissions and environmental

impacts of underwater noise. It was noted that there are dedicated initiatives on identifying appropriate

mitigation measures (e.g. initiatives of the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and of the

German government). It is proposed not to duplicate this work of OSPAR and other parties by this TG Noise

and to take note of that work.


As expressed, there is a strong link to the contract commissioned by the EC.


The work in the Technical Group is also related to activities undertaken in regional seas conventions with

regard to especially setting up a register of loud impulsive noise and the development of a joint monitoring

programme for ambient noise, especially in the HELCOM and OSPAR area. In order to ensure a coordinated

approach with the work carried out by the Regional Sea Conventions, the RSC have been invited to

contribute to the above activities. In addition, the work carried out by OSPAR on mitigation could be shared

with all Member States.

48

Part 6: Mandate of Technical Group on Marine Data and IT (TG Data)


Due to the technical nature of certain aspects of the remit of WG DIKE a technical group on data and IT-

related issues is established to facilitate the necessary discussions and prepare suitable material for WG

DIKE or other WGs (as appropriate) to consider. This TG Data mandate is of a general nature; WG DIKE

plenary meetings will provide the opportunity to discuss more specifically what the technical group would

do in the following period and get endorsement by the MSCG.

The work of the Data Technical Group will lead to conclusions on issues requiring specific technical

expertise related to:

a. Accessing data and information according to MSFD Art. 19.3, in the context of WISE-Marine and associated to INSPIRE, EMODnet, and other relevant processes and projects;

b. Geographic handling and visualization of reported information; c. Technical development of WISE-Marine, including linkages to other reporting requirements (e.g. for

Regional Sea Conventions, Water Framework Directive and the Nature Directives), and preparation of dissemination products, including mapped information;

d. Technical development of decentralised reporting methods and systems.

2. ORGANISATION

The Technical Group will be chaired by the European Environment Agency, with participation open to

Member States and stakeholder organisations who are members of the MSFD CIS. Due to the technical

nature of the TG, the specific representatives of each Member State or stakeholder organization can differ

from those attending WG DIKE. Participation from RSCs is particularly encouraged to facilitate joint

development of information systems and solutions. For specific purposes, additional experts may be

involved and be used as a reservoir of expertise for discussing specific issues. The selection of these experts

will be decided in consultation with the TG chair and, when appropriate, with the Member States.

The Technical Group will operate fully within the Terms of Reference of the MSCG and report formally on a

regular basis to MSCG.


The first period of the Technical Group covers 2013-2016. In this period the group may meet once or

several times per year, depending on the demand from WG DIKE to progress on particular topics, with

timing set to suit preparation of material to be presented to WG DIKE. Additionally, work can be

undertaken intersessionally by correspondence. General principles are:

In order to ensure alignment of activities with those of WG DIKE, Data Technical Group reports and recommendations to MSCG should, wherever possible, be accompanied by a recommendation for action or support from WG DIKE;

The European Environment Agency will prepare meetings and draft minutes of the meetings for consideration by the Technical Group and finalise the minutes on the basis of comments received.

Participants can submit written documents for the consideration of the Technical Group, e.g. comments on draft products.

All documents, presentations and minutes shall be made available via the European Commission's CIRCABC facility and the EEA Forum.

49


The work in the technical group is also related to activities undertaken in EMODnet projects7. Thus,

invitations will be extended, when appropriate, to the Marine Observation and Data Expert Group

(MODEG) who oversee the development of the EMODnet projects and to representatives of the EMODnet

projects. In addition, contributions from other large-scale activities like Copernicus marine service or

relevant research projects will be invited. The TG will collaborate with the WISE TG, for example in

organising common sessions, as needed.

7 Note: the Commission and EEA are unable to cover expenses for participation by members of MODEG and EMODnet

projects in DIKE TG meetings.

50

Part 7: Mandate of the Project Coordination Group (PCG)

Terms of Reference for Project Coordination Group (PCG) (as agreed by Marine Directors on 30 November 2012)

Mandate

To give advice and consider practical means to improve the coherence of projects related to the

implementation of the MSFD (the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive), in order to maximise

synergies with other relevant activities, on-going and planned, at national, regional and EU level

and improve coordination and information exchange between the EU and Regional Sea

Conventions (RSCs). The project coordination group reports and, where appropriate, can make

proposals to the MSCG (Marine Strategy Coordination Group).

Composition

Members of the Project Coordination Group are appointed in their personal capacity and will be

asked to sign declarations on conflict of interest. They are nominated by:

Commission services (in particular ENV, MARE, DEVCO, RTD, REGIO, JRC, ELARG,

ECHO, MOVE, ENER, CLIMA) and the European Environment Agency (EEA).

A representative number of EU Member States for each of the four marine regions8.

The Secretariats of the four RSCs relevant to the EU's marine waters (OSPAR, Helsinki,

Barcelona and Bucharest Conventions)

Contractors of projects may be invited to meetings as observers if decided by the Chair.

Key activities

Consider future needs for MSFD implementation support to which the IMP Programme or

other EU financial instruments could contribute.

Advise the Commission on a medium to long term planning for possible assignments under

projects discussed in the PCG, starting with projects directly linked to MSFD

implementation.

Exchange information on relevant activities/projects at European, regional (RSCs) and

national level.

Receive technical reports and other documents produced by the projects for comments,

when appropriate

Members of the PCG are expected to share information on PCG activities with relevant

colleagues in each Regional Sea Convention.

Operation

The PCG normally meets twice a year.

Meetings will be chaired by the Commission (ENV C2).

8Member States organize their representation per Regional Sea

51

Draft agenda and meeting documents (including, for example, project reports) will be

distributed by the Commission (ENV D2).

Other documents that PCG members would like to submit to the PCG are disseminated via

the Commission (ENV D2).

After the meeting a draft information note to the MSCG will be distributed for comments to

PCG members and, when finalised, transmitted to the MSCG; after consideration by MSCG

the notes will be published on the EUROPA and CIRCABC website9. RSCs are encouraged

to disseminate these notes to their Contracting Parties. Other documents and presentations

for meetings of the PCG will be made publically available through CIRCABC unless

indicated at the PCG otherwise.

The Commission does NOT cover any expenses for the participants.

9 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/f088529c-41a7-4b2e-b92a-e8838a6b3396

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/f088529c-41a7-4b2e-b92a-e8838a6b3396

52

ANNEX 4

Specific elements of the work programme relevant for the different marine regions

(version 5/12/2013)

ANNEX 4:

SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE WORK PROGRAMME RELEVANT FOR THE DIFFERENT MARINE REGIONS

Part 1: Contribution from Black Sea EU Member States

1.1. Activities between the EU Member States in the Black Sea

a. Revision of GES and targets (by September 2014)

o Review GES and targets in BG and RO

o Identify possibility for joint GES criteria, targets and indicators

o Prepare fact sheet per descriptor, addressing data gaps, scaling and aggregation issues

o Develop BS targets and indicators

b. Coordinated Monitoring Programme (mid-2014)

o Prepare coordinated international monitoring programme for all descriptors as a “roof

report”, to be complemented by national report.

o Compile monitoring reporting using the fact sheet approach; development of

harmonised (trilingual) monitoring fact sheets by May 2014.

o Set up first steps for report / “data sharing”

o Identify financial needs and financing of monitoring programme (three parts, already

done, new to be financed (also by ESIF), new not possible to finance at the moment)

c. Coordinated programme of measures (2015) incl. MPAs

o Develop a coordinated bilateral programme of measures focussing on some

transboundary aspects

o Validate MPA “baseline” by EEA and identify additional MPAs, if possible and

meaningful, joint (up) ones.

o Exchange of best practices on measures and their cost-effectiveness

o Economic and social analysis of human activities affecting the marine environments

o Support for drafting MSP and ICM plans

53

d. Reporting

o Assist in national reporting for Art 11 (in 2014) and Art 13 (in 2015) by assisting in an

internationally coordinated part.

o Prepare monitoring national fact sheets in line with discussion in DIKE (and harmonised

btw RO and BG),

1.2. Activities proposed by EU Member States in the context of the Black Sea Commission

o Promote the dialogue between the Black Sea Commission (BSC) and the EU, aimed at

implementation of coordinated programmes as a step towards joint monitoring

programmes to address MSFD requirements and a regionally agreed set of common

GES criteria and characteristics, environmental targets and associated indicators and

other methodological agreements on assessment and monitoring (2014-2018)

o Promote sharing of data and information between EU/EEA/JRC, ICES and BSC and, if

needed and feasible, translate it in a formal arrangement such as MoU or any other

legal document (2014-2018)

o Support dialogue between the BSC and the EU, aimed at setting up a common

programme of measures according to coordinated programmes to be applied by all BS

countries, taking into account/building upon the BSC existing frameworks of measures

(2014-2018)

o Cooperate, including through the MSFD Project Coordination Group (PCG), on

identification of regional short-, mid- and long-term research needs, on follow-up of

the previous projects aimed at the implementation of the MSFD in the Black Sea region

and on strengthening the regional capacities and coordination (2014-2018)

o Stimulate, through the EU, interregional cooperation of RSCs (2014-2018)

o Following successful cooperation with HELCOM on eutrophication, extend coordination

in development of assessment and monitoring tools (2016)

o Collaborate with ICPDR on land based sources of pollution including development of a

hot spot list of such sources of regional relevance (2015)

o Concerning safety of offshore activities establish structured contacts with Barcelona

Convention and OSPAR to benefit, in particular, from their respective institutional and

technical experience (2017)

54

Part 2: Contribution from Mediterranean Member States

Introduction:

The present document is the marine regional specific component of the MSFD CIS work programme for the

Mediterranean. It contains general activities to be carried out between the EU Med MS (Part A) and in the

context of Barcelona Convention (Part B).

Part A: Activities proposed between the EU Med MS:

a. GES, targets and associated indicators (2013-mid 2014)

i. Analysis and comparison on GES, targets and associated indicators established by

Mediterranean Member States (art. 9 and art.10) based, among other elements, on

the information provided by the European Commission.

ii. Comparative analysis with the GES and targets under development in the ECAP in

terms of coherence

b. Monitoring Programmes (2013-mid 2014)

i. Exchange information on existing and planned monitoring programmes

(national/bilateral/subregional/regional)

ii. Identification of a priority set of specific Mediterranean common indicators that

could be used in the first cycle10

iii. Identification of possible candidate indicators to be considered as common in a

medium-term basis to cover gaps

iv. Identification of the way to improve coherence among Member States

v. Elaboration of template fact sheets and roof report on monitoring based on the

common indicators agreed for possible joint monitoring programmes, in line with

the process under development within WG DIKE.

c. Improve the common understanding and scientific knowledge on some specific descriptors,

particularly where knowledge gaps have been identified as relevant in the Mediterranean

(2014-2018),

d. Develop tools to facilitate information exchange, reporting and public participation (2013-

mid 2014)

e. Programmes of measures (2014-mid 2015)

i. Exchange of information about national proposed measures

10

Based on already operative indicators and other feasible in a short term basis

55

ii. Explore possibilities of common measures, for instance on MPA, or implementation

of existing regional plans under the Barcelona Convention or other international

agreements

f. Improve linkages among the already existing and new instruments under other Directives

such as WFD, Habitats, Birds

g. Possible role and involvement of JRC, EEA and ICES

Part B: Activities proposed in the context of Barcelona Convention

a. Provide information on the deliverables of part A to keep Barcelona Convention informed

on actions being developed, especially where other Mediterranean countries cooperation

is needed

b. Feed ECAP process with specific products to facilitate the alignment of both processes in

2018, for example, technical development of common indicators agreed by EU Med MS,

fact sheets delivered, the preparation of regional integrated programmes, review and

development of action, plans.

c. Identification of some areas of cooperation on specific issues where involvement of

Mediterranean third countries is essential, for example offshore pollution prevention, MPA

in open sea, marine litter

d. Contribute to and take into account the results work planned under the Barcelona

Convention, such as:

i. the assessment of the implementation of existing measures and opportunities for

joint programmes of measures,

ii. the SOER report in 2017

56

Part 3: Contribution from OSPAR

Initial OSPAR contribution to the EU-MSFD Common Implementation Strategy

work programme for 2014 and beyond

1. Introduction

OSPAR road map on the regional implementation of the MSFD

The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD; Directive, 2008/56/EC) requires Member States to

coordinate its implementation at a (sub-)regional scale, using the Regional Sea Convention where practical

and appropriate. In that context, Member States shall, as far as possible, build upon relevant existing

programmes and activities already developed. OSPAR, at its 2010 Ministerial meeting in Bergen (Norway),

agreed upon a road map to guide the OSPAR regional implementation framework for this Directive. It

outlined what and how the OSPAR countries should do on coordination and cooperation of the

implementation of the MSFD within the OSPAR Convention in the period 2010-2020, taking their national

obligations into account. The important elements of the road map are included in the OSPAR North-East

Atlantic Environment Strategy. OSPAR, through its Contracting Parties and its Secretariat has engaged

strongly with the European Union MSFD Common Implementation Strategy and the various working groups

that deliver the strategy. Active involvement continues in the EU Marine Strategy Coordination Group, the

Project Coordination Group and the various EU data and technical groupings. OSPAR continually aims to

improve its engagement with the MSFD implementation process to the benefit of the marine environment

and an efficient use of Contracting Parties’ resources.

Five priorities towards 2018

In 2012, the OSPAR Commission adopted Finding Common Ground, which documented OSPAR progress on

the objectives for a coordinated approach with respect to the first deliverables of the MSFD

implementation-cycle 2012-2015: initial assessment, defining good environmental status (GES) for the

marine waters, and setting environmental targets and indicators. Based on this and the original road map,

the Finding Common Ground–document of 2012 identified 5 key priorities for OSPAR-level work between

2012 and 2018, for which additional outcomes were achieved in 2013:

1. To develop common indicators across the GES-descriptors. In 2013 OSPAR agreed upon a set of

OSPAR-wide and regional common indicators and a set of candidates to be developed further

towards common indicators. The ambition is that OSPAR will add common indicators to this list in

the years to come.

2. To include the common indicators in the Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP) of

2014. In 2013, OSPAR decided that common indicators should be the basis for an Intermediate

Assessment in 2017. The aim of this Intermediate Assessment is to facilitate the Contracting Parties

in regional coordination of the update to their MSFD initial assessments in 2018. To that end, the

use of prioritised candidate indicators will also be part of this Intermediate Assessment in 2017

when possible. The Intermediate Assessment will be followed by an OSPAR Quality Status Report

(QSR) around 2021.

3. Developing agreement on common policy requirements and opportunities for coordination in the

development of measures, in 2014.

57

4. Developing agreement on the need for collective OSPAR action with regard to the preparation of

the 2018 updates of national initial assessments. This priority will be met by the 2017 OSPAR

Intermediate Assessment.

5. Considering opportunities for regionally coordinated data and information reporting, linked to

the national obligations of the OSPAR countries to report as EU-Member States to the European

Commission upon their deliverables. In this area, the OSPAR Secretariat is making progress on the

OSPAR Data and Information Management System (ODIMS) against the OSPAR Data and

Information Management Strategy which aims to facilitate sharing and reuse of available OSPAR

data and information.

Aim of this document

The OSPAR countries who are EU Member States are very keen that the work they do on regional

coordination and collaboration within this regional sea convention (RSC) is coordinated with the EU-wide

work they are part of within the EU Common Implementation Strategy on the MSFD (EU-CIS) together with

the European Commission. It is essential that work planning between the EU and the regional sea

conventions is streamlined with a clear division of roles between national, regional and EU-level activities,

so that work being carried out at each level is mutually supportive and duplication of work is avoided.

The EU-CIS has recognized this in the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy – future priorities –

document. The EU-CIS invited the RSC’s to contribute to the development of the new work plan of the EU-

CIS beyond 2013. The ambition of the EU-CIS, as agreed by the Marine Directors meeting in May 2013, is to

further strengthen the role of the RSC’s by asking them to:

Contribute to the CIS work programme on the different working areas;

Support some reporting obligations of the EU member states within RSC “roof reports” 11;

Exchange information on developments within their RSC;

Contribute to practical coordination, e.g. joint time/calendar planning.

The Marine Directors also stressed the important input of Member States and the European Commission as

parties to Regional Sea Conventions and the specific role of those which are party to more than one

Regional Sea Convention to foster better cooperation between RSCs (and indeed River Commissions).

This document is the OSPAR Commission response to the invitation of the EU-CIS to strengthen the role and

to streamline the work of this particular RSC. At the same time it has the aim to guide our update of the

OSPAR work programme on the regional coordination of the implementation of the MSFD, within the road

map as set out in 2010. It does so by linking our five priorities stated in 2012 to the concrete questions

asked by the EU-CIS to the RSCs in the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy – future priorities –

document.

To take a pragmatic approach on linking OSPAR work to the EU-CIS, this document follows the structure of

the working areas of the EU-CIS:

11

In this document, by ”roof reports” is meant documents that report on RSC common understanding, process

coordination and activities, as well as thematic assessments and synthesis jointly prepared at the regional level.

58

Section 2: Basic perspective on the role of OSPAR in relation the EU-CIS

Section 3: Assessment and monitoring of the marine environment

Section 4:Information and knowledge exchange on the marine environment and joint OSPAR

documentation for Member States’ reporting

Section 5: Management, measures, economic and social analysis of human activities affecting the

marine environment

Section 6: Cross-cutting issues

Each section will take up the questions asked to the RSC’s, linked to the activities described for that specific

working area.

The document does not provide views on the EU CIS structure and procedure.

This document can be seen as a follow-up to the OSPAR publication Finding Common Ground and will

thereby further contribute to the structuring of OSPAR internal work on the regional coordination of the

MSFD implementation by OSPAR Contracting Parties that are Member States of the EU.

2. Basic perspective on the role of OSPAR in relation the EU-CIS

General considerations

The dedicated mission of an RSC such as OSPAR to foster marine environmental protection equips it

with the experience, expertise and detailed knowledge about the status of its marine region, which are

unique strengths as required for regional coordination of MSFD implementation.

The consensus decision-making of Contracting Parties working together is a prerequisite for reaching

viable solutions that meet the Contracting Parties’ needs and the MSFD needs.

Nested institutional organisation is required to find solutions to problems that transcend the smaller

scales. This is a very central issue for effective marine environmental policy so that measures are

implemented at all scales necessary. Even though this implies some 'redundancy' between levels, this is

necessary to ensure coherence and effectiveness.

The current economic constraints require all actors to be extremely vigilant to the efficiency of work at

all levels. The regional level can only be efficient if the EU and the Member States have resources

(human resources / time / financial resources) to contribute to all levels required.

Current challenges

Too many meetings at regional and EU level. This is especially challenging for (smaller) MS with waters

in different basins and is not efficient in terms of use of resources.

In order to deliver the MSFD’s integrated adaptive, cyclic and coordinated work at all geographic scales

increased numbers of policy and expert staff will be needed. Efficiency decreases considerably when

access to, and use of, information is uneven between countries and between the policy, the

management and the expert level.

Regional level work needs to be seen to be on the critical path for correct MSFD delivery.

EU-level work often seen as the main (& default) solution level – are alternatives better?

59

How to balance a “European wide level playing field” against respecting the different ecosystems and

geography of marine (sub)regions all over Europe?

How to balance at EU level control of the implementation of the Directive against subsidiarity and

proportionality?

How to engage and make best use of processes and instruments in other policy areas to enhance

synergy?

MS need to prioritise resource allocation.

What is the OSPAR perspective on EU / RSC work division?

1. The EU CIS framework is expected to provide all basic EU-wide common elements. This can be basic

guidance on interpretation of the MSFD and common understanding on determining GES, describing

targets, indicators, monitoring programmes and measures etc. This also includes the organization of

underpinning scientific advice. The RSCs can provide from their experience contributions to inform the

development, elaboration and implementation of such EU-wide common elements (there are examples

of transfer of methodologies between RSCs at national level; precursors of more universal agreement).

More detailed methodology and regional coordination for application of EU-wide approaches (e.g.

common indicator development, monitoring requirements, defining measures) can be developed and

undertaken at RSC level. Parties which are Member States coordinate themselves at RSC level in

commonly implementing these in the (sub)regional application of an ecosystem-based approach.

Where ‘innovative’ approaches that are relevant for the EU as a whole are being developed in a

particular RSC, this should be done in a transparent manner (with feedback through the relevant CIS

group), so that all EU Member States are suitably informed and have opportunities for feedback, and if

practically feasible, participation.

2. Other actors working at European scale for the MSFD such as EEA and ICES (which rely to a certain

degree on shared resources) should also be transparent about their plans for the purpose of MSFD CIS

and OSPAR planning. In this regard it is important that work flow timelines and deadlines for delivery

are mutually clarified.

3. The OSPAR Convention covers a broad swathe of policy and applies beyond EU waters. The work of the

OSPAR Commission requires and values the contribution of all its Contracting Parties, also the non-EU

States. RSCs provide the platform for working together with the non-EU countries in the (sub-) region,

so that the common concerns are addressed together.

4. OSPAR and its Contracting Parties are willing to contribute further to encourage transfer of knowledge

between different regions.

5. On a practical level, OSPAR wants to align work programmes between OSPAR and EU-CIS and with

other RSCs whenever feasible and practical; to share information on work plans and mutually adjust

when needed. The aim should be to have explicit plans with clear targets and outputs so that work

programmes complement each other rather than duplicate. Such sharing and alignment should be two-

way and not just a top-down process. OSPAR continues to explore such issues, for instance

opportunities for pragmatic cooperation and coordination with other RSCs are to be considered by

OSPAR’s main thematic Committees

6. No MOU with the European Commission is needed, as the European Union is a Contracting Party to the

OSPAR Convention already (represented by the European Commission).

60

7. OSPAR expects the CIS to work in consultation with Regional Seas Conventions to agree solutions to

timetables conflicts etc. that can deliver more efficient processes. A means of such mutual consultation

will need to be worked out, given the RSCs represent a mix of EU and non-EU Contracting Parties. The

Chairs of the Conventions can represent these issues for the RSC in forums such as the MSCG, formally

delegating to other CP colleagues or to the Secretariat of the Convention. In the interest of efficiency

and to respect RSC-internal resource allocation management, OSPAR would welcome that in the

conduct of EU CIS meetings, the Chair considers the RSCs as equal discussion partners when addressing

work planning issues that affect the RSC.

8. Where OSPAR identifies particular opportunities or problems with regional coordination of the

implementation of the Directive, there should be a means of escalating the best practice/issue to the

EU CIS processes and other RSCs.

9. OSPAR sees its regular representation at meeting of EU Marine Directors as a valuable element of

ensuring RSC MSFD activity is well informed and directed to support implementation. OSPAR can play a

role in ensuring wider dissemination of information and consolidation of common approaches

regionally. OSPAR would welcome that the EC and the EU Presidency consider inviting the OSPAR

Executive Secretary to participate in the MSFD focused part of the EU Marine Directors proceedings.

10. The EU and its Member States are the main direct beneficiaries of OSPAR coordination work for the

MSFD. While additional benefits of MSFD implementation are ultimately also contributing to OSPAR

objectives, it should be recognized that MSFD work has required strong reliance on the regular OSPAR

resources for various purposes (e.g. the Secretariat support to coordination meetings and preparing

documentation). Noting that through the PCG all involved aim to enhance common benefits from the

resources invested, OSPAR nevertheless would welcome to explore further all opportunities of

appropriate financial and resource contributions to OSPAR for specific MSFD related tasks which the

Contracting Parties assign to it. These include the increased use of projects, the participation in call for

proposals or other possible contributions by Contracting Parties, including the EU (represented by the

European Commission), taking into account the benefits (including resource benefits) that this

increased collaboration will have for all Contracting Parties.

3. Assessment and monitoring of the marine environment

Key message: On-going OSPAR monitoring and assessment is being reviewed in the light of the MSFD (to

make it mutually relevant) and to better address transboundary issues which underpin both OSPAR and

MSFD monitoring.

The regional expertise and experience (e.g. on descriptors 5 and 8 where much OSPAR monitoring and

assessment has already been undertaken) can help guide the development and agreement of EU-wide

arrangements.

Planned deliverables (timing):

Identification and development of common indicators for (sub-)regional application by all

Contracting Parties , with a view to agree on a complete set by 2016;

Where appropriate, stepwise establishment of coordinated monitoring on the basis of the

common indicators, geared towards providing results for common assessment products (see

below);

61

Specific monitoring and assessment support tools to be elaborated under the OSPAR Joint

Assessment and Monitoring Programme 2014-2021;

Further joint monitoring activities (from 2016, cf. NS/CS project outcome in 2015)

OSPAR Intermediate Assessment on the basis of common indicator assessments (in 2017);

More extensive Quality Status Report (around 2021)

As indicated above, this working area is linked to the key OSPAR priorities 1, 2 and 4 which are mainly

based on the notion of ‘indicators’, i.e.:

- to develop common indicators across the subject matter covered by the range of GES-descriptors (except

D3 and D9; D7 has also not received OSPAR-wide priority).

- to coordinate national monitoring activities as a basis for common indicator assessments, taking up joint

monitoring activities on a (sub-)regional level in ‘shared monitoring programmes’, e.g. to take on the

common indicators in the Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP) of 2014-2021.

In 2013 OSPAR agreed upon a set of OSPAR-wide and regional common indicators and a set of candidates

to be developed further towards common indicators when possible by 2014 and the years after. The

ambition is that OSPAR will add common indicators to this list as and when they are fully developed and

cost-effective. The common indicators should form the basis of an Intermediate Assessment in 2017. The

aim of this Intermediate Assessment is to facilitate the Contracting Parties in the regional coordination of

the update to their MSFD initial assessments in 2018. To that end, the use of prioritised candidate

indicators will also be part of this Intermediate Assessment in 2017, where possible. The Intermediate

Assessment will be followed by an OSPAR Quality Status Report (QSR) around 2021.

OSPAR can furthermore provide coordination on monitoring that is not directly related to common

indicators (e.g. time series monitoring that can be used for the updating of the Art. 8 assessment in

addition to indicators). In addition, OSPAR will continue to collect data for mapping human activities and

prepare, under the Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme, thematic assessments (including on

pressures and human activities). OSPAR is offering to share its expertise in these fields also within the

broader EU process.

OSPAR’s work in this area will also contribute to the MSFD CIS through:

- The further improvement of (sub-)regional coherence of MSFD implementation (Art. 11, Art 8, 9,

10, 13 and 17) on the basis of the identified OSPAR Common Indicators (cf. OSPAR agreement in

2013 that specifies which indicators will be addressed. This will be reviewed annually.).

- Support for the development of possible additional Common Indicators on the basis of identified

Candidate Indicators,

The above work will lead to:

- the elaboration of an indicator-based ‘Intermediate Assessment’ in 2017 as a contribution to

Member States’ updating of their initial assessment (due in 2018);

62

- support to Member States in the review of their GES determination and targets and indicators

under Art. 9 and/or 10 in respect of their national definition of GES and targets reported in 2012

(until 2017 at the latest);

- associated improvements in indicator-related monitoring and assessment methods, which can be

shared where relevant;

- coordinated components of monitoring programmes for the first implementation cycle, if time

allows, or for the second cycle.

OSPAR’s work in these areas will be informed, inter alia, by the project “Towards a Joint Monitoring

Programme for the North Sea and Celtic Sea” under the Integrated Maritime Policy ‘New Knowledge’ call

from the European Commission (delivering in 2015) and by the work of existing OSPAR groups, in particular

the Hazardous Substances and Eutrophication, Biodiversity and Environmental Impacts of Human Activities

Committees and their relevant subsidiary bodies.

Additionally, EU CIS will be able to benefit from work already undertaken in OSPAR in other areas such as

on assessment of coherence and representativeness of MPAs.

OSPAR will work to ensure an efficient web-based joint documentation/presentation of monitoring and assessment requirements and their results in order to demonstrate regional coherence, provide transparency and allow OSPAR Contracting Parties to incorporate regional deliverables into their national reporting.

4. Information and knowledge exchange on the marine environment and joint

OSPAR documentation for Member States’ reporting

Key message: OSPAR is working towards a system for making available data and information arising from

the JAMP which could also support the contracting parties for the next round of the Art. 8 national

assessments. Meanwhile, OSPAR will actively engage with the development in the WG DIKE and will

contribute to the work for joint documentation (for reporting) and making information available in

context of Art 19(3).

Planned deliverables and timelines (will be further specified by CoG):

common documentation for reporting at a (sub)regional level on monitoring programmes (2014);

common documentation for reporting at a (sub)regional level on components of programmes of

measures (2015);

common documentation of elements of the Art. 17 updating, especially the 2017 OSPAR

Intermediate Assessment (2017-2018);

progressive development of the OSPAR Data and Information System to enable interoperability of

data and information (incl. metadata).

Towards more efficiency and quality of information

63

The MSFD Common Implementation Strategy – future priorities – document sets out two possible inputs

from RSCs to the work on information and knowledge exchange:

1. Develop a concept for sharing data and information between EU, ICES and RSCs and translate it in a

formal arrangement (e.g. MoU) (by 2014);

2. Align data flows and data needs for next round of initial assessment.

As for the first item, develop a concept for sharing data and information between EU and RSCs, OSPAR is

committed to ensuring public access to relevant information, upon agreement of its Contracting Parties12.

This applies a fortiori to sharing information available in OSPAR to its Contracting Parties (except in well-

defined cases described in law). As the European Union is a Contracting Party to OSPAR, a formal

arrangement for sharing data and information between OSPAR and the competent EU institutions in the

exercise of their functions is therefore not considered necessary.

Data management by OSPAR under ODIMS

The work on the OSPAR data and information strategy, which is the basis for developing the OSPAR Data

and Information Management System (ODIMS) is linked to OSPAR key priority nr 5: Considering

opportunities for regionally coordinated documentation of data and information for reporting, linked to the

national obligations of the OSPAR countries to report as EU Member States to the European Commission on

their deliverables.

Monitoring and assessment are key activities for the OSPAR Commission. In this context, a wealth of data,

information and knowledge has been generated over the past 20-30 years. Only in a minority of cases,

comprehensive data handling arrangements are in place. In 2012 the OSPAR Commission therefore agreed

that there was a need to develop an OSPAR Data and Information System, including a key purpose to

address the emerging MSFD information reporting and sharing developments.

Since 2012 OSPAR is working towards a more uniform and efficient way in which to provide high quality

information to Contracting Parties as well as to other interested parties. For this OSPAR has developed the

OSPAR data and information strategy (see Annex 1 below).

The OSPAR data and information management strategy involves making OSPAR data easier to access, an

important underlying process which will provide the foundation to maximize the applicability of the data.

The implementation of the OSPAR data strategy will mean that for all OSPAR data sets appropriate

metadata and known data standards are applied. Also all relevant processed data and information will be

accessible online (except in well-defined cases described in law). This would make it easier for Contracting

Party Member States and the EU institutions to make use of appropriate data for the MSFD. However,

there needs to be a clear identification of data and assessment products that Member States are using for

the MSFD, and data and information for other purposes.

As for the second item, align data flows and data needs for next round of initial assessment, the last step

of the OSPAR data and information strategy involves the transformation of data to assessment products.

The strategy would facilitate access to and manipulation of OSPAR data for the production of the OSPAR

assessments: an interim assessment in 2017 that can be used by Contracting Party Member States for the

12

See OSPAR Convention Article 9 and the Rules of Procedure of the OSPAR Commission (Reference Number: 2005-17), Annex 3

64

first review of their initial assessment, followed by an OSPAR Quality status Report around 2021. This work

is closely linked to the on-going work on assessment and monitoring of the marine environment.

Once in place the data and information strategy or the web interface product (OSPAR information system)

could potentially also be used in future for regionally coordinated reporting by EU Member States of data

and information for the MSFD (see below).

OSPAR work contributing to Member States’ reporting

While the reporting process itself is the responsibility of each Member State, OSPAR is working towards

providing coordinated and common documentation in formats useful to Contracting Parties in their

reporting to the EU. In respect of the Member States’ obligations arising from Art. 11 MSFD, OSPAR will

contribute through the joint documentation of monitoring programmes using a focused, common and high-

level report on monitoring coordination, together with information products (‘fact sheets’) on monitoring

sub-programmes, mainly centered on the monitoring programmes that generate the data for the ‘common

indicators’ adopted by OSPAR 2013 (e.g. indicators related to GES D5, D8, D10). In the future more detailed

information on the monitoring programmes will be accessible through ODIMS.

Throughout the next implementation steps after 2014, the OSPAR coordination will address whether there

are opportunities for providing joint documentation for:

- common elements of programmes of measures (2015)

- common elements of the Art. 17 updating (including of Art. 8 assessment – i.e. the OSPAR

Intermediate Assessment (2017))

The joint documentation can consist of ‘roof reports’ on a general level and more detailed information

(depending on the decisions made in CIS).

5. Management, measures, economic and social analysis of human activities

affecting the marine environment

Key message: OSPAR is considering options for the development of a joint regional programme of measures. These

options include the identification and agreement of cost-effective measures of a transboundary nature, the

development of regional action plans for dedicated themes, the preparation of joint action of CPs in relation to the

EU and other international organisations under Art. 13(5) and 15 MSFD, and the support of cost-benefit analyses for

regional measures. OSPAR will also maintain an up-to-date list of existing OSPAR measures.

Planned deliverables and timelines: see table at the end of this section.

Introduction

The work on management, programmes of measures and the economic and social analysis of human

activities affecting the marine environment is linked to OSPAR key priority nr 3 ‘Developing agreement on

common policy requirements and opportunities for coordination in the development of measures, in 2014’.

Objectives

In the setting of future priorities within the EU Common Implementation Strategy for the MSFD, OSPAR will

contribute to activities related to the development of programmes of measures and the activities on socio-

65

economic analysis of measures, recognising the different scales and competences of management, as

follows:

1) the exchange of information and coordination of measures that are primarily of national concern

and responsibility;

2) the development of measures at regional level (e.g. through OSPAR decisions or recommendations)

with a focus on transboundary issues;

3) the development of joint proposals for measures that are required to achieve GES but are in the

competence of the EU or international authorities (such as river basins and/or shipping) and

agreement of concerted actions of CPs to approach those bodies/authorities through OSPAR.

OSPAR is considering the scope for the development a joint regional programme of measures and the

particular fields of action where coordination provides real added value in the achievement of GES. If

agreed, any joint programme could include and document regional coordination of national measures,

measures at regional level and concerted regional actions in relation to the EU or international authorities

on measures to achieve GES in the region. Where OSPAR develops Regional Action Plans (RAPs) for selected

(transboundary) themes that benefit from a regional approach to management they:

- may cover measures at all three levels (national, regional, EU/international), and

- may include a streamlining and/or enhancement of existing measures.

Any agreed measures and their implementation will be aligned with the timelines required by Contracting

Parties to implement the MSFD. Where agreed, the development of regional action plans and regional

measures is regarded as a continuous task and will be taken forward beyond 2015. Some of the RAPs and

measures may be ready for inclusion in parts in the Contracting Parties’ Programmes of Measures in 2015,

others rather in the review of their Programmes of Measures by 2021 in the next MSFD management cycle.

Consideration of further opportunities for regional cooperation and coordination of measures will be part of

any future work plans of OSPAR and its committees.

Main issues – scope of work

Coordination of national measures

For measures at national scale or taken at national level, OSPAR will provide a platform for Member States

to discuss coordination of those measures with a view to developing coherent approaches and ambitions to

achieving GES in the region. To this end, Contracting Parties will exchange information on potential national

measures at an early stage in order to allow an adaptation of the national planning of measures and

approaches in the period up to 2015. The coordination of national measures will also support the

identification of issues requiring regional, EU or international measures and that benefit from the

development of Regional Action Plans (see below).

Identification and prioritization of measures

In the identification and prioritization of measures to achieve good environmental status OSPAR can build

on:

66

- OSPAR measures deriving from existing recommendations, decisions and other agreements, and

OSPAR environmental targets;

- the latest OSPAR Quality Status Report;

- national initial MSFD assessments and environmental targets;

- targeted analyses by OSPAR’s subsidiary bodies.

On this basis, OSPAR will work jointly to identify cost-effective measures. A focus of work will be measures

of a transboundary nature, targeting ecosystems and/or pressures that transcend the national scale (e.g.

management of MPAs; gas/oil exploitation in open seas; chemical contamination and nutrient enrichment,

in particular through long-distance transport; litter, noise).

Impact of measures and ESA

OSPAR will share best practice on how to assess the (cumulative) impacts of regional measures as well as

the transboundary impact of (national) measures and thereby to provide support to national Strategic

Environmental Assessments of MS’ programmes of measures.

OSPAR can also foster the process towards consensus on which data on human (economic) activity should

be gathered for the purpose socio-economic assessment of the region (intermediate assessment 2017, to

be used by CP in the update of their MSDF-initial assessment in 2018) or for the purpose of decision making

on the regional elements of OSPAR Regional Action Plans.

Regional Action Plans

Regional Action Plans (RAPs) may be developed for selected themes that require a more overarching

regional approach to management. They may consist of measures on all three levels (national, regional,

EU/international) and will include a streamlining and/or enhancement and/or acknowledgement of existing

measures taken at national EU and international level. The development of a Regional Action Plan on

marine litter (D10) has been agreed at OSPAR 2013 with a view for its adoption in 2014. Options for the

development of further RAPs will be considered by OSPAR within the upcoming work of the Coordination

Group (November 2013) and thematic Committees (Spring 2014).

On the development of a RAP on marine litter, OSPAR will cooperate with other RSCs that are also

developing or considering the development of action plans on marine litter. OSPAR will exchange

information with other RSCs during the development phase of the action plans on marine litter as well as on

their implementation once adopted in order to foster better cooperation between RSCs for the benefit of

EU coherence and those Member States which are party to more than one Regional Sea Convention.

The development of RAPs serves per se as a coordination process between EU member states sharing the

same marine region. As the national implementation schedules for Art. 13 MSFD vary it must be regarded

an interactive and iterative process of development, consultation and agreement.

67

Specific actions and timelines

Action Process Timeline

Action 1: Definition of ‘what is a measure’ and common concepts/language, how to address relation with existing policies

- incl. adoption of guidelines on additional requirements of the MSFD

- Basic conceptual definitions by MSFD CIS (e.g. WGs ESA/GES)

- Region-specific application by ICG MSFD / CoG

By March 2014

By March 2014

Action 2: Clarification what OSPAR coordination can cover in respect of (1) exchange of information on national drafting of programmes of measures (‘best practices’) and discuss any scope for transboundary coordination of national measures; (2) regional measures under OSPAR; (3) common recommendation for action by other competent international fora; in conjunction with this, agreement on the key aspects that underpin a ‘regional action plan’ (thematic, focus on particular pressures, strength of a regional component, …) .

- Intersessional work by ICG MSFD;

- Contributions by committees and technical groups of OSPAR

First draft by March 2014;

then on-going

Action 2bis: concept on the architecture of joint regional programme of measures and their documentation with a view to supporting Member States in reporting under Art. 13 (9) MSFD.

- ICG MSFD By March 2014

Action 3: Identification and prioritisation of necessary action: Main fields of action (which descriptors and pressures) for which OSPAR coordinated action is beneficial; Identification of themes suitable for RAPs and drafting of a work plan for development of RAPs including timelines and deliverables; Definition of the role of Committees in measure development

- First check by CoG November 2013

- Intersessional work by ICG MSFD; contributions by committees (Spring meetings 2014) and technical groups of OSPAR

By March 2014 first full draft including timelines for RAPs; OSPAR decision June 2014; then on-going to be serving for MS’ 2015 reporting on measures

Action 4: Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter - Workshop November 2013 and Spring 2014

- Intersessional work by ICG-Litter

- Proposal by EIHA April 2014

OSPAR decision June 2014

6. Cross-cutting issues

Key message: OSPAR contributes to coordination on project work, establishing scientific advice and aims

to foster, in the implementation of the Ecosystem Approach (for the management of human activities

that affect the marine environment) and including on the basis of the MSFD, an intensified and improved

dialogue between science providers, science programmers and users of scientific information for policy

design and implementation.

The intrinsic aim of OSPAR – using the best available science to underpin programmes and measures for the

protection of the marine environment – is also applicable to OSPAR’s co-ordinating role for MSFD

implementation. An OSPAR Science (needs) Agenda is being developed, which includes knowledge needed

for MSFD implementation and for supporting other areas of OSPAR work, e.g. the establishment of Marine

Protected Areas in the high seas.

68

Next to co-ordinating national efforts to close gaps in knowledge, mainly to improve effective use of

resources for scientific work, the common science agenda is regarded as an opportunity to seek

commonality at the EU level and to interact with scientific programmes outside of OSPAR for joint benefit.

Participation in the Project Coordination Group

OSPAR has made arrangements for active participation in the Project Coordination Group and welcomes

the opportunity to contribute to this work area. The OSPAR Commission has mandated the Secretariat to

participate as OSPAR representative. The PCG should ensure and promote coherence between relevant

research projects, maximize synergies with on-going and planned activities, and improve coordination and

information exchange between the EU and Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs).

Identifying research needs

As a first step to identify priority science needs, OSPAR Committees have reflected (in the 2012-2013

meeting cycle) on research needs for their work, taking into account the findings of the QSR 2010 and

current concerns. This has yielded a number of important, although sometimes fairly general, research

questions. In the next meeting cycle these questions will be further elaborated by OSPAR’s technical groups

(i.e. working groups and intersessional correspondence groups) with a view to establishing a first OSPAR-

wide science agenda at the OSPAR Commission meeting in June 2014

To ensure that the issues on the science agenda will support the MSFD and OSPAR Strategies

implementation processes in an effective and timely manner, an approach has been developed to classify

and prioritize research needs. This is work in progress and the intention of OSPAR is that the resulting

‘Science agenda’ can be used, in its successive versions (‘living document’) to inform scientific planning and

resource allocation. The current methodology contains a template for each research question, using criteria

to explain how closing this specific gap in knowledge would support policy and management.

An important step will be to define, in a structured and transparent manner, the main research needs for

each of the themes OSPAR works on and to ensure including adequate coverage of MSFD needs and issues

of common interest. Depending on the science need, an effective way could be to develop common

proposals for projects under EU funding programmes.

The Contracting Parties and the OSPAR Secretariat are in particular liaising with projects and initiatives

focusing on scientific support for MSFD implementation and environmental sustainability of maritime

activities, and in particular OSPAR is:

- Contributing to the EU project STAGES

This EU project (FP7) has been tasked to, among other tasks, identify priority research needs for each

MSFD Descriptor. OSPAR representatives have been actively involved in activities (workshops and

consultations) of this project.

- Participating in, and liaising with, scientific networks (ICES, JPI Oceans, ….) and on-going projects

OSPAR has a long-standing and valued cooperation with ICES. An annual ‘ICES Work Programme’ is

agreed by the OSPAR Commission with specific requests for scientific advice for which OSPAR allocates

dedicated resources. The OSPAR Secretariat co-operates with scientific networks, such as ICES and a

69

staff member participates in the Strategic Advisory Board of the Joint Programming Initiative on Oceans

(JPI Oceans). The Secretariat occasionally participates in advisory groups or workshops etc. of relevant

projects (e.g. STAGES, DEVOTES, ODEMM, VECTORS,…) with a view to providing information and input

to research agendas in order to promote demand driven research. The work on common indicators

(e.g. their testing) can directly benefit from synergies between work in OSPAR and in specific projects.

70

Annex 1

OSPAR data and information management strategy

The development of the OSPAR data and information strategy involves the following steps up to 2016.

Strategic phase Outcome Actions Progress to date Next phase of work

1. Understanding the

data and information

management needs of

OSPAR

Understanding of

expectations of

Contracting Parties;

clear indication of data

and information

management needs in

the near to mid future

(5-10 years)

review previous user needs

surveys;

update user needs;

invite Committees to

provide future data base

development needed

understand how OSPAR data

can contribute to MSFD

implementation

Committees invited to

provide information on

future database needs/ data

base development during

2012/2013.

Initial analysis of how OSPAR

data might support MSFD

implementation (cf. OSPAR

13/9/1 Annex 1)

Review of committee

input;

Update of user needs/

expectations;

Evaluate a programme

for addressing funding

needs

Complete evaluation of

the contribution OSPAR

data sets can make to

MSFD implementation

2. Reference files Standard shape files

available for consistent

analysis across

thematic areas

agree OSPAR Boundary files

agree OSPAR Coastline

agree spatial layer showing

all OSPAR monitoring

stations.

identify any other reference

shape files

Shape files for the outer and

subregional OSPAR

boundaries agreed and

available on line;

Resolve OSPAR Coastal

extent;

Develop spatial layer

showing OSPAR

monitoring stations;

3. Data standards (links

closely with metadata,

and should be looked at

together, metadata can

show inconsistencies)

All OSPAR data sets to

use common OSPAR

data standards

compile list of agreed data

standards; ensuring

compatibility with existing

standards. (input from Info

System task group)

check all OSPAR data sets

against agreed OSPAR data

standards and implement

changes to bring in line

where necessary.

Collation of information on

data standards currently

being used

Analysis of data

standards in use;

agreement of OSPAR

data standards

4. Metadata All data sets with

INSPIRE compliant

metadata

agree a metadata

framework for OSPAR on

basis of ISO/INSPIRE (input

from Info system task group)

document OSPAR metadata

requirements

ensure all OSPAR datasets

meeting these requirements

Collation of existing

metadata standards;

Agreement of OSPAR

schema for metadata;

Construction of OSPAR

metadata catalogue

5. Online accessibility All data sets available

on line

depends on achieving phase

3

ensure arrangements in

place to enable last

published data set

accessible via the online

data catalogue

OSPAR data page on the

OSPAR website;

All data sets managed by the

OSPAR Secretariat are

available online;

Where data is managed

externally, links to online

data are provided where

available

All OSPAR datasets

accessible on line;

6. Arrangements for Clear intellectual make OSPAR data policy Conditions of use agreed and Develop and agree

71

Data sharing property attribution

and citation for use of

OSPAR data

visible

agree Conditions of Use

agree standard citation for

use of OSPAR data and

information

displayed on the OSPAR

website.

suitable data citations.

7. Web interface

product (Information

system)

NB this phase requires

capital investment

Develop an online

interface to facilitate

access to OSPAR data

and information

drawing on user needs

expressed in 2010/ 2011

undertake a new user needs

assessment to determine

the required parameters of

this product

determine budget

engage a consultant to assist

the Secretariat deliver

2011 Consultants report

outlining the broad scale

specifications ;

Draft call to tender for a

build phase of a web tool;

3 scenarios prepared for

submission to OSPAR2013 for

investment over 3 years

(2014-2016); over 2 years

(2015-2016) and with no

capital investment.

Understand Contracting

Party requirements;

Implement on the basis

of Scenario 1 as agreed

by OSPAR 2013. (3 year

build)

8. Transformation of

data to assessment

product

Established pathways

for transforming

OSPAR data into

assessment products

[Introduced at OSAPR

2013. To be further

elaborated for update

to CoG (2) 2013]

72

Part 4: Contribution from HELCOM

HELCOM ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF ECOSYSTEM APPROACH

Introduction

HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan

HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan stresses the need to coordinate and harmonize the work within the HELCOM BSAP to various on-going initiatives at the international and national level, including the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (a proposal at that time), the EU Maritime Policy and the Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Federation.

HELCOM 2010 Ministerial Declaration

HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in 2010 established, for those HELCOM Contracting States being also EU-Member States, the role of HELCOM as the coordinating platform for the regional implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EU MSFD) in the Baltic Sea, including striving for harmonised national marine strategies for achieving good environmental status according to the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan and the EU MSFD; and

− that this work shall continue to be based on the following common principles:

• a shared scientific understanding of the current status of the marine environment, and the predominant pressures on the status and impacts, building on the HELCOM Initial Holistic Assessment of the ecosystem health and the supporting thematic assessments on eutrophication, biodiversity, hazardous substances and maritime activities;

• a common understanding of the good environmental status of the Baltic Sea that we want to achieve by 2021, based on the agreed visions, goals and ecological objectives, and jointly constructed quantitative targets and associated indicators as initiated with the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan; both the shared scientific understanding and the quantification of the good environmental status are to be used in policy making at the international, regional and national levels, in order to ensure that adequate decisions and necessary measures pursuing the good environmental status of the Baltic Sea are taken;

• joint coordinated monitoring providing the necessary data for regular assessment of the status of the Baltic Sea and of pressures and impacts affecting the status, adapted to support the assessing of progress towards the achievement of the environmental objectives and targets, using indicators developed under the Baltic Sea Action Plan, enabling the assessment and evaluation of the implementation of the jointly agreed measures;

• a coherent and coordinated approach to developing own recommendations, recommendations providing for harmonized implementation of the measures imposed by other international organizations as well as proposals to other international organizations necessary to achieve good environmental status, ensuring full cooperation of the HELCOM Contracting Parties;

HELCOM GEAR Group

73

In order to realize the role of HELCOM as the coordinating platform for the regional implementation of the ecosystem approach, including EU MSFD for HELCOM Contracting Parties being EU member states, HELCOM agreed in 2012 on a new subsidiary body HELCOM Group of the Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach (HELCOM GEAR)13. The specific role of GEAR is to aim to combine national, regional and European efforts for the joint implementation of the ecosystem-based approach according to the common timetable. It also includes coordination of activities under the Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Federation.

The well- coordinated HELCOM processes and deliverables will ensure that HELCOM work continues to create added value and provides support to its Contracting Parties in fulfilling the BSAP and their other obligations, as appropriate, towards improving the status of the marine environment.

More specific tasks of the group are outlined in the Roadmap of HELCOM’s activities with a timeline prepared by GEAR and approved by HELCOM Heads of Delegations14. The Roadmap is a means to plan and specify the deliverables and activities in HELCOM, as well as their timing, assigning responsibilities for the work and coordination.

Regarding the work on the ecosystem approach on the European level, a MSFD Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Work Programme 2014 and beyond, is being developed. It describes how the work is planned to be carried regarding monitoring, assessments, indicators, and data, among others.

The below sections describe activities of HELCOM; both ongoing and planned, regarding some fields of its activities with the intention to:

- inform other Regional Seas Conventions and MSFD CIS of those activities and planned deliverables in the upcoming years

- to inform how HELCOM Contracting Parties being EU member states intend to contribute to the CIS utilizing cooperation and activities in HELCOM.

HELCOM activities on Assessment and monitoring of the marine environment

In carrying the activities related to assessment and monitoring, HELCOM seeks good cooperation with other regional seas in Europe. In particular, cooperation is planned to be strengthened for indicator development as well as for assessment procedures.

Monitoring

HELCOM is currently revising its monitoring programmes in the HELCOM MORE project on revision of HELCOM monitoring programme (2012-2014) with some activities planned also for 2015. HELCOM coordinated monitoring activities will continue as before also during the revision.

The first steps of the monitoring revision have been the review of the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy and development of an overview of reported monitoring. The revised

13

http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/HELCOM%20at%20work/Groups/GEAR/FINAL%20HELCOM%20GEAR%20ToR.pdf

14http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/HELCOM%20at%20work/Groups/GEAR/GEAR%20Time%20table%20A4.pdf

74

Strategy15, including a Data and Information Strategy as well as an agreement on assessment units for the Baltic Sea, was endorsed by HELCOM HOD 41/2013 and adopted by the HELCOM 2013 Ministerial Meeting in October 2013. The overview of current monitoring activities by HELCOM Contracting Parties is available at the HELCOM MORE Data Service16.

The implementation of the Strategy has been started and the next steps of work include:

1. making publicly available joint documentation for monitoring, 2. establishing a coordinated monitoring network, 3. establishing a coordinated monitoring programme described in a monitoring manual, 4. updating of monitoring guidelines and 5. review of HELCOM Recommendation 19/3 on HELCOM COMBINE monitoring

programme. Development of the joint documentation for monitoring to implement the option of decentralised reporting of monitoring is to be carried out by the end of 2014.

As the second and third steps, work is foreseen to be carried out by HELCOM MORE and HELCOM experts on eutrophication, biodiversity and hazardous substances working under the CORESET II project (on operationalisation of HELCOM core indicators, 2013-2015) to develop a coordinated monitoring network as well as a coordinated monitoring programme.

Development of HELCOM monitoring guidelines that will be part of the monitoring manual will continue up to 2015 and it will be supported by the EU part-funded Baltic Sea Pilot Project: Testing new concepts for integrated environmental monitoring of the Baltic Sea (BALSAM). The BALSAM project will contribute to specific themes such as monitoring of marine mammals and birds, non-indigenous species in ports and benthic habitats.

The last regional step for monitoring involves the review of HELCOM Recommendation 19/3 The manual for the marine monitoring in the COMBINE programme of HELCOM. Revision of the monitoring program, manuals and guidelines would imply that the Recommendation becomes outdated and hence its review should be the last step of the revision.

To sum up this work aims to:

- making publicly available joint documentation (i.e. decentralized reporting option under the MSFD) for monitoring, - establishing a coordinated monitoring network, - establishing a coordinated monitoring programme described in a monitoring manual, - updating of monitoring guidelines and - review of HELCOM Recommendation 19/3 on HELCOM COMBINE monitoring programme.

For the HELCOM Contracting Parties being EU member states, the above activities on monitoring will contribute to the CIS objectives for:

Joint coordinated regional monitoring programmes and, as appropriate, joint monitoring programmes to address all or selected parts of MSFD requirements (by July 2014);

methodological agreements on [assessment and] monitoring to feed into the Common Understanding at EU level (by early 2014).

15

http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Action%20areas/Monitoring%20and%20assessment/Monitoring%20and%20assessment%20strategy/Mon

itoring%20and%20assessment%20strategy.pdf

16 http://maps.helcom.fi/website/HelcomMORE/index.html

75

Indicators and GES

HELCOM’s Baltic Sea Environmental Fact Sheets that are to be updated annually or bi-annually provide valuable information on various themes without an assessment of a distance to the good environmental status.

The first set of core indicators for biodiversity and hazardous substances with targets for good environmental status of the Baltic Sea will shortly be published on the follow-up web page for the implementation of the BSAP. Some of the proposed core indicators, called pre-core indicators, were considered premature and left for further development together with candidate indicators. HELCOM HOD 41/2013 agreed on the first set of core indicators with the understanding that the target boundaries for GES are provisional and will be further developed in a process leading to proposals by the end of 2015. Thus further work on indicators and GES boundaries is needed also beyond what has already been done in the CORESET project, and will be carried out within CORESET II in 2013-2015 and relevant expert teams or groups.

Targets for eutrophication status, as well as parameters to be addressed by the core eutrophication indicators have been agreed upon within HELCOM. They were used for the concise thematic assessment of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea 2007-201117. The eutrophication targets are proposed to be reviewed by the end of 2018. Further work is required to operationalize the core eutrophication indicators, as well as indicator-based eutrophication assessment system, and a HELCOM project “Making HELCOM Eutrophication assessments operational” (EUTRO-OPER, 2014-2015) has been developed and in principle adopted by HELCOM HOD 41-42/2013.

The cooperation with ICES and EEA on data flows behind the indicators in the EUTRO-OPER is planned, to contribute to a concept for sharing/making available data and information on European scale. An important aspect of future work would be to include those national experts working on the assessment of coastal waters (e.g. WFD) in the work on assessment of open sea/marine waters by HELCOM. This - in order to utilize the existing networks of experts dealing with e.g. WFD also for future assessments, but at the same time to ensure that the regional knowledge on eutrophication problem in the Baltic Sea, including assessing status of eutrophication and nutrient inputs, is fully recognized and utilized and the efforts are combined.

Core indicators for marine litter and underwater noise need to be developed so that they can be used for the updated HELCOM holistic assessment of ecosystem health planned for 2016. Overall, a full set of core indicators representing the most relevant pressures acting on the state described by core indicators should be developed. The work on nutrient input indicators that enable tracking the progress towards the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) input reduction targets are being developed under HELCOM.

The aim is further development and operationalization of the set of core indicators, as well as the indicator-based assessment system with underlying coordinated monitoring, as a whole to strive at a suitable and as complete set of core indicators as possible to serve the purpose of coherent assessments.

To sum up, this work will result in:

- further developed GES boundary/targets and core indicator set by 2015,

17

http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Associated%20documents/Supporting/Eutrophication%20assessment%202007-2011.pdf

76

- operational, annually or bi-annually updated core indicator reports for eutrophication, hazardous substances, biodiversity, marine litter, noise and various human pressures, each with a boundary/target for GES that enables measuring distance to the target, by 2015.

For the HELCOM Contracting Parties being EU member states, the above activities on indicators and GES boundaries will contribute to the CIS objectives for:

A regionally agreed set of common GES criteria and characteristics, environmental targets and associated indicators and other methodological agreements on assessment and monitoring to feed into the Common Understanding at EU level (by early 2014) and the possible review of the GES Decision (by end 2014);

A […] review of GES and target requirements by July 2017 in order to feed into the MS reports on Article 8, 9 and 10 MSFD in July 2018 taking into account national processes, i.e. of public consultation (e.g. as an integral part of the MS report demonstrating this coordinated approach).

Assessments

Further development and testing of the assessment tools will be carried out in order to make the tools fit for continuous and thematic integration of core indicators and for the holistic assessment of 2016. HELCOM considers setting up a work strand for development of its assessment tools and such an effort is seen as the first step towards the next cycle of assessments in 2015-2016 as outlined in the Roadmap timetable (Figure 1 on the last page). The assessment tools, especially for eutrophication could also be used, after some adaptations, in other marine regions (following the on-going experience exchange between Baltic and the Black Sea on HEAT3.0 and further developing of the HEAT tool in the North Sea in the HARMONY project). This would be a step towards coherent assessments in European seas.

The concise assessment of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea 2007-2011 was finalised for the HELCOM 2013 Ministerial Meeting. The work on the assessment was preceded by development and testing of the revised assessment tool (HEAT3.0). The assessment has its focus on the open sea areas and there remain questions in relation to developing MSFD Descriptor 5 compliant eutrophication assessment reports and therefore further work has been outlined in the EUTRO-OPER proposal, e.g., that a user manual for the HEAT3.0 tool will be developed.

Operationalisation of the indicator-based assessment systems for eutrophication, hazardous substances and biodiversity will be carried out by relevant experts functioning under the CORESET II project during 2013-15. The intention is to further develop the first set of core indicators, finalise the core indicator proposals (pre-core indicators and candidate indicators), GES boundaries, and assessment tools, as well as to identify and mobilise into action all components of an operational indicator-based assessment system by the end of 2015. This is planned to be done under the HELCOM CORESET II project in cooperation with relevant organisations (ICES, EEA). Operationalization should allow establishing systems where the relevant expert groups will meet only 1-2 times per year to carry out the updates with new data and amendments of texts of the HELCOM core indicators and indicator reports. These activities encompass also indicator integrations of core indicators with the use of assessment tools, providing the core information of thematic building blocks, to be presented on the HELCOM website.

77

Core indicator integrations for eutrophication, hazardous substances and biodiversity could be created into concise assessment reports updated on the HELCOM website annually (cf. Concise thematic assessment of eutrophication of the Baltic Sea in 2007-2011). The system for producing these indicator-based concise assessments or thematic building blocks could be set up under the EUTRO-OPER and CORESET II projects, and by the relevant expert groups or teams during 2013-2015.

The actual thematic integrations for eutrophication, hazardous substances and biodiversity could be updated regularly to provide building blocks and support the holistic assessments that are to be produced every six years and to provide a good overview of the status in regards the thematic area.

The first updates to the thematic building blocks could be produced in 2015-2016 as outlined in the Timetable graph (Figure 1). This sequence of updating the thematic assessments would allow for the holistic assessment to be prepared partly parallel and be finalised by the end of 2016. This activity requires as the first step, development and testing of the assessment tools to be completed before 2015.

Related to biodiversity protection and nature conservation, an update to the status report of the network of protected areas in the Baltic Sea18 has been developed during 2013 (PROTECT project). For 2013, the activity was funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers. If granted funding by the NCM in 2014, the project will also work on modernizing and streamlining the Baltic Sea Protected Areas database which has not been optimally functional since 2009 and development of an ecological coherence assessment. These deliverables from the PROTECT project together can provide important input to the MPA related work under the MSFD CIS.

Assessments of the risk of extinction of species19, as well as of biotopes and habitats20 will be part of the six-year assessment cycle of HELCON in such a way that the assessments could be repeated every twelve years. The first update could be done by 2019 with the aim to further improve data availability on species and biotopes already prior to the assessment and through that the quality of the red list assessments. The Checklist of Baltic Sea macro-species should also be regularly reviewed. In order to support the red list assessments the updating of the checklist should be done two years prior to that, i.e. the first update by 2017.

The assessment of climate change in the Baltic Sea region is planned to be updated every six years. An update was published in 201321, and therefore, a relevant time point for the next update would be 2019. This is an activity which is carried out in close collaboration with the Baltic Earth (ex BALTEX) community and the timing should be communicated and agreed with Baltic Earth.

18http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Associated%20documents/Supporting/HELCOM%20BSPAs%20report%202013.pdf

19http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Associated%20documents/Supporting/HELCOM%20Red%20List%20of%20Baltic%20Sea%

20species%20in%20danger%20of%20becoming%20extinct_BSEP140.pdf

20http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Associated%20documents/Supporting/Red%20List_Baltic%20Sea%20underwater%20biot

opes%20habitats%20and%20biotope%20complexes_BSEP138.pdf

21 http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Associated%20documents/Supporting/Climate%20change_BSEP137.pdf

78

Making use of the thematic components and other indicator and assessment material, the Holistic assessment of ecosystem health of the Baltic Sea22 will be updated every six years. The Holistic assessment is expected to cover all possible aspects of the BSAP, and the MSFD for those Contracting Parties that are also EU Members States, including marine litter and noise, and especially various features of biodiversity. The assessment of the sum of pressures and impacts (Baltic Sea Pressure Index and Impact Index23) is a relevant part of such work. The holistic assessment should be built around an integration of the core indicators, using a completed and tested assessment tool and all possible other relevant information, e.g. on costs and benefits of protecting the Baltic, including ecosystem services, climate change impacts and adaptation.

The countries would need to reconsider how they can arrange for the sufficient participation of national experts in joint regional assessment work, and eventually benefiting from it for their national purposes and reporting

This HELCOM work will result in:

- thematic building blocks (e.g. eutrophication, hazardous substances, biodiversity) based on integrations of core indicators; - other assessment products, such as Climate change assessments, assessments of risk of extinction of species and

habitats/biotopes; - HELCOM holistic assessment by the end of 2016 in order to feed, as an integral part, into the countries reporting

according to their other obligations (e.g. for HELCOM countries being also EU countries Article 8, 9 and 10 MSFD by July 2018).

For the HELCOM Contracting Parties being EU member states, the above activities on assessments will contribute to the CIS objectives for:

Developing an assessment framework and methodology for GES, including for cumulative effects as well as temporal and spatial aggregation to allow for the combination of different scales (first phase by mid-2014);

Where current knowledge is insufficient to make GES descriptors operational and there are significant risks to the marine environment, apply the precautionary principle and launch necessary initiatives to develop tools and mechanisms to issue early warnings and undertake risk analyses to close knowledge gaps including needed research and demonstration projects;

A regionally agreed […] methodological agreements on assessment […] to feed into the Common Understanding at EU level (by early 2014) and the possible review of the GES Decision (by end 2014);

A revised initial assessment […] by July 2017 in order to feed into the MS reports on Article 8, 9 and 10 MSFD in July 2018 taking into account national processes, i.e. of public consultation (e.g. as an integral part of the MS report demonstrating this coordinated approach);

In the Baltic Sea regional setting, the HELCOM activities on assessment will also contribute to:

o Common understanding on application of descriptors 10 and 11 through the work of the two Technical Sub-Groups.

22

http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP122.pdf

23 http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP125.pdf

79

o Common understanding on the application of descriptor 3 and its link to the other relevant descriptors as well as other activities proposed by the workshop of 9/10 April 2013 (through ad hoc workshops supported by ICES).

o Common understanding on the application of descriptor 5 (through the work carried out under the WFD ecological status e.g. through the WFD Eutrophication Guidance Document).

o Common understanding on the application of descriptors 8 and 9 including additional work on criteria 8.2, if necessary (through the work carried out under the WFD priority substances e.g. in the respective WFD working group).

o Common understanding on coherence and representativeness of MPAs in support of GES (through Marine Expert Group under the Habitats Directive).

o Common understanding on application of descriptor 2 (depending on the upcoming Commission proposal for a dedicated legislative instrument on invasive alien species – to be decided later).

HELCOM activities on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange on the marine environment

Streamlined data management

A modernization of databases and access to data hosted by HELCOM is ongoing as part of the renewal of HELCOM data management and systems24.

The timetable of the 6th Pollution Load Compilation (collecting data on inputs of nutrients from land-based sources and airborne) has been adjusted to be able to deliver some essential data by the end of 2016 for the use of the next assessment of the marine environment. A major initiative to support the delivery and easy access to pollution load data is upgrading of PLC database (HELCOM PLUS project). The Contracting Parties are requested to prioritise the PLC data collection and delivery in their national activities and the following quality assurance and active participation in the PLC-6 project.

EUTRO-OPER project will result in the regional delivery of the indicator-based assessment of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea, with semi-automated data flow and improved data management process in such a way that it would also be a pilot to building larger European MSFD related data/information structure. The project intends to cooperate with ICES and EEA.

The activity for setting up of Biodiversity Data Portal is not yet in place. According to the HELCOM RED LIST project, HELCOM should ensure that the biodiversity data and information on species and biotopes collected during the HELCOM RED LIST project and used for assessments will be made publicly available on the internet. HELCOM should develop a biodiversity data portal where regional biodiversity data can be managed and made publicly available. This should include making available the species assessment justifications, the distributional data on species, biotope descriptions, photographs on species and biotopes, as well as species check-list data and the Baltic Sea underwater biotope classification HUB. Linking the HELCOM biodiversity data portal to relevant external data portals, e.g., national portals for retrieval of original data should be an ultimate long-term aim of HELCOM.

This work should be designed so as to serve nature conservation needs as well as those stemming from maritime spatial planning. This work, especially its spatial data component and

24

updated information: document 6/3, HELCOM MONAS 18/2013:

http://meeting.helcom.fi/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=16324&folderId=2177073&name=DLFE-53463.pdf

80

database could be developed in such a way that it could be extended to spatial data on human pressures and activities. The biodiversity and MSP pressure data related activities should also enable the updating of the Baltic Sea Pressure and Impact Indices which are part of holistic assessments. In addition, these data activities should provide for further development of HELCOM Map and Data system, at the same time strengthening HELCOM’s function as the regional data hub of Baltic Sea data.

An important aspect of the further work on enhancing the data sharing and making it available, is flagging those data that are used for specific purposes (notably reporting under MSFD). HELCOM collects and stores in its databases a wealth of data which are used to assess the status, pressures as well as progress in implementation of commitments. It can be expected not all of these data are necessarily used or needed for the reporting for other purposes.

This work will result in:

- Pollution Load Compilation database;Concept of sharing/making available data underlying the core indicators for eutrophication in cooperation with ICES and EEA and operationalization of indicators – implementation of the concept (data flows and identification of data needs) by 2014 and 2015, respectively;

- Biodiversity database which allows managing, archiving and public sharing biodiversity related data in such a way that it supports nature conservation as well as maritime spatial planning (pending availability of resources);

- modernization of the Baltic Sea Protected Areas database will enable regional management and public sharing of MPAs related data and information.

For the HELCOM Contracting Parties being EU member states, the above activities on monitoring will contribute to the CIS objectives for:

Developing a concept for sharing data and information between EU/EEA, ICES and RSCs; and

Aligning data flows and data needs for next round of initial assessment (to be agreed by 2016).

HELCOM activities on Management, measures, economic and social analysis of human activities affecting the marine environment

Programmes of measures

HELCOM functions as a platform for Contracting Parties to coordinate their national measures, to adopt joint measures in relation to transboundary issues (e.g. litter – regional action plan) and to take joint actions in relation to competent organisations (such as EU, IMO etc).

Over the past decades, HELCOM has taken a wealth of measures to tackle the anthropogenic pressures on the Baltic Sea environment. The Baltic Sea Action Plan as HELCOM’s regional strategy to achieve good environmental status sets out priorities for action and provides a package of measures to address eutrophication, contaminant pollution, maritime safety and biodiversity.

HELCOM Ministers in 2010 agreed on a coherent and coordinated approach to developing recommendations providing for harmonized implementation of the measures imposed by other international organizations, as well as proposals to other international organizations necessary to achieve good environmental status, ensuring full cooperation of HELCOM Contracting Parties.

81

HELCOM 2013 Ministerial Meeting in October reviewed the effectiveness of the BSAP and proposed further measures to reach HELCOM objectives by 2021.

HELCOM uses as its foundation the BSAP and additional measures agreed by the HELCOM Ministerial Meetings, including nutrient input reduction schemes, and HELCOM Recommendations.

Part of HELCOM work has been to follow up on how far the agreed measures have been implemented, and based on scientific advice, propose any new measures as necessary for reaching GES.

The cooperation on the programmes of measures is planned to also include socio-economic considerations and the discussion on programmes of measures has started in GEAR 3/2013 with the preparation of a concept paper25.

The HELCOM work on measures has so far resulted in:

- identification of necessary measures to reach Good Environmental Status, to be taken on national level, regional level and international level (e.g. within International Maritime Organization);

- understanding of which environmental problems are of transboundary nature, and for example for eutrophication the Nutrient Reduction Scheme identifies the reduction targets for nutrient inputs for each HELCOM country;

- relevant HELCOM forums and groups have been established to discuss with sectorial ministries and stakeholders the implementation of measures, including to some extent cost-efficiency (maritime, response to pollution at sea and ashore, fisheries, agriculture, maritime spatial planning).

The above activities on programmes of measures have potential to contribute to the CIS objectives for:

Identify necessary measures to improve the status of marine ecosystems, contribute to the analysis of their cost-effectiveness and coordinate the definition of necessary measures from a scientific and ecosystem-related point of view (mid-2014).

Develop a common understanding on cost-effectiveness of measures, building on WFD methodologies and experience, and appropriate scales (national, regional, EU) for dealing with (types of) measures (mid-2014);

Contribute to the sharing information on cost-effective measures in particular those specific to the MSFD not addressed elsewhere (mid-2014) together with WG GES;

Further develop the discussion on measures […];

Building on the experience of the WFD, sharing information on the identification of specific MSFD measures beyond existing measures and obligations at regional and EU level and improvement of the effectiveness of existing measures which contribute to the achievement of GES;

Discuss measures of regional and EU-wide importance and the related financial support available (including through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), Cohesion Funds, (including through EMFF, etc. and supported by the macro-regional strategies e.g. EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region) and thereby develop a common understanding of the possible applications of Articles 15 and 22 MSFD (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity or organised through the Project Coordination Group).

25

document 4/3, GEAR 3/2013:

http://meeting.helcom.fi/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1765910&folderId=2100930&name=DLFE-

53025.pdf

82

Common understanding on the application of spatial protection measures as part of the programme of measures (through Marine Expert Group under the Habitats Directive).

Common understanding on exemptions (Article 14) and how the precautionary principle can be applied in the development of programmes of measures (trough ad-hoc activity led by the Commission).

Making fisheries and other Blue Growth sectors sustainable and compliant with achieving/maintaining GES and demonstrating the contribution of marine/coastal environment protection measures to sustainable use and growth (through link to Integrated Coastal Management). Specific activities to be defined, starting with developing MSFD-compliant guidance for sustainable aquaculture (through dedicated ad-hoc activities).

Exchange information on effectiveness of public participation processes and approaches and encourage best practices of MS public participation and information requirements, building on the WFD experience (Art. 19) (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity).

Assessment of economic benefits from marine and coastal ecosystem services (e.g. in the Mediterranean and Baltic) WG MAES (Mapping and Assessing of Ecosystems and their Services).

Develop a common understanding how ecosystem services and the costs for inaction can be accounted or other approaches can be used for when preparing measures and/or justify exemptions, building on WFD methodologies and experience.

In particular, they will contribute:

Coordinated programmes of measures and, as appropriate, a joint programme of measures (by 2015) including:

o Valuation of ecosystem services, assessment of cost of degradation or other relevant approaches,

Contribution to the identification of cost-effective measures of a transboundary nature taking into account/building upon the existing frameworks of measures (e.g. recommendations, action plans, strategic plans) in the RSCs (e.g. management of environmentally adapted shipping, management of MPAs, gas/oil exploitation in open seas).

- END OF DOCUMENT -