Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Common Implementation Strategy

Minutes of 12th meeting of the Working Group on Good Environmental Status

(WG GES)

GESBrussels

20-21 October 2014

Document: GES_12-2014-Minutes_Draft

Title Minutes of the 12th WG GES meeting (draft)

Date prepared: 02/12/2014

Prepared by: DG Environment and Milieu

DRAFT SUMMARY MINUTES

1 Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda

The meeting was chaired by Joachim D’Eugenio, from the Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit at DG Environment, and co-chaired by Uli Claussen from Germany. A list of participants is given in Annex 1. The papers and presentations for the meeting are listed in Annex 2, and are available on CIRCABC.

The Commission opened the meeting, introduced new members of the unit and welcomed all participants. René Dekeling and Mark Tasker - two co-chairs from the Technical Group Noise were also introduced to the WG GES as guest speakers. The agenda was adopted after a comment by an NGO, which asked clarifications on the participation of NGOs in the GES Review process. The Commission stressed that public participation is being fully implemented in the MSFD process with all the documents published online, the meetings being open to stakeholders and the rules being clearly defined and implemented. The Commission announced that the purpose of the two-day meeting is to take stock of the current status, propose the continuation of the process in relation to the review of the Commission Decision on GES and plan the work to be done between now and the next GES meeting in spring 2015.

2 Approval of minutes of 11th meeting of WG GES (March 2014)

No comments on the draft minutes of the 11th WG GES meeting were received, the minutes are approved.

3 Update on CIS activities of relevance to WG GES – info

a. Report on the Marine Directors meeting (5-6 June 2014)

1

b. Report on the MSCG meeting (12-13 May 2014)

Updates on points a. and b. were presented together by the Commission.

The Marine Directors are appreciative of the work carried out following the publication of the Commission’s Article 12 assessment report, in particular of the regional meetings that took place between March and May 2014. It is currently taking stock of the level of cooperation with the Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs) and ICES and the outcomes of the work on the coordinated implementation of the Directive.

Once a year there will be a joint discussion on the work of the different water, marine, nature directives and the RSCs will also be invited to join this discussion. OSPAR welcomed this invitation but stressed the need to think about longer term planning and resources. HELCOM also welcomed the Marine Directors meeting, as it enables regional cooperation and coherence.

c. Report on the PCG meeting (23 September 2014)

The Commission reported on the meeting of the PCG (Project Coordination Group) which discussed the various calls and projects currently underway, the three projects on integrated monitoring (see agenda item 8.e), the STAGES project on science policy interface and included a session on marine litter which drew a lot of interest. Next steps are to reflect on the future of the PCG (as there are issues of low participation and of no information flow) and to outline the upcoming work for the group. The minutes of the PCG meeting will be available in the coming weeks.

d. Report on the WG DIKE meeting (29-30 September 2014)

The Commission reported on the WG DIKE meeting. The meeting discussed the Art 12 Monitoring Programmes assessment template. Member States have started sending in comments, which are now being processed. The group also discussed the background note on the reporting on PoMs that follows the philosophy of WFD, with key type of measures, proposing to keep documentation to the Commission as light as possible, coordinating the MSFD PoM reporting with that of the WFD and making use of the existing reporting structure of the WFD. Member States are also sending in comments on this document, which will then be sent to a drafting group meeting to take place on 28.10.2014 in Brussels. The consolidated version will be presented at the MSCG and then be submitted to the Marine Directors Meeting in November 2014.

The DIKE meeting also discussed the 2018 reporting and assessment as well as the assessment to be done by the EEA in 2019 (SoE). An extensive review of the data being reported in the RSCs is currently underway. A framework and data model for the WISE marine system is being developed. Other aspects that need consideration is determining which data to use for the 2018 reporting, what can be represented at the EU and regional levels, how information can be communicated to external stakeholders and how it can be fed into the 2019 EEA SoE report.

A Member State asked for clarifications on the participants of the PoM drafting group meeting. The Commission clarified that Member States have been informed through the WG DIKE members.

e. Report on WG ESA meeting (14-15 October 2014)

The Commission reported on the WG ESA meeting. The ESA meeting discussed the Economic Analysis document, which after being finalised will be forwarded to the MSCG; and the Co-Financing guidance document, which as agreed by the Marine Directors, will be added to the recommendation on Programme of Measures as an Annex. WG ESA received also feedback from the public participation workshop that was held in September. The aim is to finalise the summary of the workshop ahead of the MSCG meeting in November 2014.

4 Art 12 assessment (for Art. 8, 9 and 10)

a. Regional meetings outcome

2

Four regional meetings have taken place between March-May 2014 with Member States sharing the region. Conclusions from these meetings include:

- Further work is needed to improve the coherence and adequacy of GES. 2018 is the overall target but the work needs to start now.

- Improving the link between GES and targets is important and needs further work.- A regional assessment is needed to allow for cross-fertilisation and dissemination of the information.

Most of the regional assessments will be prepared in 2017 (regional “roof reports”) to be used by Member States in their 2018 reporting. The EEA is to prepare the SoE report (EU level) in 2019.

- The Monitoring Programmes efforts need to focus on improving coherence. - The Commission invited Member States to inform on any actions taken with the aim of addressing the

recommendations of the Article 12 reports at the Member State level. - Need to develop a joint Work Programme for addressing gaps in the various regions. The call for

proposals that the Commission launched in August 2014, was a direct response to the discussion at the regional meetings.

b. Commission recommendations - follow up

HELCOM’s WG GEAR, OSPAR’s ICG MSFD and UNEP MAP’s ECAP are having discussions as a follow up to the Commission recommendations. The Black Sea Commission is cooperating on this topic in the context of the Phase 1 of the project “Technical and administrative support for the joint implementation of the MSFD in Bulgaria and Romania”.

The regional meetings were one off meetings, which will not be repeated; nevertheless a follow up by Member States is needed. The Commission also reported that as Portugal and Poland were not present at the regional meetings, bilateral meetings will be arranged in order to get their agreement on the conclusions reached by the other Member States in the region.

Discussion

HELCOM reported that WG GEAR is developing a new long-term plan to be ready by the end of 2014 as well as a new project where the focus will be the development of a holistic assessment (HOLAS II).

OSPAR reported that they are producing a regional plan of action in response to the Article 12 assessment, and this will be sent to the Commission before the end of 2014. They are looking in detail on how to use EU funds to set up projects to collaborate on addressing gaps in knowledge.

Romania reported that they are working on the development of a joint monitoring programme in the Black Sea. The preliminary results were presented in a joint meeting of the advisory group of biodiversity and reporting. The background document still needs to be improved before the Black Sea Commission meeting. The Commission asked for this background document to be shared with WG GES.

The Commission commented on the process in the Mediterranean, as there are many issues that need to be resolved. The Commission will touch base on this and will discuss this point at the MSCG meeting in November 2014.

The Commission stated that at the moment is receiving the Operational programmes of the European Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF). There is the opportunity for Member States to use this fund in the context of implementing the MSFD and particularly for contribution to regional cooperation but Member States need to mention this in their Operational Programmes.

Action point:

The Commission will upload the responses sent by Member States on the Commission Recommendations on CIRCABC – asap.

3

5 Other points for discussion

a. TG Noise – progress and related projects – outcome of 10-11 April 2014 workshop – mandate beyond 2014

The presentation on TG Noise – progress and related projects can be accessed here.

René Dekeling and Mark Tasker presented the work undertaken by TG Noise, covering the context and background, the current status of noise monitoring in the EU, the progress achieved in assessing and managing impulsive and ambient noise and the next steps of the group’s work. The presentation concluded with the TG Noise’s suggestions for criteria, which covered “scale, evidence of impact and added value”. If a source of introduced energy meets all suggested three criteria, it could be proposed to be taken up in the revision of the Commission Decision.

Discussion:

Some Member States and one NGO welcomed the proposal of these criteria, but commented on the wording used in criteria two “evidence of impact” and asked to be revised stating that this is problematic as evidence in this case cannot be quantified, in addition it implies that the long term impact has already occurred.

It was also added that the minimum requirement for consideration of a source should not be if “all three criteria are met” but possible one or two out of three.

The TG Noise presenters welcomed the comments and agreed to look into the wording of criteria two. They nevertheless proposed to use all three criteria as exclusion criteria for sources given the recommendations of TG Noise.

Additional comments were made by several Member States:

- Indicators dealing with local information are also needed;- Both impact and pressures should be explored;- For the added value, the notion of cumulative impact is preferred to the criterion of regulation;- Indirect impact should be added to the calculation of the cumulative impact.

6 Improving assessment of GES

The Commission introduced the item on improving the assessment of GES and highlighted that even though progress has been made, the mandate given by MSCG last year has not been fulfilled, because the technical base for the review of the Commission Decision is still being consolidated. Currently, many open questions stull remain; there is a lack of common understanding on the technical terms and language and the work on the technical basis will not be finalised by the end of 2014.

The aim is to have a consolidated package by mid-2015, which will include the following elements:

- Revision of GES and Annex III – Eliminating all parts that do not have to be in a legal text and including them in a guidance document

- Common Understanding Document (helping to shape this language)- A staff working document (possibly)

All of this work will be underpinned by the manuals per descriptor prepared by the JRC and ICES and their expert networks.

The present WG GES meeting is thus to be approached for discussions but not for decision-making. The Commission is committed to continue the process and have a more consolidated basis by the next GES meeting after which the MSCG will be informed in May 2015.

a. Cross cutting issues – workshop (beginning of 2015)

4

The presentation on the cross-cutting workshop can be accessed here.

The Commission presented the “Review of the GES Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD Annex III – cross-cutting issues” draft document which is the basis of the cross-cutting workshop to take place in January 2015. The paper draws on the text of the Common Understanding document, adding some perspective from the Commission.

The paper includes:

- A section covering the topic of GES boundary where there is still a lack of knowledge and uncertainty in terms of how to define it.

- A section looking at the links between the descriptors and the need to examine these in more details to avoid uncertainty and possible duplication of work.

- A section looking at the link with standards used in other directives. For example, the WFD and Habitats Directive use the concept of reference conditions and acceptable deviations, which is also desired for the MSFD.

Conceptually, the Commission stated that the contents of the Cross-cutting issues document, the Common Understanding Document and the work on the Annex III review should be approached together.

Discussion:

Several Member States noted that they agree with the general direction of the document, and that they will send detailed comments in writing. However, several Member States pointed out that there is lack of consistency in the terminology used in the Cross-cutting issues document itself, with some sections referring to elements, ecosystem components and other type of components in a mismatched manner.

Additional comments were made by the Member States:

- Some EU Member States have waters, which are not part of the RSCs; this should be taken into account in the report (i.e. in the context of the Figure 1 MSFD house).

- The input on the reference conditions and acceptable deviations in the document is not entirely correct and different approaches are used in HELCOM, which might not be appropriate for the MSFD. The Commission clarified that in the document this was only used for contaminants and not for all descriptors; and it will look into this point in more detail.

- More attention should be paid to the details of the process, because Member States often run into problems at the implementation stage that relate to details not having been ironed out from the beginning.

The RSCs made the following comments:

- OSPAR commented that any specifications of standardised methods need to make sure that they can be region specific.

- HELCOM agreed on the need for a basic common approach, but stressed the importance of regional and sub-regional differences. They would appreciate a clarification on how Table 1 and 2 in the document could be applied for the MSFD (boundaries and Favourable Conservation Status (FCS)). HELCOM would like examples of how Member States use FCS at the national level in the context of MSFD implementation.

- UNEP-MAP informed that it is working on the integrated monitoring assessment programme. They will have a meeting on Integrated Monitoring Assessment in February 2015, where EU and non-EU countries will participate. In this context, it would be ideal if more coherent EU positions are available beforehand so that the discussion can be expanded to the non EU Mediterranean countries as well.

An NGO question the intention to cut down the legal text of the Commission Decision and include some sections in a guidance document. The Commission clarified that this is the advice received from the legal unit, as text parts in the decision do not actually clarify the criteria and they are proposed to be removed. These might be included in a guidance text or in the Common Implementation Strategy guidelines.

5

The Commission concluded the session by stating that it welcomes written comments on the document by end of November, it will look technical manuals from JRC/ICES, synthesise and reflect those in the document, and a new version will be available early next year.

Action point:

Member States to send in comments on Cross-cutting issues paper by 28.11.2014.

b. Annex III

The presentation of the Annex III review can be accessed here.

The Commission presented the developments regarding the review of Annex III. There is the need to make a clear link to Annex I descriptors, and clarify how it can be used for the Article 8 initial assessment. The review of MSFD Annex III is needed to compliment the review of the GES Decision.

The reviewed indicative list of pressures stems from: the MSFD Annex III Table 2, the WFD 2014 reporting guidance, the HD 2011 reference list and the OSPAR- 2014 JAMP. The outcome is a proposal for a modified MSFD list, which is similar to OSPAR and HELCOM lists.

Discussion:

Several Member States welcomed the work presented, and had specific comments on the content:

- Need to clarify the use the terms “activities and pressures” to avoid confusion in the document. - Need to ensure consistency in naming the tables in the document. - Question if we really need “impacts” as it adds complications.- Table 1 of Annex III:

While high-level elements are good; there are some points where the content is too generic and this should be mitigated.

There is a mention of protected habitats but not of protected species Protected species that are not highly mobile (benthic, invertebrates, etc.) should not be

analysed as part of benthic habitats, and they might merit a specific criteria as a species. - Table 3 of Annex III (on uses and activities):

The terminology of drivers should be used (and the definitions as they appear in the Common Understanding document).

The contents of Table 3 need to be harmonised with their potential use for the socio-economic analysis, and also made coherent with Eurostat and EMODNET.

Sequestration should move from sub-activity to activity. Wastewater discharge should be added as an activity. Fresh water retention should be included in the categories as it is a very important aspect. Greater compatibility is needed between the elements in this table with that of the monitoring

programmes reporting. Agriculture - forestry mining could be included. Economic and social activities analysed in the ECAP process in the Mediterranean should be

considered.

The Commission asked participants to send their detailed comments in written form.

Action point:

Member States to send in comments by 28.11.2014.

c. Review of GES Decision per descriptor

State of play (JRC/ICES) – The JRC presentation can be accessed here. The ICES presentation can be accessed here.

The JRC and ICES presented their work on the development of the manuals per descriptor. Their presentations covered the main conclusions and outstanding issues per descriptor that need further work.

6

The presentations covered the main points as presented in the GES manual background note compiled for the GES meeting.

Discussion:

The Commission is appreciative of the work of JRC and ICES and the progress made. The competence centre that the JRC has launched recently is also a key element for the facilitation of work between key experts and contributes to this exercise.

The roadmap is as follows: most of the questions that have been raised are very complex and will not be resolved in the process of the GES review. The intention is to use existing and available knowledge and incorporate them into the GES review. The open questions that require further research should remain out of the scope of this work for now. Several Member States called for additional workshops on the manuals. In addition, one Member State asked for the requirements of Article 9.3 on consultations to be applied. The Commission clarified that the process of developing the manuals is not complete and there will be more commenting rounds as well as possible workshops (see Section “6.e Way forward”).

Member States welcomed the work presented and raised a variety of issues relating to the descriptor manuals:- D1: Why are D1-4-6 not discussed together, as they are so closely interrelated? The JRC clarified that

they will be discussed together i.e. during the cross-cutting workshop to be held in January 2015.- D2 and D5: why was a workshop not organised for these two descriptors? The JRC clarified that it was

decided that a commenting procedure would be enough and it also related to timing issues and availability of experts.

- D3: there are inconsistencies between what was discussed at the D3 expert workshop and what is presented in the cover note and the extracted conclusions of the workshop.

- D6: The content of the D6 manual as well as the main conclusions from the D6 workshop need to be revisited. There are some inconsistencies between what was discussed at the workshop and what is in the background document and the extracted conclusions of the workshop.

- D6: the development work of the D6 manual focused on the biological part of the descriptor and less on the links with pressures thus leading to imbalanced outcomes. The DEVOTES project recommendations on the implementation of the MSFD includes work on Annex III and each descriptor and should be taken into account. The Commission clarified that the JRC is the leader of that deliverable in DEVOTES, and the same people involved in that were also involved in the workshop and the deliverable was indeed presented to the expert group.

Several Member states commented on the lack of involvement of the RSCs in the process, especially in the case of D6. They added that the invitations to the expert workshops were not sent to the RSCs in a consistent manner. ICES clarified that had requested and submitted to the experts of the workshops the full updated list of the RSC indicators and attended a joint meeting between OSPAR and HELCOM.

Action point:

Member States to send in comments by 28.11.2014.

d. Common understanding of GES

Progress by Drafting Group – info and Presentation of draft guidance – discussion

The presentation on the Common Understanding document can be accessed here.

Uli Claussen presented the Common Understanding document. The presentation covered the main steps thus far in the process of developing this document, and the recommendations as detailed in the report. He asked the group for guidance on the paper in order to further elaborate on the text, including recommendations on outstanding issues (i.e. aggregation).

Discussion:

The following comments were raised:

7

- There is an overlap with the cross-cutting issues document, i.e. description of links between Article 9 and Article 10. This section may be better described in the cross-cutting issues document i.e. Article 9 with pressures relationship.

- The cover page of the document should not say prepared by WG GES, until it is officially adopted, and this should be amended.

- Recommendation 4: While the addition of pressures is welcomed at source, a clarification is needed in the paper to

state if the pressures have been associated with GES. Clarification is needed in the paper on how this recommendation would work with descriptors

such as noise and litter. - Recommendation 5:

In the case of the precautionary principle graphic, the title “Not GES” cannot be used; it is preferred to use “unknown” instead.

Clarification is needed in the paper on what “no regret” measures mean. This recommendation needs to better reflect the concept of achieving and maintaining GES as

described in Article10 and Article13 of the directive.- Recommendation 8: the term SMART is not appropriate. It is suggested to re-consider this.

The co-chair commented that the paper discusses issues in a theoretical manner, and more practical examples are needed to make the link with the comments that the WG GES raised. A revised version to be provided in the next WG GES meeting in April 2015.

The WG GES participants were asked to send in written comments on the document by the end of November 2014. The follow up of this draft will include a revised glossary and draft recommendations.

Action point:

Member States to send in comments by 28.11.2014.

e. Way forward

The presentation on the way forward can be accessed here.

The following timeline was established during the meeting and agreed on:

- 28.11.2014: WG GES to send comments on all draft documents presented during the WG GES meeting (i.e. JRC/ ICES manuals, on cross cutting issues, Annex III, CU document)

- Some Expert Groups (D1, D2, D5) can also continue to work until 28.11.2014- 21-23.01.2015: Cross cutting issues workshop (2 days) in Copenhagen. Exact days to be confirmed- Early February 2015: revised JRC/ICES manuals circulated. If necessary, specific meetings of Expert

Groups will take place to address outstanding technical issues identified (between February-March 2015)

- 25.03.2015-07.04.2015: Next version of draft documents to be circulated to WG GES- 22-23.04.2015: next WG GES meeting

The common deadline of 28.11.2014 is to be respected for comments on all documents following the WG GES meeting. Participants were asked to disregard the deadlines in the individual slides of the presentations made during the WG GES. The input expected from Member States should be in the form of side comments and not detailed editing of the reports. The JRC’s work D1, D2 and D5 (which is not yet complete) will be proceed in parallel to the commenting round.

Several Member States commented on the need for the manuals to be significantly reworked (D1 and D6 were specifically mentioned). The Commission clarified that with each descriptor manual released, there will be instructions on how to further process them, i.e. need for commenting or need for additional expert workshops.

The Commission agreed to compile and send the contact details of the persons to whom comments should be sent (Email sent out by Commission on 27.10.2014 with subject line “WG GES - List of addresses for comments (deadline 28/11/2014)).

8

7 Other points for discussion

a. Programmes of Measures reporting

The presentation of PoM can be accessed here.

The presentation on the reporting on PoM focused on the outcomes of the WG DIKE meeting discussion. These outcomes have also been presented to WG ESA. Member States have sent comments on 17.10.2014. A new version of the PoM background paper will be released by 22.10.2014, and the drafting group will discuss the paper on the 28.10.2014.

b. TG Litter – progress and related projects – mandate beyond 2014

The presentation on TG Litter can be accessed here.

The JRC presented DG Environment’s Unit C2 projects on marine and riverine litter and a progress report on the work of the TG Litter. The on-going work of the TG Litter is focusing on the preparation of thematic reports; that have been slightly delayed due to the Commission Revision process and its related deadlines. The first report to be released is on sources and pathways focusing on the “likelihood” methodology; it is now very close to finalisation. Another report will focus on harm and riverine litter. Another area of work is the update and finalisation of the monitoring protocols and categories. These will be released at a later stage.

Discussion:

Several Member States welcomed the work undertaken through the projects and expressed their interest into the results once available.

- One Member State asked which case studies were used in the riverine litter project. The JRC clarified that these are the Rhine, Danube, Po and Dalälven rivers.

- One Member State stated that in the ECAP process in UNEP MAP there is also an expert group on marine litter. The JRC clarified that the chair of the ML TG is also the chair of the ECAP ML group, so links are being made.

- A Member State asked if the “harm” report would consider micro litter. The JRC clarified that it would.

The co-chair closed the session by referring to the Regional Action Plans for marine litter in some of the RSC’s and the related work that is being undertaken in that context and asked the agreement of the group for proposing to MSCG the prolongation of the activity of TG Litter for one more year.

c. Marine alien species on EASIN (JRC)

The presentation on EASIN can be accessed here.

The EASIN project on European marine alien species was presented by the JRC. The EASIN aims to improve the quality of information on alien species, increase its availability and accessibility, and ultimately support a cost-efficient invasive alien species policy. Its aim is to create a network of online interoperable web services through which information in distributed resources can be accessed. All information provided by EASIN’s services will be linked to the source data, where the user should seek more detailed and disaggregated information.

Discussion:

- Several Member States had questions on the data inputs in the system. The JRC clarified that the data included in the system is sub-sampled from a number of grids within the EASIN network.

- OSPAR asked how this system relates to WISE Marine and EMODNET. The JRC clarified that EASIN does not link to those, as the WISE marine relates to reporting obligations and EMODNET contains different data.

9

- One Member State asked about the links to the DAISIE list. The JRC stated that the list has been considered but the country level information of DAISIE is currently not included in the EASIN. EASIN does not only focus on marine, but also on freshwater and terrestrial alien species.

- Several Member States and NGOs commented on the use of having yet another system in place dealing with MSFD data. The JRC clarified that EASIN is not replicating efforts, but is harmonising the information already available in one system.

The JRC has compiled all the NIS information from the MSFD national electronic reports, and after a round of harmonisation of data, generated a list of 1431 records and asked the WG GES to agree on the publication of this list through the EASIN system. The WG GES did not support this request and asked JRC to refer to the DIKE group, as the issue deals with data.

d. HOPE index

The EEA gave a brief overview of the HOPE index. The section on the HOPE index in the cross-cutting paper is currently empty, as the HOPE index is still being developed. An overview of the RSCs’ indicators has been created to see how operational and relevant they can be for the MSFD. The selection is meant to be done gradually and over time. The possible output could be a barometer-type of analysis that enables the communication of GES and descriptors at the very high level. However, no concrete results are expected to be presented at the next GES meeting in April 2015.

Discussion:

HELCOM asked if the assessment results will be used for the indicators. The EEA clarified that they are using what is coming out of the RSCs; yet sometimes this is not uniform, and the EEA has to somehow tie everything together at the EU level. At the moment there are very few European indicators and these are the ones developed by the EEA.

The Commission clarified that the HOPE index is a subset of what is already developed and reported under the MSFD and the RSCs.

e. MSFD Competence Centre & info on DEVOTES (JRC)

The presentation on the MSFD competence centre can be accessed here.

The JRC shortly presented the MSFD competence centre and information on DEVOTES project. The main goal of the MCC is to act as a science-policy interface, facilitating cooperation and information exchange between several ongoing activities that support the MSFD. The MCC provides a “platform” for sharing knowledge and scientific expertise on methods and modelling tools. For more information please visit the MSFD MCC website here.

Discussion:

One Member State asked for a clarification in terms of the basis of such a Competence Centre. The JRC clarified that the intention is to have a platform to feature material from the different players, and this will include work from the RSCs. Its creation has already been discussed in WG GES.

8 Information exchange

Commission provided information to the group on the following activities. No discussions took place

a. Fisheries workshop (3-4 April 2014)

b. ICES workshop on D4 (food webs) (31 Mar -3 Apr 2014)

c. MPAs workshop (6 May 2014) & Progress report on protected areas (Art. 21)

d. Biodiversity/Nature/Water and Marine (joint directors meeting, integration paper (see DIKE) and joint workshop (end 2014))

e. Projects overview (Marine monitoring pilot projects, Best Practice for action plans project )10

f. ECOSTAT

9 Information from Regional Sea Conventions, Member States and other relevant activities in relation to MSFD

a. Progress on GES and targets (GFCM)

The presentation of the General Fisheries Commission of the Mediterranean (GFCM) can be accessed here.

GFCM presented their activities on the MSFD, their cooperation activities with UNEP MAP, ICES, and joint projects they have with the Italian Ministry of Environment (MedSUIT project). Their key activities in relation to the MSFD are: the Advice on the status of exploited populations in the Mediterranean and Black Sea (Scientific Advisory Committee – SAC); advice on MSFD D3 related criteria, and work with UNEP MAP on the definition of operational objectives, indicators and targets for Ecological Objective 3.

Discussion:

One Member State asked if it would be feasible, in terms of data availability in the Mediterranean, to have an indicator developed for “Criterion 3.3 Population age and size” in the short run and include it in the MSFD Commission Decision Review. The GFCM clarified that they have data on health, but there are some issues relating to the robustness of the indicator in the long-run.

ICES appreciated the close cooperation mentioned and specified that they face the same problems as GFCM for Criterion 3.3.

One NGO asked about the process of reaching agreements with non-EU countries. The GFCM specified that sub-regional management plans, based on targets, are already being used in EU and non-EU members within some sub-regions. There is also a common interest in setting up a common management plan. For some indicators such as in the case of fisheries it is possible to do so, but in some other areas it is more difficult.

HELCOM referred to the CORESET project and their collaboration with OSPAR. They have recently published an online monitoring manual highlighting existing gaps at the RSC and Member State levels. While not a roof report it has proven useful to Member States. They also referred to the on-going workshop on litter action plans and to the meeting on noise in November.

The Black Sea Commission stated that Bulgaria and Romania are collaborating and making efforts to update monitoring programmes for Black sea and establish of GES and targets, some of which are inline with MSFD

10 Other issues / AOB

The Netherlands announced that the three projects on joint monitoring (agenda item 8.e) are holding a conference to disseminate project results. The Member State invited participants to join the conference, which will be held on the 24.04.2015 in Brussels, the day following the next WG GES meeting in April 2015. Programme and official invitation will be sent out in the coming months.

The EEA announced that a small workshop on biodiversity reporting will take place at the end of November 2014; mainly targeting the RSCs. The outcomes of the workshop will be fed into the TG Data work.

11 Closure of the meeting

The co-chair thanked all participants for their presence and contributions and closed the meeting.

11

Annex 1 – List of participants

Organisation / Ministry Last name First name

Member States

AT Austria

BE Belgium

BG Bulgaria

HR Croatia

CY Cyprus

DK Denmark The Danish Nature Agency Niilonen Tonny

The Danish Nature Agency Løvendahl Raun Ane-Marie

EE Estonia Ministry of Environment of Estonia Villmann Agnes

FI Finland Finnish Environment Institute, Marine Research Centre (SYKE) Korpinen Samuli

FR France Ministère de l'écologie, du développement durable et de l'énergie Terrier Isabelle

12

Institut francais de recherche pour l'exploiration de la mer (IFREMER) Wessel Nathalie

DE Germany Federal Environment Agency (UBA) Weiss Andrea

Federal Environment Agency (UBA) Claussen Uli

Federal Environment Agency (UBA) Leujak Wera

Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein Knefelkamp Britta

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) Krause Jochen

EL Greece Hellenic Ministry for the Environment, Energy and Climate Change Papakonstantinou Konstantinos

Special Secretariat for Water Laliotou Varvara

IE Ireland Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG) Cronin Richard

IT Italy Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA) Silvestri Cecilia

LV Latvia

LT Lithuania Environmental Protection Agency of Lithuania Kubiliūtė Aistė

MT Malta

NL The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment van den Ende Frank

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment Enserink Lisette

13

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment Dekeling Rene

PL Poland

PT Portugal Direcção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços Marítimos (DGRM) Simão Ana Paula

RO Romania Ministry of Environment and Climate Changes Mihail Otilia

SI Slovenia

ES Spain Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment Arrieta M Sagracio

SE Sweden Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) Pettersson Karin

UK United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Scarsbrook Andrew

Joint Nature Conservation Committee Hawkridge Jane

JNCC Tasker Mark

Non-EU Member States (Observers)

NO Norway Norwegian Environment Agency Storeng Anne Britt

Norwegian Environment Agency Fossum Pettersen Camilla

SWAM Porsbring Tobias

Regional Sea Conventions

14

RSC Barcelona Convention (UNEP/MAP) Secretariat

RSC Black Sea Commission Secretariat

RSC Helsinki Convention (HELCOM) Secretariat Zweifel Ulla Li

Helsinki Convention (HELCOM) Secretariat Avellan Lena

RSC OSPAR Commission Secretariat Campbell Darius

Stakeholders & International organisations

INT ORG General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) Bernal Miguel

INT ORG International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Hagebro Claus

INT ORG Regional Advisory Council, North Sea (NS RAC) -VisNed van Broekhoven Wouter

Regional Advisory Council, North Sea (NS RAC) -VisNed Batsleer Jurgen

STH BirdLife International Campos Bruna

STH European Mollusc Producers Association (EMPA) Ducloy Perrine

STH Marine Strategy Navigation Group (NAVI) representative (Central Dredging Association - CEDA) von Meijenfeldt Noemi

STH Oceana Fournier Nicolas

STH Oceancare Entrup Nicolas

15

STH Seas At Risk Dom Ann

Seas At Risk Stockhausen Bjorn

STH Worldwide Fund for Nature (Germany) Lutter Stephan

STH Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB) Hoglund Nils

EU Commission / European Environment Agency / Consultants

Consultant Milieu Ltd Barsoumian Sarine

EEA European Environment Agency Christiansen Trine

ENV.C.2 European Commission, DG Environment, Unit C.2 "Marine Environment and Water Industry" Cheilari Anna

European Commission, DG Environment, Unit C.2 "Marine Environment and Water Industry" Connor David

European Commission, DG Environment, Unit C.2 "Marine Environment and Water Industry" Martin-Roumegas Lydia

European Commission, DG Environment, Unit C.2 "Marine Environment and Water Industry" Meura Lucie

European Commission, DG Environment, Unit C.2 "Marine Environment and Water Industry" D'Eugenio Joachim

ENFP DG ENV Fernandez Sanz Diego

JRC European Commission, Joint Research Centre Hanke Georg

Cardoso Ana Christina

16

Annex2 – List of papers and presentations (available on CIRCABC)

Documents

 GES_12-2014-00_List of documents_rev

 GES_12-2014-01_draftAgenda_v4

 GES_12-2014-02_Overview of documentation

 GES_12-2014-03_GESDecisionReview_Cross-cuttingIssues_v1

 GES_12-2014-04_MSFDAnnexIIIrevision

 GES_12-2014-05_Manual_BackgroundNote_V2

 GES_12-2014-06_Common Understanding

 GES_12-2014-07_Information exchange

 GES_12-2014-08_Discussion doc TG Noise

Presentations

 GES_12-2014-09_TG_Noise.pptx

 GES_12-2014-10_CrossCuttingWorkshop.pptx

 GES_12-2014-11_ReviewMSFDAnnexIII.ppt

 GES_12-2014-12_GESDec_Review_JRC.ppt

 GES_12-2014-13_GESDec_Review_ICES.pptx

 GES_12-2014-14_CU_document.pptx

 GES_12-2014-15_ImprovingAssessmentGES_WayForward.pptx

 GES_12-2014-16_MSFDreportingPoMs.ppt

 GES_12-2014-17_TG_ML_Progress.ppt

 GES_12-2014-18_MSFD_EASIN.ppt

 GES_12-2014-19_MarineCompetenceCentre.pptx

 GES_12-2014-20_MPA_assessment.pptx

 GES_12-2014-21_GFCM.pptx

17