Marine Strategy Framework Directive State of play and follow up Art. 12 assessment WG DIKE Sarine Barsoumian 12 October 2015, Brussels

Who is assessed? Assessment exercise almost complete 23 Member States are being assessed 20 country assessments already done Consultation with MS has started and is to last until 19th October 2015 Three assessments remain - Three Member States have not yet reported (or have reported but file is not yet complete and submitted) * Reporting status on 29.09.2015

Approach for assessment reports The reports cover the following points: Overview of any modifications to Articles 9 and 10 Overview of MSFD monitoring programmes – Member State’s self-assessment of coverage of GES, targets, Annex III categories, activities, measures, purpose of monitoring programmes Public consultation process Links with monitoring under Regional Sea Conventions Policy linkages (WFD, BD, HD, CFP, etc.) Gaps and justifications Analysis per descriptor with three levels: Coverage – Partial coverage – No coverage

Approach for assessment reports Assessment of monitoring programmes against Member State GES definition and targets. Modified GES and targets are taken into account (but not assessed at this stage) Provides context by doing a high level comparison with a “reference list” based on EU and regional standards and practices The assessment is based on information reported by Member States in Article 11 report The conclusions are reached by comparing the components of the monitoring sub-programmes, in particular the elements and the parameters monitored, the temporal frequency and the spatial scope and coverage with the Member State’s GES definitions and targets.

Assessment of the MS reports – general outcomes Majority link to existing monitoring programmes under other EU and regional commitments – implications on spatial scope and coverage of monitoring All Member States report on regional cooperation through the RSC’s Transboundary impacts are addressed through regional cooperation in the framework of the RSC’s as well as other international conventions Most Member States have reported with a 2018 outlook – monitoring in view of Article 9 and 10 modifications in second implementation cycle

Monitoring sub-programmes reported per descriptor (in all assessments carried out by 29.09.2015) BE NL FI CY UK North UK Celtic SI DK North DK Baltic SE North SE Baltic DE North DE Baltic HR RO EE BG Latvia Italy Portugal Ireland Lithuania Spain all sub-regions France all sub-regions Together the biodiversity sub-programmes make up 41% of all reported sub-programmes across Member States. Proportion per descriptor of all reported monitoring sub-programmes

Links of Monitoring Programmes with EU legislation reported by Member States per descriptor- Baltic Sea Member States example (in assessments carried out by 29.09.2015)

Links of Monitoring Programmes with RSCs – Baltic Sea Member States example (in all assessments carried out by 29.09.2015)

Reported purpose of monitoring sub-programmes (in all assessments carried out by 29.09.2015) BE NL FI CY UK North UK Celtic SI DK North DK Baltic SE North SE Baltic DE North DE Baltic HR RO EE BG Ireland Lithuania Spain all sub-regions France all sub-regions NOTE: Given the lack of reporting sheets, no data is inserted for Latvia, Italy, Portugal

Spatial scope of monitoring in reported sub-programmes (in all assessments carried out by 29.09.2015) BE NL FI CY UK North UK Celtic SI DK North DK Baltic SE North SE Baltic DE North DE Baltic HR RO EE BG Ireland Lithuania Spain all sub-regions France all sub-regions NOTE: Given the lack of reporting sheets, no data is inserted for Latvia, Italy, Portugal

Assessment of the MS reports – Coverage of Descriptors Good coverage of D3, D5, D8, D9 in most Member States Use of a mix of EU and regional standards – especially in D5 and D8 Sometimes solely rely on existing monitoring programmes – e.g. implications for D9 and traceability of samples to location of contamination Partial coverage (gaps) for D2, D7 in some Member States Activities are covered in the context of these two descriptors Small number of sub-programmes in place Sometimes not clear how impact will be analysed D2 and D7 linked with biodiversity monitoring (i.e. water column and/or seabed habitats monitoring)

Assessment of the MS reports – Coverage of Descriptors Gaps for D10 and D11 in most Member States Data gaps and lack of knowledge reported Some report preference to wait for regional approach to be set up Some report that main purpose of monitoring is to gather data to understand the descriptor better and to modify GES and targets. Biodiversity descriptor coverage is mixed; Seabed habitats covered through a greater number of sub-programmes than other biodiversity descriptors D1, 4 – Fish most often linked with D3 sub-programmes (mix of CFP and Habitats monitoring) D1, 4 – Water column habitats and D1, 4, 6 - Seabed habitats are sometimes linked with D2 sub-programmes D1, 4 – Birds is sometimes linked to D10 sub-programmes D1, 4 – Mammals is sometimes linked with the D11 sub-programme

Reported timeline of coverage of GES by Monitoring Programmes (in all assessments carried out by 29.09.2015) BE NL FI CY UK North UK Celtic SI DK North DK Baltic SE North SE Baltic DE North DE Baltic HR RO EE BG Latvia Italy Portugal Ireland Lithuania Spain all sub-regions France all sub-regions

Common approaches emerging (in assessments carried out by 29.09.2015) Type of litter monitored EE LV LT DE DK SE FI Macro litter on beaches   Micro litter in biota Micro litter in water column Seafloor litter Elements monitored by Baltic Sea Member States for D10 (NB. Poland not included in table) Mammals Elements BE NL DE DK SE UK Harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)   Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina) Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) Mammal species monitored by Atlantic Ocean Member States for D1, 4 – Mammals (NB. France not included in table)

Assessment of the MS reports – observations Information on measures and activities is not yet widely available Most refer to upcoming PoM report and how information will be provided there Some have defined activity focused sub-programmes, which are linked with existing monitoring activities under other Directives/regional commitments Gaps and justifications are often identified by the Member States In some MS: Justifications and plans are clear and refer to the need to collect data in time for the 2nd cycle of the MSFD implementation In some other MS: no clear plans to address them OR limited amount of justifications provided Timeline for addressing gaps reported in most cases is 2018

Contact details: Sarine Barsoumian Milieu Ltd - Law & Policy Consulting sarine.barsoumian@milieu.be