Questions for break-out sessions GROUP 2 messages Participants : state administrations in charge of MSFD and/or WFD, ESA and GES experts, shipping industry, OSPAR, EEA Facilitator : Denis Bailly, University of Brest, France

1)Is there a clear understanding of where (ecological) problems (of pressures and impacts) lie? problems identified in the initial assessment? are the problems addressed by existing measures or are new/advanced existing measures needed?  2)Given the grouping of measures in annex VI , do you consider that the grouping of the types of measures makes sense (or necessary) or are you also considering introduction of another set of measures on top of those in Annex VI? 3) How would you look at links between existing measures and new/additional measures? i.e. between WFD and MSFD: do the existing measures have eventually be reassessed and how would you deal with it? would advanced/reassessed existing measures be accounted to the MSFD programme of measure or to the program of the original Directive? 4)What is the relationship between environmental risks and disproportionate cost? How is this assessed? Are there specific/good examples of ways of working that you can share? how can the precautionary principle (and cumulative impacts) be approached in the economic and social analysis? Ways of working 5)what information would ESA require from GES to carry out an economic analysis of a potential measure? What are the key interdependencies between GES, ESA and the Commission to develop programs of measure? 6)What about timing, prioritization in and organization of the process of developing programs of measure? 7)Do we need a regional coordination of measures on some measures (where doing something individually by member states don’t make sense)?

Q1 : view of the problems from initial assessment Initial Assessment provides sufficient information to do the work that is needed now, i.e. prioritize descriptors/issues to be addressed with due consideration of the intensity of the problem, the importance of sectors involved, the gaps in knowledge and the gaps in existing policies. But there are concerns about scale issues, differences in interpretation of descriptors and feasibility of monitoring of some indicators. Need to better demonstrate efficiency of measure at MSFD scale of concern. Warning about temptation of simple messages like : big pressure mean big environmental impact. The cost of degradation work has been useful to figure out the policy gaps that need to be addressed.

Q2 : About Annex VI – classifying measures Typologies are useful for evaluation and comparison at regional or EU level, none is perfect (grey areas), but there are not likely to make a difference in the quality of the PoM. WE NEED A COMMON TYPOLOGY WHAT EVER IT IS USED FOR AND WHAT EVER THE GREY AREAS ARE. Typology of annex VI may miss a category to report on voluntary/contractual measures For analytical purpose, what is important is to consider at what part of the pressure-impact chain the measure will work and the mechanism that is used to force changes.

Q3 Links between existing measures and new/additional measures? 1- The MSFD should be considered as a place to deliver actions in areas that are not addressed by other policies, or in areas were the baseline analysis has concluded that cumulative effect of the policies in place is not likely to deliver GES. 2- Properly justify your programme of measure referring to other policies, but concentrate on additional measures and do not use the PoM to argue on or influence other policies. 3- This has to be done by other mechanisms such as using the assessment work done for marine GES to voice at the table of other policies, particular in areas which are not under environmental ministry authority. But also to coordinate within environmental agencies.

Q4 About environmental risk and disproportionate costs The question is how to manage to get changes by demonstrating both cost efficiency of measures and high external benefits with low internal cost. The rational of that is clear but we should not miss the opportunity given by MSFD and be careful not to provide too many arguments that could become instrumental for exemption/derogation claims. So better not enter into detail interpretation of these terms Against that there is the legal security argument. If not more precisely defined, these terms will be left to interpretation by judges in legal cases. So it is wrong to say that it only a matter of political decision. The main argument we have is the quality of our assessments

Q5 Interdependencies between GES and ESA More detailed the PI and baseline assessments are, more accurate and useful the ESA of measures will be. But this is not a one way GES to ESA; a matter for closer “two ways” interaction (non only content but also process). Joint meeting much welcome. Need more Some countries express the need for more inputs from GES on baseline assessment (e.g. gap assessment on fisheries). Need to improve the knowledge about links between uses-pressures-impacts and policies in place. The technical feasibility of measures should be assessed before ESA is performed (for more efficient use of limited resources). Important that ESA and GES work not only together but also with the administration. Need also that they interact with sectors to help develop support rather than opposition to the need for additional measure. Concern was expressed why sector representation in MSFD WG is getting less and less important.

Q6- Timing, prioritization and organization of the process of developing programs of measure? Prioritization of descriptors on which to work should be completed rapidly combining GES and ESA expertise and by contrasting the BAU and GES Need to be pragmatic and to properly phase feasibility assessment and ESA/sustainability assessment of measures No room for academic discussion, little for methodological considerations In practice people in charge call each other when they have practical difficulties, but a meeting next autumn to share experience on practical issues about the on-going work would be welcome Important to maintain the tempo set by this meeting beyond the urgency of the coming months, so that more fundamental questions could be addressed while implementing the programme of measures and in preparation of second round (e.g. issue of data needs and management at EU level); could be one or two joint meetings per year .

Q7- Need for regional/EU coordination of measures ? Coordination is important in many areas particular if we focus at pressures that happen at sea. But difficult because countries have different ways to do things and time is running. Requires a pragmatic approach, using existing coordination mechanisms to raise the points of concern: bilateral agreements, regional sea conventions, EU, international conventions. Consider that coordination is not only for ecological considerations or economic sector competitiveness but it can be for competence reasons. More formal coordination could be an issue for reflection in preparation to second round.