Is there clear understanding of where problem lies (links between pressure and impacts)? problems identified in the initial assessment? are the problems addressed by existing measures or are new/advanced existing measures needed? Clear understanding of some issues but on some others, we don’t know enough/ this is why we need more coordination. We need to share concerns before coordinating our PoM. - Relative perceptions of the problem, - Cumulative effects - Uncertainties - Ecological problem known but where the pressures come from ( and the link with activities). -we lack of coordination of our P/I matrix, (art 12: coordination) . Before coordinating on Programme of measures, we need to coordinate on the IA (EX/ France and germany) - reporting: link wiht Pressures- activities - UK: use existing tools ( CFP) but do we need to do more with MSFD.what s left ? - PoM dealing Pressures coming form different sources.with projections ( UK). Scenario difficult to do (uncertainties) How are the current pressures already managed? What’s left? Pressure and link with activities DONE, esp in reporting. RSC:? Link P/activities needs to be more detailed ( too high level). Italy; ranking measure linking with operational targets. Link Pressures-activities starting when doing the reporting. No proiections yet. The answer is: every MS has some kind of ideas but not very clear and not shared with other MS. Mix between isntituionnal concern( NL, waste) and ecological concern. The is not absolute problem on ecolgocal groudn becasue ti s more complex. Common appraoh for OSAPR and HELCOm for eutrophication for e.g , clear understand ing of th pb and where are the hotspots. Hazatrd substances. YES on spme topics but NO for new subjects ( litter) and for other policies (CFP no neither). Marine need to tell the up stream they have to do something more.

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? Using the annex 6 is difficult for the MS who have strated to use it. It s not clear and there are overlaps,. we need for common understanding. pressure based grouping? Question to the comission: do we need grouping only for reporting? What about using the typology proposed arcadis approahc, 4 categories: social, economics, technical, C&C Link to DIKE work

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? Different positions: should MSFD proposes additional measures for other Directives or include these additional measures in its PoM? The issue is very linked to institutional context Need evidence (on judgement) to say that other Directive are (not) effective. Too early to say? Next round. We need to identify the main GAPS at least. Because take into account marine in other directives!= this is new. Type 4: coordination measure ++ we need a lot of measures. Make ii visible: When MSFD is not fulfilled at all, the national strategies should mention these links. national or regional coordination -Better links between the directives - WFD update PoM, MSFD cannot propose same measures. GecologicalStatus =/ GES so additional measure in MSFD. The directives are diferent. We can identify pressures. Assessing existing policies is a 1st step to estimate the need for additional measures? If there is an exsiting measure. If WWTD not efficient, measure where to adress: MSFD or WWTD.

What is the relationship between environmental risks and disproportionate cost? How is this assessed? Are specific good examples of ways of working you can share? how could the relationship be defined and assessed in a quantitative way? how can the precautionary principle (and cumulative impacts) be approached in the economic and social analysis? Political issue and broad concept ( social, economic, jobs= - What’s true for value TEV, not only use values, is also true. Affordability is still the importan cr Timing issue? Stage to reach Ges. Balance the costs between SH Ok but also links to PPP ( Eutrophication; 1kg of N shouldn’t cost more than this. Baseline , or measure by measure. Case by case, some exxpensive measure will be effecitve. Cumulative effects of the measures. Environmental risk adresed a mix of littel measure. - If the risk is big, no cost can be considered disproportionnate, - risk that there will be a lot of exempltions becasue Precautionary principle: for oil spills. How to comapre these risks, and how to cacul the cost Calcutaiotn fo teh cost of the risk ( ex of oils spill)s to know if it s diosporpotionnate. - oil spills: big issue when it happens. Disporotionnate cost has changed. Disporpotionnate: Political deicions Germany: a lot of things to prevent oil spills. And do’t need any cost info. Recovery GES or for future impacts. Futur risk but for the past situation.?? - disporpotionate cost in terme of emplyment ( no take areas) as well. And political Time scale?

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? - iterative process more than at some specific steps. Better understand of the environmental targets from GES - Effect of the measures ( and some info for the costs) - cost, economic feasbility Cross cutting different polivies Target in state (diff fir economist) , target in pressures (more easy if we know activities). Constraints in term of human activities. Iterative process when communicating GES and ESA. Setting target for GES but also for ESA. Ecologist have also to make an effort to be understood by economists. Cause effect relationship needs to be given by ecologists. You cannot ask a too much to economists. Real Cooperation ESA GES and not CE: we need guidance on definition fo concerpts, matrix.. Too late for (methodo wor); thematic groups of GES and ESA by D groups of Directors Next step reporting sheet collaborate with WG DIKE. Goal, which measures and cost, effects. Economist need to knwo what measure to achieve goas and asses cost and benefits with GES and ESA

What about timing, prioritization in and organization of the process of developing programs of measure?

Do we need a regional coordination of measures on some measures (where doing something individually by member states doesn’t make sense?) - depends on some types of measures but a group of measures ( shipping, ballast alien species transboudnary issues , for ^pollution indicators, marine litter regional plans, D3) - regional sea convention more than Take into account existing measrue,s including regional - type 5 of measures, Also for biodiversity, more regional cooperation on existing measures and deliver a coordinated approach How to do this cooperation on existing measures. Need info, about pressures. Are there IA saying that some pressures need to be tackled at regional