DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry 15.04.2019 The Marine Strategy Framework Directive Latest developments European Commission DG Environment Marine and Water Industry Unit Status: April 2013

MSFD Scoreboard Status at 15 March 2013 Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/scoreboard_en.htm Status at 15 March 2013 Art. 26 Art. 7 Art. 8/ 9/10 Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Art. 26 Art. 7 Art. 8/ 9/10 Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia Spain Sweden UK

DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry 15.04.2019 Article 12: Key elements Commission empowerment to assess compliance with the Directive to ask for additional information to assess adequacy and consistency (between art. 8, 9 and 10) to analyse coherence between marine (sub-) regions and within EU to make recommendations for modifications Article 12 Notifications and Commission’s assessment On the basis of all the notifications made pursuant to Articles 9(2), 10(2) and 11(3) in respect of each marine region or subregion, the Commission shall assess whether, in the case of each Member State, the elements notified constitute an appropriate framework to meet the requirements of this Directive and may ask the Member State concerned to provide any additional information that is available and necessary. In drawing up those assessments, the Commission shall consider the coherence of frameworks within the different marine regions or subregions and across the Community. Within six months of receiving all those notifications, the Commission informs Member States concerned whether, in its opinion, the elements notified are consistent with this Directive and provides guidance on any modifications it considers necessary.

DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry 15.04.2019 Article 12 Timing Assessment has already started (completeness) March 2013: Request sent for additional information to MS 30 Apr 2013: Cut-off date for (additional) information End May: first tentative assessment results available July 2013: draft COM paper(s) Autumn 2013: finalisation of COM Art 12 exercise End 2013/2014: technical in-depth assessments on selected issues by JRC and "MSFD 2012 Baseline assessment" by EEA

DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry 15.04.2019 MS reports: some early indications Often extensive amount of qualitative information (many pages) Reporting sheets not available for half the MS which makes completeness check for art 8 difficult Very limited precise/quantifiable GES and targets Low level of ambition, basically repeating existing policies No or limited coherence between MS and between marine regions Variety of assessment scales (spatial, temporal) and aggregation limiting comparability and coherence of assessments Gaps in information and knowledge identified without a clear plan to address them Limited pressure and impact analysis (e.g. accumulation of pressures) and limited link between Article 8 and Articles 9/10

Descriptor 3 Criteria &indicators as defined in COM decision Some MS have not determined the Descriptor but have gone directly to the criteria and indicators. Some countries have specified the COM indicators in the Targets (art. 10) we did not look at the targets from all countries but this is also the wrong procedure.

Use of COM decision per Marine region Black sea is missing because only Romania was available. At first sight it seems that the (4) MED countries have used the criteria and indicators for 3.1 and 3.2 most often. However any real judgment on the adequacy of the GES determinations will have to wait until we have the results from the art. 12 assessment.

Percentage of MS which have set F and SSB at MSY levels for all stocks Belgium states that for stocks where Fmsy is not know the GES will be set at Fpa. Which is incorrect. This explains why in this graph less than 50% France is excluded because it states that Fmsy is only for assessed stocks “- Criterion 3.1: The good ecological status is achieved when the following conditions are cumulatively met: - All assessed stocks must have a fishing mortality less than or equal to the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield with a probability of 50%. In the absence of estimating the probability of achieving the target, and when an interval around the target value is set, the value of the estimated fishing mortality for stock must be within this range. The value of F must be less than or equal to FPA which determines the safety area of the biological stock; All other stocks have a relationship between catch and biomass index showing a stable or decreasing trend;” With the following GES I am not sure whether I can state that all stocks are at MSY because both Cyprus and Italy report the following: • no stock is exploited beyond safe biological limits; if Fmsy (or its proxy, which F0.1) is unknown, the ratio between the capture / biomass index will be evaluated; This does not explicitly state that stocks will be at MSY. Therefore this has been put in the grey section SSB changes similar to those for Fmsy Cyprus “The spawning stock biomass (SSB) is at a level capable of providing MSY or higher; If SSB is not known and will be assessed the biomass index from trawl survey;” Germany “For stocks, for which an analytical stock assessment to determine SSB is missing, a biomass indicator is proposed as a secondary indicator. The missing reference values for the biomass index are currently being developed.” What my problem here is that for biomass indices the commission decision states “it can be used if such indices can be obtained for the fraction of the population that is sexually mature. In such cases such indices need to be used when scientific judgement is able to determine through detailed analysis of the historical trends of the indicators combined with other information on the historical performance of the fishery that there is a high probability that the stock will be able to replenish it self under the prevailing exploitation conditions. To me this sounds like PA and not MSY.

DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry 15.04.2019 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine Thank you for your attention!