1. Marine Strategy Framework Directive: activities of WG DIKE
European Commission
DG Environment
Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit
Marine Strategy Coordination Group
13-14 November 2012, Brussels

2. Outline Preparations for reporting
State of reporting on Art. 8, 9 and 10
Issues arising from reporting process
Preparations for reporting of monitoring and measures
Implementation of Art. 19(3) – access to data and information

3. Preparations for 2012 reporting
December 2011 agreement by Marine Directors:
Endorsed reporting concept paper, reporting sheets for Art. 9 and 10, selected sheets for Art. 8
Agreed forward timetable to finalise remaining sheets by WG DIKE meeting in March 2012
January 2012 – meeting of WG DIKE drafting group
Substantive agreement on remaining sheets
Jan.-March 2012 – development of reporting tools
March 2012 – reporting sheets agreed by WG DIKE
RS effectively ready for MS to start completing
May-June 2012 – reporting package endorsed by MSCG and Marine Directors

4. Preparations for 2012 reporting
March-May 2012 – testing of reporting tools by MS:
BG, DE, IE, IT, RO, FR, SI, UK
Significant concerns over ‘translation’ of reporting sheets into MSFD database
Number of other technical issues
May-July 2012 – restructuring of reporting tools to address MS concerns; new guidance document prepared
4 July – Training course on reporting for Member States
20 July – Final tools, guidance and EEA/Eionet resource page released to MS
July onwards – Help Desk for MSFD reporting
Technical and content queries

5. Eionet ReportNet
Resources (reporting tools, guidance):
Retrieval of reports:
Some MS have elected to restrict access to reports

6. Status of reporting on Art. 8, 9 and 10 – at 13/11/12
Member State
'Paper' reports
Electronic reports
Art. 8, 9, 10
Art. 8, 9, 10 (7 xml files)
Spatial data (2 files) BE
Belgium
16-Aug BG
Bulgaria HR
Croatia*
* Member State from 1/7/13  CY
Cyprus
25-Sep DK
Denmark
12-Oct EE
Estonia FR
France FI
Finland DE
Germany
27-Jul
15-Oct (updates 29 Oct)
15-Oct EL
Greece
15-Oct (updates 6-Nov) IE
Ireland IT
Italy
14-Oct (updates 23 Oct)
14-Oct (updates 6 Nov) LV
Latvia LT
Lithuania
2-Nov (art. 8) MT
Malta NL
Netherlands
11-Oct (updates 12 Nov) PL
Poland PT
Portugal
22-Oct (mainland, ext. CS) RO
Romania SI
Slovenia ES
Spain
11-Oct (art. 8, 9) 22-Oct (updates 6-Nov) (art. 10)
15-Oct, 6-Nov, 8 Nov SE
Sweden
15-Oct (art. 9, 10) UK
United Kingdom
19-Oct (art. 8 mainland)
1-Nov (art. 8 mainland)
Report or information submitted
Report or information only partially submitted (e.g. report for specific Article or specific marine region missing)
Total no. of MS reported
9 (+4 partial)
4 (+4 partial) 4

7. Learning from 2012 reporting – initial reflections
Relationship: ‘paper reports’ to reporting sheets (RS)
‘early’ MS have more difficulty matching to RS (paper reports completed before RS finalised)
likely to lead to mismatch of reporting categories and gaps in priority fields
Reporting sheet content
Many topics to cover in RS – reflects Art. 8 and Annex III
RS considered by some MS as complex with challenging questions, despite ‘simple’ set of main questions (concept paper)
Assessment methods poorly developed, e.g. ‘whole area’ assessments
High level approach (functional groups, predominant habitats, hazardous substances) but data often more detailed (biotope/species/substance level)

8. Learning from 2012 reporting – initial reflections
Geographic scales, regions/subregions
Complex issues; inconsistent approaches to scale
Reporting tools
Database much improved from test version, but could be more user friendly (difficulties transcribing from original RS)
Schemas initially with many more error messages
Timing: reporting sheets and tools
Entire reporting system developed and built in 15 months
Agreed RS ‘too late’ for early reporting MS
Final reporting tools and guidance slightly delayed due to major revision needed
MS with internal systems built on ‘trial version’ of schemas
MS with long/complex internal processes need RS earlier

9. First lessons learned - from Germany
realistic timeframes including internal processes in MS
schema publication – the effective starting point for MS
evaluation defines the reporting content
avoid free text – use structured information
use existing information processes to regional organisations

10. Learning from 2012 reporting – future reporting
Article 12 assessment
Geographic scale issues
Consistency in use of reporting categories, determination of GES
Value of reporting for Art. 12 and EEA baseline assessments
Timing
Develop and agree Reporting Sheets in good time
Art. 11 Monitoring – aim to agree RS by spring 2013 (reports due October 2014)
Art. 13 Measures – aim to agree RS by mid 2014 (reports due March 2016)
Art. 8, 9 and 10 reporting in 2018 – aim to agree revised RS by 2016
Reporting tools
Develop and test in good time
Improved user-friendly interface

11. Art. 19(3) – access to data & information
Art. 19(3) requirements
Data and information resulting from initial assessment and monitoring
Access & use rights for Commission and EEA
In accordance with INSPIRE Directive
Strategy recommended
Link 2012 access to long-term process
Identify data for indicators to feature in 2014 monitoring and 2018 assessments
Work progressively to develop data standards, based on existing standards (e.g. in RSCs, INSPIRE, SeaDataNet)
Work progressively on access, including use of EMODnet and RSCs

12. Art. 19(3) – how? WG DIKE Technical Group First steps Draft ToRs
Process led by EEA; seek MS to co-chair
WG DIKE asked to set priorities for work needed
Work with MODEG (EMODnet) and INSPIRE processes
First steps
Access to data and information resulting from Initial Assessments
Options
MS advises Commission by 15 January 2013 how it will give access
Provide information via reporting system, linked directly to each section of the IA (the 'non-priority' metadata sections)
Use information to inform priorities for future process
Identify common data types, parameters and data flows

13. Thank you for your attention!
Thank you for your attention!