1. Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Common Implementation Strategy
Workshop ESA / GES
Day 1 Agenda item 2: EC perspective
European Commission
DG Environment
Marine and Water Industry Unit
17/18 June 2013, Brussels

2. Overview Why a common workshop now ? MSCG / MD mandate
Early finding from the initial assessment (Art 12) especially as far as Art 8,1(c) is concerned. Any messages ?
Programme of measures from MSFD…
Some materials concerning MSFD measures

3. Why a common workshop now ?
MD decision June > workshop to deal with cross cutting issues
Too early / too late ?

4. MSCG / MD mandate
MSCG / MD discussions in May based on a FR / NL / UK paper
Strategic discussion at MSCG level, mainly:
1. Do you consider the development of a concept paper on the programmes of measures as useful ? If so what should that concept paper address?
2. If not, would you consider that a Frequently Asked Question tool would be useful?
3. Would it help to agree collectively (perhaps in the concept paper) where measures taken to implement other EU instruments will contribute to MSFD objectives?
4. Is there a common understanding of what constitutes is a measure: how detailed should a measure be (geographical scope, timing, technical description, who is in charge of implementing the measure)?
5. Will your programmes of measures address a priori all descriptors?
6. How do you intend to address measures linked with the implementation of MSFD and other policies such as WFD, CFP, CAP, Nature Directives. How should such measures be presented in MS’s programme of measures?
7. Have you already a view on your possible priorities ?
9. Will your programmes of measures be subject to the requirement of assessing its effect on the environment (Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment) ?

5. MSCG / MD mandate More focused / technical discussion at WG level
Questions for WG ESA / GES:
a. Is there a clear understanding of the issues and the extent of the problems to be addressed? How could any evidence gaps be addressed?
b. Is there a need to further define the links between pressure and impacts?
c. Methodologies for assessing the cost-effectiveness of measures?
d. Types of measures?
e. What is the relationship between environmental risks and disproportionate cost? How is this assessed?

6. Art 12 assessment : General comments presented to MD in Dublin
Early finding from the initial assessment (Art 12) especially as far as Art 8,1(c) is concerned. Any messages ?
Art 12 assessment : General comments presented to MD in Dublin
Focus on Art 8,1 (c)

7. General remarks By 30th April, 19 MS have reported on art 8, 9 and 10
17 MS reported both paper report and reporting sheets
All MS reported on regional cooperation from which 11 have given a comprehensive description of efforts
The reporting shows the huge amount of work that went into preparing these reports in Member States
A vast amount of quantitative and qualitative information on the State of European Seas is gathered
Comparability of good environmental status, of data and an overall lack of coherence make this information difficult to interpret

8. GES: interim conclusions
Not all MS have “determined” GES in accordance with the Directive
Limited coherence within marine regions and no coherence across EU
Significant differences between GES definitions in terms of level of detail, reference to appropriate legislation or standards and use of criteria and indicators
Confusion between Art. 9 (GES) and Art. 10 (targets), limited link to Art. 8 (assessment)
GES often not “measurable” – therefore, current GES levels in the marine waters not known while monitoring and measures depend on clear and measurable GES

9. Early indications of assessing the MS reports
Almost all MS reported through reporting sheets and text
Often an extensive amount of qualitative information
Limited precise/quantifiable determination of GES and targets which will make enforceability difficult
Majority refer to existing policies and standards (if applicable) and does not introduce additional ambition level
No or limited coherence between MSs and between marine regions
Variety of assessment scales (spatial, temporal) and aggregation limiting comparability and coherence of assessments
Gaps in information and knowledge identified, but often without a clear plan to address them
Limited analysis of pressures and impacts (e.g. accumulation of pressures) and limited links between Article 8 and Articles 9/10

10. Focus on Art 8,1 (c) Art 12 assessment and ESA
ESA is not a focus as such of the Art. 12 assessment, since:
Important to first of all to get an overview of GES determination and target setting;
ESA will become more important when discussing the socio-economic assessment of measures (potentially guidance needed here?)
Only general questions are included regarding ESA in the reporting sheets as mandatory fields;
Nevertheless: some overall information & examples of interesting work done can be identified that can serve as a basis for the further MSFD-implementation steps

11. Reported marine activities (Basis: 19 MS)
XXX

12. Art. 12 and ESA: some first insights (Basis: 19 MS)
Which method is chosen for the economic and social analysis of marine uses?
 (almost) all MS used the water accounts approach (as compared to the ecosystem services approach), while in some cases the approach is “mixed”
Which method is chosen for the ESA of the cost of degradation?
 Thematic approach in some cases, but some form of cost-based approach more prominent (limited use of “pure” ecosystem services approach)

13. Art. 12 and ESA: some first insights (Basis: 19 MS)
Interesting approaches to be found on cost of degradation estimation, e.g.:
UK: COD in 2020 estimated by valuing the difference in societal welfare - compare expected state of the environment if GES is achieved by then to the expected state of the marine environment without the MSFD, where GES is not achieved (“Business-As-Usual”-scenario)
NL: quantitative analysis of the (financial) cost incurred to achieve & maintain current environmental status of the marine ecosystem; to be considered as a minimum for the current degree of protection of the marine ecosystem. Different sectors spend at least 147 million euros each year to prevent or reduce degradation of the marine environment.

14. Art. 12 and ESA: some first insights (Basis: 19 MS)
CY: Welfare loss due to the degradation of the marine environment (building on a “baseline” year 2010), focusing on fisheries & tourism due to deterioration of quality of the marine environment. Calculation of losses starts from year 2014 until 2020 allowing for the deterioration of waters quality from the present status of excellent condition.
IE: Based on the Ecosystem Services Approach: use of the Choice Experiment (CE) evaluation technique to measure the welfare impact from not implementing in full the MSFD
FI: contingent valuation regarding eutrophication (building on the BalticSUN applied research work).

15. Programme of Measures from MSFD…. Art 13 / 14 / 15
Establishment of programme of measures to achieve/maintain good environmental status (13.1) by 2015, at the latest
Reference to existing measures in WFD, UWWD, BWD and EQS Directive (13.2)
Sustainable development, socio-economic impacts, cost-effective and technical feasible, impact assessment and cost-benefit analysis (13.3)
MPAs - only specific measures mentioned (13.4/13.5)
Notification / Reporting with three months (13.9)
Some tricky concepts: Significant risk and disproportionate cost (Art 14.4) -> no action / step need to be justified to EC
Use of Art 15…

16. MD agree to joint up WFD – MSFD PoMs
Programme of Measures
WFD-only measures (grounwater)
WFD/MSFD joint measures (nutrients)
MSFD-only (fisheries/ MPAs)

17. Descr No
Topic
Measures D1
Biological diversity
(+/-) partially covered by HD/BD – new measures: MPAs D2
Non-indigenous species
(-) not covered - new measures D3
Commercial fish & shellfish
(+/-) partially / mostly covered by CFP D4
Food-webs
(-) not covered – measures similar to D1 D5
Eutrophication
(+) fully covered by WFD, UWWD (and NiD, NEC) D6
Sea-floor integrity
(+/-) partially covered by WFD – measures similar to D1 D7
Hydrography

18. WFD reporting will cover D5, D8 and partially D10
Descr No
Topic
Measures D8
Contaminants
(+) fully covered by WFD, EQS, IED (others) D9
Contaminants in seafood
(+) fully covered by seafood legislation
D10
Litter
(+/-) partially covered by WasteFD, WFD?
D11
Energy, incl. underwater noise
(-) not covered
WFD reporting will cover D5, D8 and partially D10
Other legislation covers already (partially) D1, D3, D9, D10
Focus on “new” / “additional” measures, in particular on MPAs, D1, D2, D6, D7, D11

19. Arcadis study: Economic assessment of policy measures for the implementation of the MSFD – Feb 2012
Objectives and content of the study
develop a toolkit to help MS in the selection of measures to achieve or maintain GES
To do this, the study has
developed an inventory of measures (database)
assessed them according to their cost, effectiveness, benefits, feasibility
identified key success and limiting factors for each measure
tested results on 5 case studies

20. Structure of the database of measures
Pressures and impacts, sectors or uses driving the pressure
Description of the measure
Data quality, source of information
Link with GES descriptor

21. Typology of measures used in the inventory
Command and control instruments: Regulation, Norms (and control systems), Zoning or spatial control of activities
Economic instruments: Fee-based measures, Subsidies, Trading systems, Liability, insurance and compensation regimes
Social instruments: Communication, stakeholder involvement and public awareness-raising
Technical, technological or research oriented measures: physical measures with direct impact on environment

22. Excel database with around 140 measures

23. To be compared with 8 types of measures (Annex VI): useful for the discussion during break out session
Input controls
Output controls
Spatial and temporal distribution controls
Management coordination measures
Measures to trace marine pollution
Economic incentives
Mitigation and remediation tools
Awareness raising

24. Outlook – relevant CIS future priorities
In general: how can/should socio-economic assessments support the selection of measures (coordinated at the Regional Seas level)?
More specifically: how can we use/build on the work done for the ESA and esp. regarding the “Cost of Degradation”?
[We should avoid the ESA-work to be “stand alone”…]
Links to the future priorities/work programmes: How to refine the ESA and GES work programme to be in line with the outcome of the workshop ?

25. CIS future priorities adopted in May 2013
Main activities for WG ESA :
overall conceptual and cross-cutting questions related to cost-effectiveness of measures,
introduction of new measures including associated impact assessment (and cost-benefit analysis) and benefits of taking action (or the costs of inaction) including from ecosystem services
Main activities for WG GES :
Identify necessary measures to improve the status of marine ecosystems, contribute to the analysis of their cost-effectiveness and coordinate the definition of necessary measures from a scientific and ecosystem-related point of view (mid-2014)

26. WG ESA shall address the following tasks beyond 2013 (tentative timing in brackets):
Develop a common understanding on cost-effectiveness of measures, building on WFD methodologies and experience, and appropriate scales (national, regional, EU) for dealing with (types of) measures (mid-2014);
Contribute to the sharing information on cost-effective measures in particular those specific to the MSFD not addressed elsewhere (mid-2014) together with WG GES;
Further develop the discussion on measures based on the outcome of the GES/ESA workshop in June 2013 including possible concept paper, information sheets and/or exchange of best practices.
Building on the experience of the WFD, sharing information on the identification of specific MSFD measures beyond existing measures and obligations at regional and EU level and improvement of the effectiveness of existing measures which contribute to the achievement of GES.
Develop a common understanding how ecosystem services and the costs for inaction can be accounted or other approaches can be used for when preparing measures and/or justify exemptions, building on WFD methodologies and experience.

27. Other possible activities to be considered
Establish an exchange of best practices for certain types of (marine) measures based on the outcome of the GES/ESA workshop in June 2013 (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity).
Discuss measures of regional and EU-wide importance and the related financial support available (including through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), Cohesion Funds, (including through EMFF, etc. and supported by the macro-regional strategies e.g. EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region) and thereby develop a common understanding of the possible applications of Articles 15 and 22 MSFD (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity or organised through the Project Coordination Group).
Common understanding on the application of spatial protection measures as part of the programme of measures (through Marine Expert Group under the Habitats Directive).
Common understanding on exemptions (Article 14) and how the precautionary principle can be applied in the development of programmes of measures (trough ad-hoc activity led by the Commission).
Making fisheries and other Blue Growth sectors sustainable and compliant with achieving/maintaining GES and demonstrating the contribution of marine/coastal environment protection measures to sustainable use and growth (through link to Integrated Coastal Management). Specific activities to be defined, starting with developing MSFD-compliant guidance for sustainable aquaculture (through dedicated ad-hoc activities).
Exchange information on effectiveness of public participation processes and approaches and encourage best practices of MS public participation and information requirements, building on the WFD experience (Art. 19) (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity).
Assessment of economic benefits from marine and coastal ecosystem services (e.g. in the Mediterranean and Baltic) WG MAES (Mapping and Assessing of Ecosystems and their Services).

28. Possible input from RSCs
RSC are expected to contribute to the following input, if available, in accordance to the timeframes agreed in this work programme:
Coordinated programmes of measures and, as appropriate, a joint programme of measures (by 2015) including:
Valuation of ecosystem services, assessment of cost of degradation or other relevant approaches,
Contribution to the identification of cost-effective measures of a transboundary nature taking into account/building upon the existing frameworks of measures (e.g. recommendations, action plans, strategic plans) in the RSCs (e.g. management of environmentally adapted shipping, management of MPAs, gas/oil exploitation in open seas).

29. WFD – MSFD interactions
Key issues:
To learn from the experiences made during WFD-implementation and build on them
To have a clear and practicable way on how the MSFD can be implemented in conjunction with WFD measures
 See the following presentations

30. What do we expect from this workshop ?
Key messages from the presentations
Identification of the needs
How does it fit with CIS future priorities? Refine the work programme
Next steps?
Timeline?

31. Thank you for your attention!
Thank you for your attention!