1. Public participation in the context of marine and coastal policies
Summary of September 2014 workshop
MSCG, 10 November 2014

2. Context
Feedback from NGOs on shortcomings of PP processes in MSFD so far
Looking ahead – if PP is expected, are there opportunities for synergy with other marine & coastal policy areas?
Who's already done it? Did it work?
How to avoid consultation fatigue with those that know what you're talking about? How to engage with those that don't?
Presentations from:
Seas at Risk on the NGO perspective/feedback
- Consultation period: varies from a couple of weeks to a number of months. In a few countries countries NGOs felt excluded from the process.
- Sometimes, stakeholder meetings are held for several sub-regions, each with a different consultation procedure, as well as at national level, followed by public participation, also jointly with the WFD. It is difficult to follow all the processes, especially since these sometimes use different methods.
- Different involvement of NGOs and general public, maybe also different methods needed? Awareness raising important.
Most communication via website and direct contacts with NGOs. Little upfront dialogue. Working groups do not always include NGOs.
Some countries document and make publicly available the outcome of the public consultation. Often lack of feedback as to how the comments of the public consultation were taken on board, or why not.
- Black Sea region: is a particularly difficult region– also due to political issues. The deadlines are changing all the time and no or little public consultation is taking place. Most stakeholders lack awareness of MSFD. The Danube is a big issue, with a big impact on the Black Sea, and involving many countries.
- Baltic Sea region: some countries had very open discussions, in others the results are not public. Most NGOs lack the capacity or knowledge about the Directive.
Scottish Government (2013 joint public consultation on draft National Marine Plan, MPA candidate sites and areas for offshore renewable energy generation – 3 in 1 process)
French Government (Joint public consultation on WFD and MSFD) – Sabine Letendre
HELCOM – how to do it all for MSFD at Regional Sea level and across boundaries
Celtic Seas Partnership – going beyond the interested stakeholders to a wider audience

3. Public consultations on 3 MSFD elements for 2012: Art 8,9 & 10
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Public consultations on 3 MSFD elements for 2012: Art 8,9 & 10
Member State
Public Consultation Timing
N° days for public consultation
Belgium
01/04 – 30/ 61
Latvia ?
Bulgaria
From April 2012 - 
Lithuania
12 March - 12 June 62
Cyprus
15/05- 15/ 32
Malta
Denmark
4 /06 – 27/ 85
Netherlands
25/05 – 5/ 42
France
16/07 – 16/ 93
Poland
1- 21 March 2013
Estonia
Spring 2012  -
Portugal
8/09 – 8/ 31
Finland
16/04 -15/ 30
Romania
15 July – 15 August 2012
30 
Germany
14/10/2011 – 16/04/2012
193
Slovenia
21/06 – 22/
Greece
13/08 – 30/
 47
Spain
1/06 – 15/ 45
Ireland
Until 10 January 2014
Sweden
19/03 – 16/ 29
Italy
End of first semester 2012 UK
27/03 – 18/ 23
21/23 Member States have carried out some form of public consultation for the information provided for Articles 8, 9 and Only 2 have done nothing as yet: Latvia, Malta.
18 countries had websites & dates of public consultation
2 MS gave dates of consultation but no other details (BG, IT)
3 returned no information LV, MT, HR, IE
4 EU Pilots launched for IE, EL, LV and EE:
- closed for LV and EE,
- still being assessed for IE and EL.
Article 12 consultations:
4 MS had public consultation periods of up to 1 calendar month. Shortest was only 23 days.
6 MS had public consultation periods of between 1-2 calendar months: most of these came in around 62 days
3 MS had consultations of longer than 3 calendar months. Longest gave 193 days for the process.
EC Report Feb 2014 (Art 12 Assessment) - The Commission received information from 17 Member States with regard to their public consultation process on their reports for the three articles (Art. 8, 9 and 10). From 15 of these Member States (except BG, IT) a link to their public consultation web-page was received. In almost all MS this consultation took place in the first half of Three Member States (EL,IE, LV) had not undertaken such a consultation by the time they submitted their reports to the Commission, but indicated that they were doing so in the meantime. Some Member States may also have substantially modified their reports, and not submitted them again to public consultation.
As a consequence, the status of some reports submitted to the Commission was in a few cases unclear (EL, IE, IT, LV). Furthermore, one Member State (EE) stated that its report was a proposal. The Commission intends to follow up bilaterally with these countries using the most appropriate procedures.

4. Points to note
MSFD!
????? 
What you said…
What we did…
####

????
Consultation should be meaningful and not just a “tick the box” exercise.
• Break down technical jargon and understand public perspective. Need ‘translators’ to bridge the gap between parties.
• NGOs have polarised views - do these reflect the public view? Are they the moral compass?
• Difficult to communicate with the public on how comments received during consultation are taken on board.
Public might not submit relevant input or comments are outside the scope of the current stage in policy planning.
Danger of turning interested parties off from participating in the future if they feel their comments are ignored.
• Ownership of process: A separate coordinating body for public participation is helpful but Government Departments need to feel ownership and legal responsibility for the public engagement process.
• Different approaches to consultation are needed for the general public and for stakeholders
General public does not see issues as being fragmented or separate – it's all "the sea"
Stakeholders have particular interests; engagement must reflect and balance these
• Important to start early in order to prepare the public for participation

5. Take-home messages
Achieving MSFD goals depends on integration with a range of policy areas and processes
Be clear about the subject matter & who your audience will be
Strengthen coordination with related “environmental” work and respective processes at Regional Sea level
Specific mechanisms will depend on national and/or thematic context
Know what must be done to comply with policy requirements and expectations of the public (not always the same thing)
Identify relationships between different policy objectives and measures; link underlying planning processes and strengthen institutional cooperation where needed
Monitor and learn from what has been done to see where things might be improved in the next cycle or the next project

6. Public Consultations on Monitoring Programmes (MSFD Art 11).
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Public Consultations on Monitoring Programmes (MSFD Art 11).
Member State
Public Consultation Timing
N° days for public consultation
Belgium
15/4 - 15/6/2014
 60
Latvia
2/12/ /9/2014
298 
Bulgaria
3/9 - 3/11/2014
Lithuania
4/2 - 16/6/2014
 134
Croatia
19/5 - 18/6/ /6 - 11/7/2014  
Malta
 Dates to be confirmed - 
Cyprus
12/9 - 12/10/2014
30 
Netherlands
7/3 - 17/4/2014 42
Denmark
13/5 - 6/8/2014
 83
Poland
3/6 - 24/6/2014
 21
France
22/8 - 21/11/2014
 90
Portugal
1/8 - 15/9/2014
 44
Estonia
11-26/9/2014
 15
Romania
29/8 - 29/9/2014
Finland
7/4 - 23/5/2014
 36
Slovenia
1/8 - 30/9/2014
Germany
15/10/ /4/2014
 180
Spain
18/7 - 30/9/2014
 74
Greece
Dates to be confirmed  -
Sweden
4/3 - 24/4/2014 54
Ireland
24/7- 12/9/2014
49  UK
8/1 -  2/4/2014 87
Italy
9/6 - 11/7/2014
 32
21 MS provided links to websites and details of timing
2 MS provided the link to a website but no detail about timing (GR, MT)
NGO feedback on these consultations augmented their earlier comments on the work carried out in 2012.

7. ESA WG and Public Participation
- Public consultation: any role for ESA?
CIS Work Programme Task 7 : To provide tools on sharing of best practices on public consultation and information between Members States (linked also to WFD or other directive consultation phase)
Chapter 6 of the Recommendations on POMs; is it enough?
Could we benefit from best practices and / or guidance as we run public consultations on measures/next cycle?
Is there a role for ESA to share the lessons learned on the consultation on measures for the second cycle?
ESA happy to contribute but not to lead the process.
[ Dominic: Not much enthusiasm at ESA for involvement! (Unsure whether they were the most appropriate group.)]
Chapter 6 – Proposed process = 1. public consultation on proposed POMs; 2. receive submissions; 3. give feedback to stakeholders on what has been incorporated (and what hasn’t been taken on board and why).
ESA WG saw the relevance of public participation within a common implementation document. Happy to contribute to it didn't feel they were the most appropriate group to lead whatever work was considered necessary. Asked MSCG for further clarification/to decide on this point.
MSCG shall decide if the preparation of such a document (exchange of best practices) is seen as necessary (useful to MS and relevant to the work being done)? If the work is necessary, how shall the work be organised within the MSCG structure and what might be the role of the ESA WG?