1. No: need to identify the sources and adress totally new pressures
Is there a clear understanding of where (ecological) problems (of pressures and impacts) lie?
Yes: identified by initial assessment and/or environmental targets or RSC
- DE environmental targets identify the areas of problems
HELOCM pressures (eutrophication, HS, fisheries) > sources have to be identified, diverse throughout the region not same in every MS
Finland: 5 main subjects (eutrophication, HS, species and ecosystems, maritime safety, marine resources)
- Sweden: eutrophication, HS, fisheries, litter, AS
No: need to identify the sources and adress totally new pressures
Estonia: not identified yet, possibly eutrophication, litter, noise (new subjects for Baltic; in IA involvement of stakeholders would have been useful), infrastructure (i.a. pipelines)
- Netherlands: trying for Art 8 an identification, for Art. 10 taking into account existing measures and their effects, now focus on new measures, sources are mainly known to make estimates for measures (difficult in complex systems)
- Spain: initial steps for measures, responsibilities have to be defined

2. what information are required? GES
- identify the main pressures and the poser > identification of who should carry out the measure?
- identify the necessary measures in relation to targets, alternative options to reach specific targets, different levels of measures (incl. identification existing measures)
- categorisation of targets > analysis for measures (incl. maybe a grouping of measures)
- look at existing measures and if they are suitable to reach the environmental targets, then look on possible new measures
- identify what we need for the measures and how much it will cost > at a later stage you can identify cost effectiveness
- identify effects of measures
- needs to provide list with feasibility and costs of potential measures
ESA
- identify gain of measures (single measures can address different pressure and different measures that can address one pressure)
- should prioritise (matter of economic resources), make the effort to convert measures in monetary benefits
gain and prioritisation of measures by GES or ESA?
work of GES and ESA is rather a parallel process EC
- a framework is needed but can also be set by policies (some MS may avoid topics/gabs in MSFD-measures where there are already other policies)
EC should provide overall guidance to get harmonization in the process (i.e. what is the best practice to address pressure?), but MS should be able to address their specific issues

3. timing, prioritization in and organization of the process
- guidance from EC was needed yesterday
including i.e.
how to address feasibility of measures
an approximate size of cost/investment of measures?
how to deal with transboundary issues (when the origin is not in your country > how to tackle?)
what about other nations fisheries/shipping/agriculture? how to reduce them? address them rather country-specific than by the EC (i.e. talk with stakeholders in your country/RSC and come back to EC)? EC might function as a facilitor to give a framework of how to deal with transboundary issues
preservation of management plans > take into account the experience with WFD and think about how to combine technical and financial aspects
common proposals for single sectors (fisheries/shipping/agriculture) vs. MS-specific measures (i.e. sediment extraction) that might be coordinated under RSC
- relationship between national and European working groups is not given in every country:
GES and ESA work together in one national group or there are consultants or GES and ESA rather work separated and contact when needed (then it is also hard to nominate people, i.e. for the MAES workshop)
- deficiency in data needs to be addressed but there will remain some kind of insecurity/incomplete data
i.e. by contacting and negotiating with originators, by estimating models if possible (i.e. separate coastal and inner municipalities (tourism, fisheries) though this is quite difficult) and/or by addressing them in the monitoring programs
guidance from EC: i.e. use of economic clusters, harmonise data among MS for measures and get official data
- there are problems when looking at the different policies
should the MSFD only adress gaps in policies or enhance them?
harmonisation: only one target for one subject, using reporting of other Directives for MSFD Reporting (i.e. HD and BD)
national responsibilities differ between thematic plans and Directives

4. timing, prioritization in and organization of the process Timeline
- right now most MS are focussing on monitoring programmes
- aiming at streamlining WFD and MSFD (i.e. the process of public consultation and programs of measure (transferring regional separation/coordination of WFD on MSFD programs of measure?)
- the target is to reach GES in 2020 and to implement useful measures in the first cycle
though some measures may not be provided in a finalised way in 2014/2015, MS are aiming at results in the first cycle
if possible measures start right now and not at the deadline for finalisation of programs of measure
Do we need a regional coordination of measures?
- may be useful for an overall harmonisation and comparability (i.e. in fisheries, HS) but some measures just CANT be common
- depends on effectiveness of measure and if it leaves ecological views behind (not too specific to address regional specificity)
- the ranking among measures and problems in capacity (people, money) may make it difficult in some countries

5. Summary/Resumée
guidance from EC is needed in the sense of a framework
national processes have to be started in an integrated way between GES/ESA (including stakeholders)
integrate between countries after national processes vs. MS and contracting parties should first work together in RSC on programs of measure and then go back to national process (common indicator process in RSC can be basis)
coordination seems to be easier in RSC (with contracting parties not member states ) because OSPAR seems to be faster than the EC, though HELCOM seems to lack behind
very much is known already and if not, there are ideas how to deal with the process of developing programs of measure
identification of source and identification of payment as well as effectiveness of measures are a basis to decide for new measures
comprehensive and analytical list of measures (incl. research projects) is needed from the WG GES > EC can combine this information with further information from other products/studies
there is not always a linear relationship between measure and pressure
to see the effect of a measure can take a while > coordination should not only focus on the first cycle but keep on in the second cycle (guidance can/should be improved)

6. GES/ESA-Workshop on MSFD programs of measures - Break-out session
Are you using Annex VI to develop measures? Do you consider that the grouping of the types of measures (French paper) makes sense and is necessary or are you also considering introduction of another set of measures on top of those in Annex VI?
Do we need a definition of “measure”? And if yes, how could we deal with it?
yes
Do we need a typology? And if yes, is the French idea the right one or do we need another operational grouping?

7. GES/ESA-Workshop on MSFD programs of measures - Break-out session
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?
What is the relationship between environmental risks and disproportionate cost? How is this assessed? Are there specific/good examples of ways of working that 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?