1. Marine Strategy Framework Directive State of play and follow up
Art. 12 assessment
MSCG meeting
Claire Dupont
5 November 2015, Brussels

2. Who is assessed? Assessment exercise almost complete
23 Member States are being assessed
20 country assessments already done
Consultation with MS has started and ended on
Three assessments remain – Two Member States have not yet reported (or have reported but file is not yet complete and submitted) – one Member State only recently reported
* Reporting status on

3. Approach for assessment reports
The reports cover the following points:
Overview of any modifications to Articles 9 and 10
Overview of MSFD monitoring programmes – Member State’s self-assessment of coverage of GES, targets, Annex III categories, activities, measures, purpose of monitoring programmes
Public consultation process
Links with monitoring under Regional Sea Conventions
Policy linkages (WFD, BD, HD, CFP, etc.)
Gaps and justifications

4. Approach for assessment reports
Assessment of monitoring programmes against Member State GES definition and targets. Modified GES and targets are taken into account (but not assessed at this stage)
Provides context by doing a high level comparison with a “reference list” based on EU and regional standards and practices
The assessment is based on information reported by Member States in Article 11 report
The conclusions are reached by comparing the components of the monitoring sub-programmes, in particular the elements and the parameters monitored, the temporal frequency and the spatial scope and coverage with the Member State’s GES definitions and targets.
Analysis per descriptor with three levels:
Coverage – Partial coverage – No coverage

5. Assessment of the MS reports – general outcomes
Majority link to existing monitoring programmes under other EU and regional commitments – implications on spatial scope and coverage of monitoring
All Member States report on regional cooperation through the RSC’s
Transboundary impacts are addressed through regional cooperation in the framework of the RSC’s as well as other international conventions
Most Member States have reported with a 2018 outlook – monitoring in view of Article 9 and 10 modifications in second implementation cycle

6. Monitoring sub-programmes reported per descriptor
(in all assessments carried out by )
BE NL FI CY UK North UK Celtic SI DK North DK Baltic SE North SE Baltic DE North DE Baltic HR RO EE BG Latvia Italy Portugal Ireland Lithuania Spain all sub-regions France all sub-regions

7. Links of Monitoring Programmes with EU legislation
reported by Member States per descriptor
(in assessments carried out by )
Links at the EU level are prominent in D3 (CFP), D5 (WFD+BathingWaterD+NitratesDir), D8 (WFD) and D9 (Regulation 1881/2006)  these are also the descriptors for which monitoring are better developed for.
At the regional level – depending on the region links with RSC standards and RSC monitoring are prominent in some descriptors (i.e. HELCOM and D5, or OSPAR and D10 developments).
Good regional cooperation can be observed e.g. BG-RO working together to coordinate the development of their monitoring programmes.

8. Reported purpose of monitoring sub-programmes
(in all assessments carried out by )
BE NL FI CY UK North UK Celtic SI DK North DK Baltic SE North SE Baltic DE North DE Baltic HR RO EE BG Ireland Lithuania Spain all sub-regions France all sub-regions
NOTE: Given the lack of reporting sheets, no data is inserted for Latvia, Italy, Portugal

9. Assessment of the MS reports – Coverage of Descriptors
Good coverage of D3, D5, D8, D9 in most Member States
Use of a mix of EU and regional standards – especially in D5 and D8
Sometimes solely rely on existing monitoring programmes – e.g. implications for D9 and traceability of samples to location of contamination
Partial coverage (gaps) for D2, D7 in some Member States
Activities are covered in the context of these two descriptors
Small number of sub-programmes in place
Sometimes not clear how impact will be analysed
D2 and D7 linked with biodiversity monitoring (i.e. water column and/or seabed habitats monitoring)

10. Assessment of the MS reports – Coverage of Descriptors
Gaps for D10 and D11 in most Member States
Data gaps and lack of knowledge reported
Some report preference to wait for regional approach to be set up
Some report that main purpose of monitoring is to gather data to understand the descriptor better and to modify GES and targets.
Biodiversity descriptor coverage is mixed;
Seabed habitats covered through a greater number of sub-programmes than other biodiversity descriptors
D1, 4 – Fish most often linked with D3 sub-programmes (mix of CFP and Habitats monitoring)
D1, 4 – Water column habitats and D1, 4, 6 - Seabed habitats are sometimes linked with D2 sub-programmes
D1, 4 – Birds is sometimes linked to D10 sub-programmes
D1, 4 – Mammals is sometimes linked with the D11 sub-programme

11. Reported timeline of coverage of GES by Monitoring Programmes
(in all assessments carried out by )
BE NL FI CY UK North UK Celtic SI DK North DK Baltic SE North SE Baltic DE North DE Baltic HR RO EE BG Latvia Italy Portugal Ireland Lithuania Spain all sub-regions France all sub-regions

12. Assessment of the MS reports – observations
Information on measures and activities is not yet widely available
Most refer to upcoming PoM report and how information will be provided there
Some have defined activity focused sub-programmes, which are linked with existing monitoring activities under other Directives/regional commitments
Gaps and justifications are often identified by the Member States
In some MS: Justifications and plans are clear and refer to the need to collect data in time for the 2nd cycle of the MSFD implementation
In some other MS: no clear plans to address them OR limited amount of justifications provided
Timeline for addressing gaps reported in most cases is 2018

13. Contact details: Claire Dupont Milieu Ltd - Law & Policy Consulting