1. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Reporting on article 8, 9 and 10
Early findings

2. Art 12 Assessment Orientation debate Art 12 assessment Dec 2011
Concept paper Art 12 assessment June 2012
October : deadline MS reports
Completeness check finalized: March 2013
Conformation letters send to MS with deadline 30th April

3. 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

4. GES determination (art 9)
There are significant differences in defining GES:
13 MS have defined GES for all 11 descriptors
6 MS have defined GES at criteria or indicator level
GES often described qualitative or
GES related to other legislation

5. * 100% = 15 Member States

6. Percentage of MS which have set F and SSB at MSY levels

7. 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

8. Targets (art. 10)
Most targets set at national level, not per (sub-)region
Not always clear distinction between art 9 and 10

9. Initial Assessment (art 8)
Mostly a compilation of existing data without reporting on all pressures and impacts
Some MS have defined assessment areas
Accumulation of pressures/impacts is a common gap in knowledge

10. Initial Assessment

11. Initial Assessment: interim conclusions
Only a small proportion of MS have used their GES determination to make a judgment on the level of impact of the relevant pressures in their initial assessment.
For D8 and D10, a larger group of MS has used other standards to make this judgement (e.g. RSC standards)
For D7, the relatively broad definition of GES can explain why GES determination is more frequently used in the Initial Assessment.

12. 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

13. Planning 30th April 2013 deadline updated MS information
Ongoing assessment of adequacy, consistency and coherence based on Reporting Sheets and text reports
July: first internal results from consultant analysis
Summer: drafting the art 12 assessment report and country annexes
Autumn: Interservice consultation, translation, publication

14. The way forward
Draft national assessment reports will be shared with the MS concerned for a factual confirmation of findings after July 2013
The article 12 assessment will contain recommendations at all levels: national, regional, EU
The results of the assessment will feed in the CIS work programme beyond 2013, especially in view of the next cycle
EU Marine Environment Conference February 2014