1. - Plans on the revision of reporting schemas/guidance -
Irene del Barrio (EEA)
February 26, 2019
19th meeting of WG DIKE, Brussels
MSFD 2020 update of Article 11
- Plans on the revision of reporting schemas/guidance -

2. Background
MSFD Article 11: Member States shall establish and implement coordinated monitoring programmes for the ongoing assessment of the environmental status of their marine waters (…) and notify the Commission within 3 months of their establishment.
MSFD Article 17: Member States shall review their Article 11 monitoring programmes six years after their initial establishment (in 2014) and report any updates to the Commission by 15 October 2020.
23rd MSCG meeting (Nov 2018): Several Member States expressed their wish to urgently address an update of the guidelines for Article 11 reporting.

3. Article 11 requirements
Monitoring programmes should be established/implemented:
On the basis of the initial assessment made pursuant to Article 8(1)
On the basis of Annex III elements
On the basis of the environmental targets established pursuant to Article 10
Monitoring programmes shall be compatible within marine (sub)regions and:
with monitoring laid down by Community legislation (e.g. Habitats and Birds Directives, Water Framework Directive…)
with monitoring laid down under international agreements (e.g. Regional Sea Conventions)
In the interest of coherence and coordination, MS should ensure that:
monitoring methods are consistent across the marine region or subregion so as to facilitate comparability of monitoring results
relevant transboundary impacts and transboundary features are taken into account

4. Article 11 requirements (Annex V)
Monitoring programmes should take into account, e.g.:
(1) Need to provide information for an assessment of the environmental status and for an estimate of the distance from, and progress towards, GES (…)
(2) Need to ensure the generation of information enabling the identification of suitable indicators for the environmental targets provided for in Article 10.
(3) Need to ensure the generation of information allowing the assessment of the impact of the measures referred to in Article 13.
(4) Need to include activities to identify the cause of the change and hence the possible corrective measures (…)
(8) Need to ensure comparability of assessment approaches and methods within and between marine regions and/or subregions.
(9) Need to develop technical specifications and standardised methods for monitoring at Community level, so as to allow comparability of information.

5. Reporting in 2014: APPROACH
General questions; Programmes; Sub-programmes
Questions based on Recommendations in MSFD Guidance Document 5
2 webforms prepared
Type of information: categorical, free-text & URLs
Programmes agreed within the CIS:
Descriptor
MSFD Monitoring Programme
D1, 4
Biodiversity – birds
Biodiversity – mammals and reptiles
Biodiversity – fish and cephalopods
Biodiversity – water column habitats
D1, 4, 6
Biodiversity – seabed habitats D2
Non-indigenous species D3
Commercial fish and shellfish D5
Eutrophication D7
Hydrographical changes D8
Contaminants D9
Contaminants in seafood
D10
Litter
D11
Energy, including underwater noise

6. Reporting in 2014: APPROACH (cont)
Example of Programme vs Subprogrammes

7. Reporting in 2014: WHAT WAS REQUESTED?
1) General questions, e.g.:
Do the monitoring programmes as a whole constitute an appropriate framework to meet the requirements of the MSFD? (overall adequacy)
Coverage in relation to Descriptors/Criteria, Targets or Annex III elements
Gaps and plans
Public consultation: dates, description
Other information: regional coordination, transboundary impacts, access and use rights (Article 19(3))
Competent Authority, Responsible organisation & relationship
2) Programme questions, e.g.:
Programme name, ID and description
Links to Criteria/Indicators & Annex III elements:
Adequacy for assessment of GES
Natural variability
Description of how the programme addresses GES assessments needs
When will the programme be considered fully adequate?
If not adequate: plans to make it adequate
Similar question on links and adequacy in relation to Targets & Measures
Links to existing monitoring programmes: select relevant intrument

8. Reporting in 2014: WHAT WAS REQUESTED? (cont)
3) Subprogramme questions, e.g.:
Subprogramme ID
Temporal & spatial scope
Links to programmes of other directives & conventions (free text)
Methodology:
Elements monitored (free text)
Parameters measured (codelist)
Monitoring method (free text: reference of publication, otherwise description)
Method alteration (free text or URL)
Monitoring QA (codelist)
Monitoring QC (codelist)
Spatial resolution of sampling: % and N of samples/year
Monitoring frequency (codelist)
Monitoring data:
Data aggregation scale (codelist) & description (free text/URL)
Access to data: Data type; Data access mechanism; Data access rights; INSPIRE standards; Date; Monitoring frequency (codelists)
Description of data access for the EC/EEA (free text/URL)

9. Development of the reporting requirements for 2020
Will consider:
Lessons learnt from analysis of Article 11 schemas used in 2014 and the reporting information.
Lessons learnt from the Article 12 assessment of Article 11 implementation.
Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 (GES criteria) and Commission Directive (EU) 2017/845 (MSFD Annex III).
Alignment with the Water Framework Directive (WFD)
Alignment with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)
Alignment with the Regional Sea Conventions (RSC)

10. Examples of lessons learnt from 2014 Art 11 reporting
MSFD helpdesk report:
Free text allowed for a number of schema fields, leading to information non-comparable
Structure of programme/sub-programmes could lead to the creation of many files, which were cumbersome to report
Reporting structure, and the associated guidance document, was unclear on some questions
Article 12 report on Monitoring Programmes:
Regional coordination (via RSCs) was insufficient to ensure consistency of monitoring methods which facilitate comparability of monitoring results, especially so for non-indigenous species and underwater noise.

11. Examples of lessons learnt from 2014 Art 11 reporting (cont)
JRC analysis (extracted from D1 monitoring workshop, December 2018, Ispra):
General findings (selection):
The reporting sheet seems to be difficult to follow given the lack of consistency and harmonization among the answers
It is difficult to get an overview at regional level regarding biodiversity, and specific issues such as the species and/or habitats monitored
2) Recommendations for the next cycle:
Adapt the monitoring template to the new requirements
Better harmonise with GES (Art. 9) and targets (Art. 10) following the 2018 updated reports for the Art. 17
Include a bottom-up approach – how the D1 monitoring can support monitoring for other Descriptors
Synergies at regional level

12. Revision planned – Example on the general structure
Possibility of changing the general structure and naming:
General
questions
Programmes
Sub-
programmes
Monitoring
strategies
Reduce N of questions
Revise & increase
the use of codelists
Metadata

13. Revision planned – Examples on schema fields
Subjective questions lead to non-comparable answers, e.g. questions related to the adequacy of the monitoring programmes: could be removed?
Free-text fields don’t allow an easy use and analysis of the information, e.g.:
General questions related to Gaps and plans, Regional cooperation, Transboundary impacts: could be answered using codelists?
Description fields: number of Description fields could be reduced?
List of relevant measures that the monitoring programme addresses: should be changed to a prefilled list with Member States measures
Links to programmes of other directives & conventions: could be codelist?
Elements monitored: the elements compiled under the MSFD Reporting Reference Lists should be used
Monitoring method: could be codelist?
Codelists, e.g.:
Parameters measured: list developed for the reporting of the update of Articles 8, 9 and 10 should be revised, completed and used
Monitoring QA, QC and frequency: to be revised

14. Revision planned – Examples on alignment
Alignment with WFD: any schema element could be useful for MSFD?
e.g. Monitoring Purpose codelist?

15. Revision planned – Examples on alignment (cont)
Alignment with Habitats & Birds Directive: not foreseen, since the “monitoring schemes” are reported only using a free text field under HB Article 17 and BD Article 12 (see General Report formats – Section 2 – 2.3)
Alignment with RSCs: the monitoring programmes and manuals available from the RSCs will be reviewed, in order to see if useful elements can be re-used and included in the MSFD reporting.
Alignment with the CFP: protocols used for fisheries surveys, as well as monitoring manuals/guidance, will be reviewed to see if useful elements can be re-used and included in the MSFD reporting.

16. Revision planned – Approach & timeline
Limited number of changes to 2014 schemas
Prefilled files with the information from 2014 reporting will be prepared
Webforms will be made available
Step
When
Concept paper for reporting on updates for Article 11 discussed
February 2019 (DIKE meeting)
Draft schema(s)/reporting guidance discussed
June 2019 tbc (DIKE meeting)
Final schema(s)/reporting guidance discussed
October 2019 (DIKE meeting)
Final schema(s)/reporting guidance agreed
November 2019 (MSCG meeting)
Development of reporting tools (web forms, QAs)
December 2019-January 2020
Reporting package (tools presented)
February 2020 (DIKE meeting)
Test-phase
March-April 2020
Finalisation of reporting tools
May-June 2020
Commission release call for Article 17 reporting (updating of Article 11)
15 July 2020
Deadline for Article 17 reporting
15 October 2020