1. Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Goals and Challenges
Johanna Karhu
EU Marine and Fisheries Policy Officer
Birdlife Europe

2. Transposed into national law
MSFD adopted in July 2008
Transposed into national law
Aim: Take measures to maintain or achieve good environmental status (GES) by 2020:
Protect, preserve, restore and prevent deterioration of the marine environment
Prevent and reduce inputs in the marine environment, with a view to phasing out pollution
Apply an ecosystem-based approach to managing human activities, and ensure collective pressures don’t compromise GES
First legislative instrument for marine biodiversity policy in EU.

3. Good Environmental Status
“the environmental status of marine waters where these provide ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive within their intrinsic conditions, and the use of the marine environment is at a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the potential for uses and activities by current and future generations” (Art 3[5])
Overall aim of MSFD is to take measures to achieve GES.
“GES is probably not being achieved...at the present time” (for biodiversity)
GES not about promoting sustainable use or sustainable development, key aim is the health of marine ecosystems which support use.
...by 2020 at the latest

4. First legislative instrument for marine biodiversity policy in EU
Member States have to develop Marine Strategies applying ecosystem approach to the management of human activities
Regional cooperation required at each stage
EC decision on criteria and methodological standards on GES

5. What does this translate to?
11 EU Descriptors
29 EU Criteria
Lots of subtargets
and indicators 
Circa. 130 separate subtargets for biodiversity alone.
What is bigger picture?

6. 11 Descriptors Descriptor 1: Biological diversity
Descriptor 2: Non-indigenous species
Descriptor 3: Population of commercial fish / shell fish
Descriptor 4: Elements of marine food webs
Descriptor 5: Eutrophication
Descriptor 6: Sea floor integrity
Descriptor 7: Alteration of hydrographical conditions
Descriptor 8: Contaminants
Descriptor 9: Contaminants in fish and seafood for human consumption
Descriptor 10: Marine litter
Descriptor 11: Introduction of energy, including underwater noise

7. Regional Seas Coordinating work regionally
Working to deliver GES for Marine Regions
A role for Regional Seas Conventions, e.g. HELCOM
MS have to consider implications beyond their boundaries
But MSs aren’t to do this alone – the whole rationale for the Directive is to deliver GES throughout the EU’s seas.
So MSs within a Marine Region, e.g. The Baltic, or Sub-Region such as the Greater North Sea are to cooperate to ensure that the Marine Strategies and the Programmes of Measures collectively provide the actions needed to deliver GES for that Marine Region.
This gives MSs the opportunity to work together to achieve GES collectively. They must also work at the scale of marine regions or sub-regions which supports the concept of management at the scale of biogeographical seas and delivery of an ecosystem-based approach.
As many of our Marine Regions already support some form of cooperative working through the RSCs such as OSPAR and HELCOM, these RSCs are to have a role in delivery at the regional scale and to support regional cooperation and consistency. I know that OSPAR are reviewing their priorities to ensure they match MSFD delivery requirements.
This makes good use of existing forums, existing patterns of working and stakeholder involvement. There is an existing role for NGO observers to engage proactively on the RSCs.
Finally MSs are to consider implications of their POMs beyond their own boundaries to not only reduce the risk of moving impacts into the waters of another country or the High Seas but where possible to actually have a positive effect. A very holistic approach to management.

8. MSFD Marine (Sub-)Regions
The aim of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive is to achieve GES by 2020
MSs have to develop marine strategies and put in places programmes of measures (including MPAs) to deliver GES. The delivery of GES is determined at the scale of marine regions or sub-regions, so MSs have to act collectively and cooperatively to ensure delivery both within and outwith their own borders.
There should be very close links between national marine planning and the development of MSFD Marine Strategies, i.e. marine plans must ensure they support and don't hinder the achievement of GES
GES is broken down into 11 descriptors of which 4 are of interest to us and affect seabirds:
D1 Biodiversity
D3 Commercial fisheries
D4 Marine food webs and
D6 Seafloor integrity
The targets and indicators under each descriptor are currently being developed and seabirds indicators, as a top predator and a good indicator of the health of the marine environment, are being considered. Most of these targets and indicators would sit under D1 Biodiversity but could also be used for D3 Fisheries or D4 Food webs. For example, breeding success of different seabird species is an indicator of wider ecosystem health as well as prey availability.

9. Determine GES for each region, targets and indicators
Programme of measures designed
GES is achieved
Directive transposed
July 2008
2010
2012
2014
2015
2016
2020
Agree GES descriptor criteria, etc
Monitoring programme established;
(& MPAs progress report)
Programme of measures operational
Initial assessment of national marine status

10. Developing Common Implementation Strategy
Overall aim of MSFD is to take measures to achieve GES.
“GES is probably not being achieved...at the present time” (for biodiversity)
GES not about promoting sustainable use or sustainable development, key aim is the health of marine ecosystems which support use.

11. State of our Seas
Initial assessment of the current state of the EU’s seas – due 15/10/2012
Monitoring
Regular review – every 6 years
Each MS is to carry out an initial assessment of the State of the seas under their jurisdiction by 2012.
This work is already underway.
In the UK – Charting Progress 2, the assessment of the state of the UK’s seas id due to be out for public consultation later this year. Updates the 2005 assessment
Also OSPAR is preparing its 2010 Quality Status Report – due to be published this year.
HELCOM – has developed the Baltic Sea Action Plan, so I’m assuming that the work has started here as well.
Monitoring programmes to determine the on-going environmental status of the seas – again done cooperatively with other MSs.
Regular review at least every 6 years is required – Review of the status of the marine environment, GES, environmental targets, monitoring programmes, and the POMs
Obviously the assessments and reviews offer opportunities to feed in data and information and influence the management measures.

12. Spatial Tools MPAs are specifically mentioned
MSs are to report on MPA implementation progress
Marine planning is inferred, new Maritime Spatial Planning Directive just adopted by EC
An opportunity that NGOs welcome is the references to spatial protection measures:
It’s specifically mentioned within the Directive that the Programme of Measures is to include coherent and representative networks of MPAs covering the whole range of diversity of marine ecosystems. Such spatial measures are to include in particular those sites that are designated under the EU Birds & Habitats Directives, plus sites determined through the RSCs, such as OSPAR MPAs.
MSs are to provide the Commission with a progress report on the designation of networks of MPAs
While spatial and temporal controls and management measures are mentioned in Annex VI as an element of the POMs, the Commission is clear that this refers to Marine Spatial Planning. Marine planning is a management tool that should help deliver the Marine Strategies and the ecosystem-based approach.

13. Integration
Environmental concerns must be integrated into other relevant policies and legislative measures, e.g. the CFP and the Integrated Maritime Policy.
The Commission is required to ensure that fisheries measures (particularly the reform of the CFP) meet the requirements of GES.
There are also other, less obvious opportunities.
Requirement for other policy and legislative instruments to be coherent with the MSFD and marine environmental considerations must be integrated into these policies and legislation.
This includes the CFP; the Integrated Maritime Policy – the MSFD is the environmental pillar of this policy which covers all maritime sectors; ICZM, etc.
For example, this requirement should heavily influence the reform of the CFP in This is an area that NGOs are working to influence both in the UK and at the EU level.
Where action is required to manage an activity that is outside the jurisdiction of the MS, MSs must ask the relevant Community or international organisation to adopt the appropriate measures to deal with the problem, e.g. the IMO on shipping issues. Where such a responsibility lies with the Commission, e.g. with regards to the CFP, the MSs must make recommendations to the Commission which is required to provide a response.
This is a very important clause as it provides the avenue for fisheries impacts on the marine environment, and particularly MPAs, to be tackled.

14. Costs vs GES
Action is not required where the costs would be disproportionate
Caveats
taking account of the risks to the marine environment
provided that there is no further deterioration
Must also look at the costs of doing nothing or of allowing environmental degradation
Must justify lack of action to the European Commission
A loophole or barrier would be the clause allowing action to be avoided where costs are disproportionate. But the Directive provides some caveats to this points:
taking account of the risks to the marine
Article 14(4) “…shall not be required … to take specific steps … where the costs would be disproportionate taking account of the risks to the marine environment, and provided that there is no further deterioration.”
MSs must also consider the costs of doing noting and the costs of environmental degradation
MSs must justify any lack of action to the Commission
Where costs of actions are considered, they must not be considered at the expense of achieving the aims of the Directive.

15. Where are we now?
Member States had to submit their Art. 8 Initial assessment, Art. 9 Determination of GES and Art. 10 Environmental targets & indicators by 15/10/2012
Bulgaria, Ireland, Malta and Poland have not yet submitted their reports and Portugal, Slovenia and UK have only partially submitted

16. Results of ESEC survey on NGO experiences
31 NGO responses
Concerns: not enough financial resources, lack of awareness among NGOs and stakeholders, lack of concrete targets, MS relying on existing commitments to reach GES,
Main gaps in reports and knowledge: biodiversity and food web, non-commercial fish, energy/noise impacts, marine litter, contaminants etc..

17. Main concerns with reports: targets too generic, lack of data used for not setting clear targets, insufficient coordiantion between authorities, lack of precautionary approach
Public consultations in MS: 59% indicated that they were involved at the end of reporting process and 26% from the start of the process

18. Remaining challenges
Attaining necessary scientific knowledge for defining the state of marine environment
Financing
Integration of sectoral policies
Dissemination and communication on the marine environment
Enhanced stakeholder participation at all levels

19. What happens next?
The Commission has 6 months to review the MS initial assessments, determination of GES and setting targets and indicators
The work will focus on developing monitoring programmes for assessments by 15/07/2014
Programme of measures to achieve/maintain GES 15/07/2015
Entry into operation by 15/07/2016
Only 4 years to achieve GES

20. Thank you – any questions?