1. Methodology for the assessment of Member States’ reporting on monitoring programmes (Article 11) Milieu Ltd Consortium WG DIKE, 29-30 September 2014

2. - Principles & Lessons learned Comparable approach to the one followed for Articles 8, 9, 10 in line with Article 12, reflecting lessons learned and reporting templates More clarity on expected products Aim for consistency and comparability Assessment: – Based on the 10 key questions for reporting on Art. 11 (and on the more specific reporting questions) – Assessment of adequacy relates to Art. 9 and 10 reporting – Introduction of a “reference” list

3. Expected products from Art. 12 assessment Reports Country reports Regional reports o By marine region o By marine sub region Design More graphs and visualizations for assessment and communication Textual assessment remains an important component (but will keep it concise)

4. Country reports – table of content Contents 1 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION AND CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES8 2 SECTION 2. SUMMARY OF THE ASSESSMENT9 2.1 Summary of the assessment9 2.2 Main conclusions from the assessment9 3 SECTION 3. MSFD MONITORING PROGRAMME – MAIN ELEMENTS11 3.1 Coverage of GES Descriptors11 3.2 Coverage of Commission Decision criteria and indicators12 3.3 Coverage of targets12 3.4 Coverage of Annex III categories13 3.5 Coverage of activities13 3.6 Compatibility & use of existing monitoring programmes under EU legislation or international agreements13 3.7 Public Consultation14 3.8 Responsible Competent Authority14 3.9 Other aspects14 4 SECTION 4. OVERVIEW OF MONITORING SUB-PROGRAMMES15 5 SECTION 5. ASSESSMENT OF THE ADEQUACY AND CONSISTENCY OF THE (DESCRIPTOR) MONITORING PROGRAMMES17 5.1 Monitoring Programme X17

5. Country reports (1) First step: Summary of the main elements of the MS monitoring programmes (coverage of descriptors, targets, Annex III categories, public consultation, other aspects) Assessment of justifications and plans to address gaps

6. Country reports (2) Second step: Assessment of each of the 13 monitoring programmes (using info reported in the subprogrammes): 1. Monitoring of progress towards the achievement of GES: Coverage of COM Decision criteria/indicators and of the various elements included in the GES definition Assessment of justification provided by the MS for gaps in GES coverage and presence/ absence of plans to address those gaps 2. Monitoring of progress towards achievement of the targets: Coverage of all relevant targets by the monitoring programme and subprogrammes? Coverage of all features/ pressures/ activities/ parameters used in the targets Assessment of the justification provided by the MS for gaps in targets coverage and presence/ absence of plans to address gaps

7. Country reports (3) 3. Comparison with “reference” list : -Aims to provide a framework to compare the elements reported by one MS with those commonly used at EU level for monitoring (+ regional specificities) -Developed in relation to: -EU legislation -International and regional agreements (including RSC work) -Any other relevant standards / agreements / coordinated work -Expert judgment -Tailored and flexible approach by descriptor (e.g. difference between D8 and D10)

8. In EU legislation and RSCOnly EU legislation (not HELCOM/OSPAR priority) Only in HELCOM CORESET, OSPAR CEMP or UNEP/MAP Group 1 (common to EU legislation, HELCOM CORESET, OSPAR CEMP and suggested UNEP-MAP substances) Cadmium Lead (and its compounds) Mercury (and its compounds) Tributylin compounds (TBT) Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Group 2 (common to EU legislation, HELCOM CORESET and OSPAR CEMP) Brominated diphenylethers (BDEs) Group 3 (additional substances common to HELCOM CORESET, OSPAR CEMP and suggested UNEP-MAP substances) PCBs Group 4 (additional substances common to EU legislation and OSPAR CEMP – a selection by expert judgment) Dioxin-like CBs Dioxins and furans Hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCD) Group 5 (additional substances common to EU legislation and OSPAR CEMP – a selection by expert judgement – with two addition substances indicated by “*”) Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) Hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCH) Musk xylene Nonylphenol, -ethoxylates Octylphenol* Pentachlorophenol PFOS Short-chain chlorinated paraffins Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins* 1,2-Dichloroethane, Aclonifen, Alachlor, Atrazine, Benzene, Bifenox, Chloroalkanes, Chlorfenvinphos, Chlorpyrifos, Cybutryne, Cypermethrin, Dichloromethane, Dichlorvos, Dicofol, Di(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Diuron, Endosulfan, Heptachlor/heptachlor epoxide, Hexachlorobenzen, Hexachlorobutadiene, Isoproturon, Naphthalene, Nickel (and its compounds), Nonylphenol, Octylphenol, Pentachlorobenzene, Quinoxyfen, Simazine, Terbutryn, Tetrechloroethylene, Trichlorobenzenes, Trichloromethane, Trifluralin Copper, Zinc (HELCOM) PFOA (HELCOM) Radioactive substances (HELCOM / UNEP-MAP) Pharmaceuticals: Diclofenac, EE2 (+E1, E2, E3 + in vitro yeast essay) (HELCOM) Chlordane (UNEP-MAP) Copper (UNEP-MAP) Cyanides (UNEP-MAP) Organophosphorus flame retardents (UNEP-MAP) Toxaphene (UNEP-MAP) Mirex (UNEP/MAP) Hydrocarbons (of petroleum origin) (UNEP-MAP)

9. For all EU Member StatesRegion-specific PRIORITY: - Beach litter monitoring (conf. EU TG ML guidance doc) - Seabed litter monitoring (conf. existing protocols as suggested also in EU TG ML guidance doc) OPTIONAL: - Monitoring on the seafloor in shallow coastal waters and on the deep-sea floor - Monitoring of floating litter - Monitoring of microparticles - Number of marine animals stranded or entangled per year - Quantities of ingested litter in the stomach contents of stranded marine animals - OSPAR: plastic particles in the stomachs of northern Fulmars (EcoQO) - UNEP/MAP: Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta as indicator species for ingested litter

10. + Country reports (4) On the basis of the conclusion from the Art. 12 assessment (2013) on the adequacy of GES / targets  Conclusion on adequacy of the monitoring programmes in 2 steps: 1.Assessment of Monitoring Programme against GES / targets definitions 2.Comparison with “reference” lists

11. + Country reports (5) Adequate Yes N/A Adequate No Yes Adequate No PA or IA Partially adequate Yes Adequate No Partially adequate No Yes Adequate No PA or IA Inadequate Yes Adequate No PA or IA No Yes Adequate No Inadequat e Conclusion 2012 Art. 12 assessment GES / targets Assessment of MP against GES / targets Comparison with Reference List Conclusion 2014 Article 12 assessment

12. Thank you! Questions? Contact alice.belin@milieu.be sarine.barsoumian@milieu.be