1 Opening of the Meeting and Adoption of the Agenda

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL - ENVIRONMENT Directorate D – Water, Marine Environment and Chemicals Unit D2 – Marine Environment and Water Industries

Marine Strategy Framework Directive DOC 16 Working Group on Good Environmental Status Brussels, (GES) 27-28 September 2011

Document: Minutes of the meeting (FINAL) Agenda item: Date prepared: 08/02/2012 (update) Prepared by: DG Environment & Milieu

MINUTES

1 Opening of the meeting and Adoption of the Agenda The Commission opened the meeting by welcoming the participants. The draft Agenda that was sent to the WG members prior to the meeting (Document 1 on CIRCA) was adopted without change. 2 Approval of Minutes of 5 April 2011 Meeting No new comments were made so the minutes were approved (Document 2 on CIRCA). 3 Update from the Marine Directors meeting of 26-27 May, in relation to GES The Commission provided a summary of the discussions of the Marine Directors (MDs) concerning Good Environmental Status (GES) during their latest meeting, on 26-27 May 2011. 1. The Common Understanding document was approached by the MDs as a living document. MDs aim to approve it at their next meeting in December 2011. 2. At this point the discussions on GES and targets need to become more concrete and practical. The MDs were concerned that because some Member States (MS) are in the process of determining GES and defining targets, they have difficulties sharing their experience. Therefore, it was agreed to have an informal meeting on GES and targets (beginning of September). The outcomes of this meeting are discussed under agenda point 5. 3. The MDs advised that the first implementation cycle requires a lot of flexibility. This flexibility should aim at strengthening convergence. 4. The working group meetings should be held back-to-back to facilitate cross-reference regarding the Initial Assessment (IA), since a need for greater cooperation between the working groups was identified regarding: a. The importance to have information on economic sectors in the IA (in particular spatial information) b. Despite the different interpretation of the term “baseline”, the IA should aim at describing the state-of- the-art in qualitative-or ideally quantitative-terms. The Commission mentioned that the Marine Directors discussed the possibility to carry out coordination activities on the relationship between MPAs in the MSFD and the Natura 2000 network. In particular, the Marine and

1 Nature Directors have agreed to produce a joint FAQs document and a request to update it regularly. The Commission and participants discussed the need for greater cooperation between the Nature and Marine Directors. Although no formal structure has yet been set up for this cooperation, the current discussion about a future formal cooperation structure is promising. The Commission mentioned that a paper on the links between the MSFD and the Habitats and Birds Directives is currently being prepared by the Nature unit. The discussion then turned to the activities of the MDs on offshore issues. The Commission mentioned that a Communication had been prepared after the Gulf of Mexico accident and that an Impact Assessment was being carried out and close to finalization. The Commission mentioned that a proposal for a Communication should be ready for November 2011. In addition, with regard to offshore regulation, there was a request to extend to all MSFD waters the provision on water damage of the Environmental Liability Directive, which currently applies only to WFD waters. A proposal is to be expected in time for the next MSCG meeting in November. 4 Information on the Public consultation process within MS The Commission presented an overview of the status of the public consultation process in some MS (Presentation 1 on CIRCA). The Commission stressed that the potential confusion between formal and informal consultation needs to be clarified. Denmark informed the meeting that their 3-month consultation will start by the end of February 2012. The German six-month consultation period begins on 14 October 2011. In France the formal consultation will start on 1 January 2012, while an informal consultation is already on-going. In Poland the 3-month consultation process will start end of June 2012 and in Belgium the informal consultation will start in week 40, 2011 with an internal workshop of Belgian experts. A second workshop will be held on 7 December 2011, where experts from neighbouring countries, the Commission, OSPAR and the EEA, will be invited. Formal public consultation will start in March 2012. Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands will start in spring 2012 while the UK will start their consultation period beginning of 2012. The Commission reminded the MS that coordination with neighbour countries and within the Regional Sea Conventions (RSC) is crucial at this stage. Engaging in fruitful exchanges with neighbours, the RSC, the Commission and the EEA will help build awareness and coherence in the overall process. It was proposed that a point be raised at the next Marine Directors meeting about the formal implementation of coordination between MS through public participation processes. It was stressed that all MS should agree on a mechanism to automatically send information to the other countries when they launch their consultation process. The Commission proposed to follow up on this issue after the meeting and set up a formal procedure for sharing documents, methods and information related to target groups for public consultations. 5 Determination of GES, establishment of environmental targets and associated indicator s 5.1 General Issues a) Development of the Common Understanding to Art. 8, 9 and 10 Document Co-lead Germany presented the second draft of the Common Understanding Document (Presentation 2 on CIRCA).1 A revised version will be sent out on 30 September 2011. There will not be track changes on this new version but small balloons indicating the changes. The document will be finalized after the next consultation step for endorsement by the MSCG and the MDs. Co-lead Germany invited MS and NGOs to provide more text and examples to improve the document. A number of NGO's expressed that they will contribute. A number of points were raised in the follow-up discussion: - It was mentioned that it would be useful to clearly separate pressure- and state-based indicators to prevent confusion at the descriptor level. Co-lead Germany will consider this in the revision. The

1 See Documents 3, 3a, 3b on CIRCA

2 Commission added that the Commission Staff Working Paper, currently being finalised with input from different DGs, addresses this issue (specifically Annex III of the MSFD). - The Commission was asked to confirm that the whole “GES and targets” package is important for the 2012 deadline rather than the specific attribution of each element to “GES determination” or “environmental targets” categories. The Commission confirmed that the ambition of the exercise is in the combination of “GES and targets”, because potentially everything can be considered as a target. - Some MS noted that the IA relies on elements from other EU Directives, which have different assessment criteria and approaches, and inquired whether there was a need for a common understanding of these different approaches (e.g. relationships between Descriptor 3 and the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy). The main concern is that some EU Directives may jeopardize the chance to reach GES. The Commission understands this concern – because the EU law is not a codified system, interpretation efforts are needed – but feels that it is not feasible to address the differences now. However, an interpretative document on the links between the Habitats and Birds Directives and the MSFD is currently in preparation and a workshop on the linkages between the WFD and the MSFD will be held early in 2012 by France. - The issue of interim targets (Annex IV.6 of the MSFD), which might be formulated by some MS, was raised. Co-lead Germany replied that the group was not sure how to handle this issue. The Commission elaborated that intermediate targets can be useful to express the aim to stop or reverse a trend, but where the ultimate GES determination is not yet possible to express. Indicators can be important here as they can form the basis for information gathering in view of taking actions in the future. - Some MS asked whether the WFD status class “moderate” belongs to GES or to sub- (or not-) GES. The Commission answered that “moderate” belongs to not-GES. The Commission closed the discussion by informing the meeting that it will send a set of comments, including on the following issues: i. Quantitative vs. qualitative (the necessity for flexibility and openness in the first cycle). At the present initial stage different methodologies will be used. An aim can, however, be to minimize the differences. No assessment is expected to be either 100% qualitative or 100% quantitative; ii. At what point is more effort needed to further convergence among MS methods. The public participation process, the Article 12 process and the update of the IA and GES determination in 2018 are all steps allowing for greater convergence. The Commission acknowledged the need to explicitly include in the Common Understanding Document that full convergence may not yet be reached in 2012. Co-lead Germany and the small drafting group offered to the MS: 1. The group will further elaborate on the Document even if it is already approved by MD in December. Two outstanding issues remain: scale – in the short-term – and the general philosophy of the common assessment– for a later stage because it will not be of use for next year. 2. Further information exchange is needed on GES and targets, when MS will be more advanced in their development. This could possibly take place with the help of workshops (by region for instance) and then bringing everything together. 3. These activities will be proposed to MSCG and Marine Directors for approval. b) Outcomes from the regional coordination process The Commission gave the floor to the representatives of the RSCs to summarise their activities with regard to the MSFD implementation process and the overall coordination processes.

3 OSPAR The OSPAR Secretariat informed the meeting on the state of play of regional coordination of MSFD implementation in the OSPAR region (Document 5 on CIRCA). Coordination of the implementation of the MSFD in OSPAR is led by the OSPAR Coordination Group (CoG), and the Intersessional Correspondence Group on the MSFD (ICG-MSFD). The relevant OSPAR Committees and intersessional groups (e.g. ICG-COBAM) have produced guidance on approaches to defining GES and setting targets and indicators for each MSFD Descriptor. The draft advice manual on D1, 2, 4 and 6 has been shared with the Commission through CIRCA2 (COBAM GES advice 1 June), subject to a disclaimer that the advice manual is a living document and does not prejudice the ongoing decision making process in Contracting Parties and their final conclusion in 2012. As a living document, subject to further refinement until its conclusion, a process has been put in place for Contracting Parties to share information on national definitions of GES, targets and indicators for these descriptors through an ICG MSFD/COBAM Workshop scheduled for 2-4 November 2011. The draft advice documents on D5 and 8 are also available on CIRCA3 (Draft Advice Descriptor 5 and Draft Advice Descriptor 8). As for D7, a draft advice document is currently subject to refinement by the Netherlands within the framework of ICG-MSFD and with regard to the draft advice documents on D10 and 11, further development is ongoing through the relevant OSPAR intersessional groups (e.g. ICG-ML). The OSPAR Secretariat also informed that a new ICG MSFD meeting had been scheduled for 13-14 December 2011 with the aim of signing off the OSPAR consolidated advice documents for sharing with the wider EU framework and facilitating the sharing of GES determinations and associated targets and indicators between OSPAR Contracting Parties as regards Descriptors 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Reference was made to coordination in relation to the initial assessment and the ICG MSFD conclusion that the OSPAR Quality Status Report 2010 provides the basis for coordination of initial assessments across the North-East Atlantic and that Contracting Parties are able to refer to the QSR in their own national initial assessments. A regional socio-economic analysis has been also commissioned by EIHA.. Links between the MSFD and other EU directives will be discussed at the next ICG-MSFD meeting in December. HELCOM HELCOM has submitted a paper to this meeting (Document 4 on CIRCA) focusing mainly on the development of a HELCOM core set of indicators with GES boundaries. This background report is the first step of the HELCOM CORESET project. This project is the result of an agreement to develop a full web-based system to facilitate the work of EU MS in view of the MSFD implementation. It is based on a concrete set of core indicators, which also aim to identify the boundary between desired and non-desired conditions (i.e. GES and sub-GES). One reason to develop these core indicators is the need to identify what should be monitored. The development of indicators is the first step in the monitoring programme. At the latest (Ministerial) meeting of parties in Moscow, Members agreed on the coordination role of the HELCOM Secretariat for this project. In addition to the CORESET project, HELCOM runs the TARGREV project (review of the ecological targets for eutrophication). HELCOM specified that the document is a draft submitted for review. Therefore changes are still likely to take place. The report explains the policy framework for the Baltic Sea. 18 core indicators are proposed for biodiversity, 15 for hazardous substances and 5 for eutrophication. The draft gives detailed descriptions of each descriptor and explains what the approach is to reach GES. In addition, the draft asks what further indicators could be developed to complement the existing ones and tries to reach preliminary agreement on common principles for the core indicators. The draft also lists preferred sampling matrices and indicates how monitoring should be handled in the future. A final version will be published at the end of the year after endorsement by HELCOM parties.

2http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/marine/library?l=/informationsfromsotherso/1-documents_conventions/3- ospar_convention&vm=detailed&sb=Title 3http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/marine/library?l=/informationsfromsotherso/1-documents_conventions/3- ospar_convention&vm=detailed&sb=Title

4 UNEP/MAP The Barcelona Convention representative evoked the Roadmap for Implementation developed by UNEP/MAP. Its approach is in line with the work carried out for the implementation of the MSFD. It was mentioned that close cooperation between the EU and UNEP/MAP is needed to harmonize the work of the Convention with the work carried out at EU level for the MSFD implementation. An IA is now completed for the region and is due to be part of an integrated report, which summary will be presented to the next COP meeting in January 2012 for adoption. The representative then gave the participants an overview of the on-going work being carried out at the Convention level. Ecological objectives were developed in line with the descriptors of the MSFD. Some of the operational objectives relate to ICZM in order to implement the ICZM Protocol but the majority of the objectives are relevant to the GES descriptors. The criteria and indicators developed are also very similar to those proposed in the Commission Decision for the implementation of the MSFD. Final discussions are still on-going in order to agree on, and eventually adopt, the Roadmap for Implementation in line with the ecosystem approach. The Secretariat recalled that UNEP/MAP is composed of 21 countries and therefore it is necessary to build synergies between EU MS and third countries. Workshops will be organized at the beginning of next year to develop the methodology to determine GES in Mediterranean countries and to establish targets and indicators. An integrated programme aimed at providing data for all descriptors will be developed, integrating the same timeline as the MSFD. Finally, there is hope to reach an agreement on a monitoring programme at the 2013 COP meeting. Cooperation is at the core of UNEP/MAP’s approach with third countries, to implement similar approaches, and with OSPAR and HELCOM, to benefit from their knowledge and experience in this work. UNEP/MAP is also cooperating with the UN regular process aiming at a global reporting system. The development of indicators should also be useful for a global approach, not only regionally-focused. The Commission opened the floor with a request that the key documents to be readily available to all participants. The HELCOM Secretariat provided clarification on their use of candidate indicators, which are important and complementary to core indicators, but because of the state of monitoring (or because they do not benefit from a strong enough scientific base), they are deemed not mature enough yet to be proposed as core indicators. HELCOM advised that supplementary indicators are more qualitative reports on themes and do not include information on GES boundaries or targets. A question was asked about the level of details of the HELCOM’s core set of indicators. Co-lead Germany answered that HELCOM developed their indicators in a more coordinated way than OSPAR, which did it more by themes (biodiversity, eutrophication, hazardous substances) before putting it all together in the end. The HELCOM Secretariat answered that the report submitted gives very detailed answers. For the Baltic Sea, HELCOM has developed separate sets of indicators by themes as well (eutrophication, hazardous substances, biodiversity). It was also mentioned by MS that the concept introduced by HELCOM and according to which an indicator is a core indicator only when it is backed by appropriate monitoring process is a very interesting one. c) Way forward Joachim D’Eugenio, new deputy head of the Marine Environment and Water Industries Unit in DG ENV, presented the Commission’s vision for the Article 12 assessment, which it will have to carry out next year according to the dispositions of Article 12 of the MSFD (Presentation 3 on CIRCA). The Commission acknowledged that although this is the start of the process and the first framing ideas are currently being developed, the process needs to be more explicit in the Common Understanding document. Article 12 gives a power to the Commission that cannot be found in all EU legislation (it is comparable to the Air quality Directive and the ETS Directive with the national allocation plans but there are differences with these processes). Therefore, there is a need to look at the specificities of this Article and subsequent assessment. Article 12 gives a mandate to the Commission to: - Assess compliance; - Ask for additional information; - Analyse coherence between marine regions and sub-regions and within the EU - Draw up recommendations for modifications. This is a challenge, given by the co-legislator because the Article is silent as to what happens next (i.e. who should do the modifications? By when should they be done? What happens if no modification has to be made?).

5 A most challenging aspect for the Commission is that the Art. 12 assessment should be done within 6 months, meaning that the process should start as early as possible after submission of MS reports. Currently, there are internal discussions on how to engage with the different actors and how to prepare this, so as to make Article 12 an opportunity rather than just a legal obligation. The Commission acknowledged that it should build on what is currently being done at WG GES, ESA and DIKE. Two terms are key: consistency and coherence. The main current issues are: - What format for the Commission assessment? Should it be a Commission Communication? Should it be specific recommendation per MS (e.g. COM Decision addressed to MS )? - What level of details (region vs. sub-region?)? - What will be the methodological approach for this assessment? What are the future steps? - Preparation of the methodology for the next MD meeting in order to obtain a mandate from the MD before going back to WG GES and the MSCG. - Preparation of a full methodology before the deadline. - For these, there is a need for a joint reflection with the MS. Follow-up to Article 12 assessment A discussion took place on the possible follow-up process after the Commission’s assessment which technically should be ready in spring 2013. One of the main questions is whether it is worth changing the reports late in the second cycle (between 2012 and 2018) following the Commission’s recommendations or whether the integration of the recommendation should wait until 2018 (for reasons of public and stakeholders consultation). A suggestion was made to develop different options as to what the follow-up to Art. 12 might be concretely. The Commission answered that it will try to make this an opportunity and not a burden or something that would hold MS back. This is the roadmap envisaged to engage with MD. On the topic of the tight time span for the Commission to assess MS products and develop its recommendations, it was asked whether the Commission will pay the same attention to all products or whether it will prioritize. The Commission answered that the internal on-going discussions focus on this exact issue. There will be some form of priority setting. Either, it will look at all elements and assess them at a high-level or it will prioritise some of the elements in order to go into details and leave the others for a later, more detailed assessment. The issue is about the different levels of sophistication of MS products. A distinction is needed between MS who submit final products that need only fine-tuning and MS who submit incomplete products. The Commission recalled that if the job is done properly, MS have nothing to worry about. However, if MS decide for some reason not to implement the Directive or have different levels of ambition, the Commission cannot remain silent. . Regional cooperation and roof report The Commission mentioned that it does not understand how the RSC functions with regard to the roof report (common umbrella report). The Commission could argue that if what is being done at the RSC level is not included in the national report then the Commission could, officially, not take it into account. There is a need to reflect how the RSC process extends over the MSFD calendar. Strategically, awareness of the regional work should transpire in the public participation process. The HELCOM Secretariat evoked the on-going discussions about the roof report and the role of the RSC. After MS IAs have been reported to the Commission, the HELCOM Secretariat will put together a roof report of these IA, i.e. a regional compilation of results. The Commission mentioned that the MD evoked the roof report not only for the IA but also for the other deliverables. The HELCOM Secretariat answered that they do not yet have full details of what the report will include, but so far it only addresses the IA. 5.2 Thematic aspects on GES, targets and associated indicators The RSC and MS got the opportunity to explain how far they have gone in their work. Subsequently, the Commission presented information from the informal meeting on targets of 7 September and the intervention of the stakeholders. The need for coordination on a number of points was identified, in particular: - Does GES address all main impacts and pressures?

6 - Consistency should be improved. - Quantitative targets need to be checked for the level they are set at, which will be easier later during the process. I. Nutrients & Contaminants A. Nutrients enrichment The Commission presented the results from the 6 MS contributions for the informal meeting of 7 September (presentation 4 on Circa) The Commission recalled that with regard to Descriptor 5, (human-induced eutrophication is minimized) three criteria were given: i. nutrients levels; ii. direct effects (such as water transparency); iii. indirect effects (such as dissolved oxygen). Some summary and debate issues were identified i. What is the process of coordination of target setting and indicators at RSC level? ii. Are indicators well-developed? iii. Is there already a debate about threshold levels in the MS? Other MS were invited to say which approach they were using. The RSC were invited to comment on this issue: - HELCOM mentioned that eutrophication is a big problem in the Baltic and that the work on this topic is highly quantitative. In 2009 a thematic assessment was produced using the HELCOM assessment approach (similar to WFD assessment approach) giving thorough information on: i. the quantities of nutrient loads; ii. source countries; iii. source sectors. In addition, the HELCOM action plan includes a nutrient reduction scheme with targets for nutrient reduction. The HELCOM TARGREV project is strengthening eutrophication targets (final report by end of October 2011) and has made a breakthrough in addressing hypoxia through eutrophication using different ecological models and a multi-modelled approach. HELCOM is cooperating with the Black Sea to exchange information on nutrient reduction approaches in order to have a scheme in the Black Sea like in the Baltic. - Romania identified eutrophication as one of the main issues in the Black Sea and confirmed that a project using the expertise from the Baltic Sea is under development and will hopefully help to improve the Black Sea status. - The OSPAR Secretariat made reference to the key conclusions of the draft advice document on Descriptor 5, which point out that the OSPAR Common Procedure for the identification of the eutrophication status of the OSPAR maritime area should be used as the basis to determine characteristics, targets and indicators for D5 in the North-East Atlantic Ocean, as the harmonised assessment parameters of the Common Procedure are suitable to act as area specific indicators for D5 criteria. The OSPAR Secretariat also informed the meeting that Contracting Parties were reviewing the Common Procedure in relation to environmental target setting for eutrophication state and pressure related targets with respect to eutrophication. Some OSPAR MS stated that they will use the HELCOM approach, developed in the HEAT project, for the North Sea. Co-lead Germany commented that within OSPAR ICG-EUT group, an exercise has been on-going for two years which systematically applies a model for each identified eutrophication area and involves carrying out cases-studies to identify relevant input of nutrients (like HELCOM). OSPAR MS were invited to participate. - UNEP/MAP commented that there is as yet no decision on specific threshold values for nutrients in UNEP/MAP but discussions have been on-going. For the WFD, thresholds have already been determined in Mediterranean countries and it now guides their work. The aim is to achieve an agreement on threshold- based eutrophication assessment. At the moment, information is lacking on bottom hypoxia (third criterion – indirect effects), but for the first two criteria (nutrient levels and direct effects) the chance of reaching an agreement is good. Some MS mentioned that the work done under the WFD would be used extensively to address this Descriptor. For instance, in some MS, definitions from WFD were used for the determination of GES while for environmental targets; existing closed boundaries from WFD were used. Similarly, it was mentioned that a “WFD and eutrophication” guidance would be important. It was also mentioned that MS used the indicators developed in the TG5 report as criteria for indirect effects as the approach used is mostly based on the WFD for the

7 determination of GES and the setting of targets for eutrophication. The French Scientific Research Committee commented that the ratio between different nutrients is also a good indicator on health of the sea. This was taken up by co-lead Germany which mentioned that the ratios are mentioned in the COM decision but complicated to use. Within OSPAR, work was ongoing to model input reductions required. B. Contaminant The Commission presented the results from the MS contribution for the informal meeting of 7 September (presentation 5 on CIRCA). A presentation on the research project GEOTRACES followed the discussion (Presentation 6 on CIRCA). The RSC were invited to provide comments: - The OSPAR Secretariat informed the meeting that for the GES criterion concerning concentrations on contaminants, there was good consensus between the Contracting Parties on the approach to this indicator measured in the relevant matrix for the substances listed in part A of the OSPAR Coordinated Environmental Monitoring Programme (CEMP).. The Secretariat further informed that there was some consensus on a proposal for monitoring of certain substances in sea bird eggs, which could provide a good matrix for contaminants in the higher trophic level linked to D4. For the GES criterion concerning effects of contaminants there was consensus on the indicator TBT-specific effects and an index is available for the application of this parameter. The Secretariat also informed on the next ICG-MIME meeting (5-9 December 2011), which will focus on developing Environmental Assessment Criteria for CEMP components and elaborating advice on methodological approaches to determining GES, setting targets and indicators in relation to oil (hydrocarbons) under D8. A discussion on the use of different environmental threshold limits also took place (in particular in relation to EQS of the WFD and EACs from OSPAR). - UNEP/MAP commented that they have no threshold limits of key contaminants yet but are working on two issues: i. concentration of contaminants (cooperation with OSPAR). ii. definition of background contamination level with different methodologies (preliminary reports expected in early 2012). UNEP/MAP stated that if environmental assessment criteria cannot be defined, a compromise needs to be reached. Major activities are on-going to identify river basin pollutants on WFD side and such a harmonized approach is also needed for MSFD. - HELCOM said that a few substances are already managed but contaminants are still a problem in the Baltic. For some substances known to be hazardous, sudden changes due to external factors are monitored (e.g. Fukushima incident and radioactive substances in Baltic Sea). It also mentioned that thematic assessments on hazardous substances are included in the draft background report submitted prior to this meeting (Document 4 on CIRCA). HELCOM developed 13 core indicators, mostly on concentration of substances (e.g. heavy metals,) and 4 on biological effects. Within the GES boundaries, a straightforward approach in thematic assessment, using environmental assessment criteria (EACs), is favoured. A workshop on operationalization of criteria is planned for January 2012. Moreover an expert report was mentioned, on the relations between biological effects and pressure indicators and thresholds. The Commission asked if hotspots (i.e. areas identified as high-cumulative pressure are at the same time areas with high-level of contaminants) can be identified which was positively answered by HELCOM. - Romania elaborated on a monitoring programme for the Black Sea, in which pesticides, PCB, heavy metals, etc. are analysed. Each bordering country sets up targets according to their national legislation. All data have been included in the report on the status of the Black Sea. With regard to the referencing concentrations monitored, it was noted that some of the Environmental Assessment Criteria (EACs) developed by OSPAR were of a preliminary nature since they were derived on the basis of data from the freshwater regime. Attention was also drawn to the fact that the environmental quality objectives of Directive 2008/105/EC were based on water as a matrix and that they needed to be developed further to cover sediments and biota. Some concerns were raised with regard to the monitoring of TBT (i.e. should the TBT monitoring continue, even after TBT is banned?). It was mentioned that monitoring activities should be carefully screened on applicability for determining GES since not all available monitoring studies yield useful data

8 for different GES descriptors. ICES elaborated that the bio-effects of contaminants can still be monitored and a special OSPAR working group is working on this (See ICES web pages). However it was also stated, that bioeffects are seldom as specific as for TBT and an integrated monitoring would be required to establish the causes of such effects. An IMO ban was imposed only 2 years ago on TBT. Therefore, it would be good to implement a monitoring exercise under the MSFD framework. A question was then raised on indicator 8.2.24 in the event of acute pollution. The Commission answered that GES can only be claimed if all measures to reduce pollution are taken. On this topic, it was suggested that acute pollution, as a result of accidents, should be analyzed by risk analysis. As yet these tools are used locally but there is no standard measure for analysing risk at the global level or harmonisation of risk assessment. II. Disturbance (D10 and D11) A. Marine Litter The Commission presented the results from the MS contribution for the informal meeting of 7 September (Presentation 9 on CIRCA). Georg Hanke, co-chair of TG Marine Litter, then presented the results from the technical subgroup to the WG GES participants (Presentation 7.a on CIRCA). The work within the group is facilitated by a web-based communication platform (base camp) provided through the JRC. Stefanie Werner, co- chair of the TG, then presented the first draft of advice from TSG Marine Litter on the determination of GES (Presentation 7.b on CIRCA).5 After the presentations, the RSC were invited to provide comments. The OSPAR Secretariat pointed out the key principles identified in the draft advice document on D10 related to the setting of targets and indicators and the development of monitoring programmes for this Descriptor. For instance, in relation to litter on beaches, there is a good degree of consensus between Contracting Parties on how to set targets and indicators and how to monitor this parameter, using the OSPAR beach litter monitoring programme. On the other hand, for micro particles there is strong consensus that more research in needed both to establish the level of impact and to look at monitoring methodologies. As to litter ingested by animals further discussion is needed, in particular as to the use of the Fulmars EcoQO. The next ICG ML meeting is scheduled on 28-29 November 2011 to finalize the advice document for signing off at ICG MSFD in December. UNEP/MAP has developed a strategy to be discussed in the next COP meeting. The strategy preparation began before the MSFD and will be updated to improve harmonization with TG Marine Litter. In the HELCOM area, although the issue is not the most pressing one in the Baltic, a small INTERREG program has just started and Work Package 1 is dealing specifically with Marine Litter. Romania, not speaking on behalf of the Black Sea Commission but updating MS on its activities, mentioned that the litter issue has been introduced into the Strategic Action Plan of the Black Sea. It mentioned that it might be useful to have the support of the TG Marine Litter in the Black Sea. Several issues were discussed among participants following the presentations: - A discussion took place on whether there could be an agreement at (sub-) regional level on a quantified reduction target for marine litter (type, size, compartment as an associated indicator) and on quantified impact level (defined for region specific litter). - The issue of the lack of useful recovery techniques, related to the fact that most marine litter is plastic and thus has a long degradation time, was mentioned. - “Fishing for litter” was also discussed, some MS wishing to hear an opinion from the Commission on this specific topic. In particular, concerns were voiced over the upcoming reform of CFP, which will include a subsidies regime for “fishing for litter”. The Commission mentioned that an informal task group was formed the week earlier to put up pros and cons on “fishing for litter” and the use of fishermen. - Clarification was requested about the procedure for commenting on the advice document of TG Marine Litter, what the status of the advice will be, and how the Commission intends to use it. The Commission

4 Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 “Occurrence, origin (where possible), extent of significant acute pollution events (e.g. slicks from oil and oil products) and their impact on biota physically affected by this pollution (8.2.2).” 5 See Documents 6 and 6.a on CIRCA

9 mentioned that the views of TG Marine Litter are not those of the Commission and that the report is here to give MS advice on how to determine GES with regard to Marine Litter, what to consider and which elements play a role. The report should be formally approved by the Marine Directors and will serve as an advisory report. Therefore, unanimous agreement among MS is not needed. - Additional questions and concerns were raised by MS with regard to conversion factor between number of pieces and weight, on size categories, especially between 5 mm and 2,5 cm and the impacts on individual species. A percentage reduction in total litter might be difficult to achieve. It might be a political target. There was a concern with regard to the cost of monitoring. The Chair of the TG explained the necessity for a conversion factor to make analysis of different types of data possible. As to the size range, the struggle is that 5mm is too small for visual (ship) observation. The TG is working on improving harmonization. B. Noise TG Noise gave a presentation about its work since its first meeting of April 2011 (Presentation 8 on CIRCA - Document 7), which hosted 20 participants including military agencies, NGOs, governmental agencies and industry. The next meeting is scheduled for week 40. The aim is to have a final report by end of 2011 which might still not answer all the questions the MS might have. The Commission presented the results from the MS contribution for the informal meeting of 7 September. After the presentation, the RSC were invited to provide comments. The OSPAR Secretariat noted that at that stage, the draft advice document for this Descriptor was not as mature as other OSPAR advice documents. No clear principles for determining GES or setting targets and indicators for Descriptor 11 had been agreed yet by Contracting Parties. However, there appeared to be a degree of consensus in relation to possible monitoring methodologies for indicators 11.1.1 (loud, low and mid frequency impulsive sound) and 11.2.1 (continuous low frequency sound). For the second indicator some consensus on the establishment of a network of noise monitoring stations plus modelling would be good. UNEP/MAP commented that within the framework of the ecosystem approach, one of the objectives is to deal with noise, but there is no advance with a noise program in Mediterranean area. MS had no information about this issue at the Black Sea level and wished to join TG Noise for the expertise. HELCOM mentioned that a candidate indicator is being developed on the short term for all significant noise inputs. The (draft) final report is expected 1st January 2012, so after the Marine Directors meeting. Some MS acclaimed the TG Noise’s approach for being very pragmatic and cost effective and urged others to take part since the approach will be most effective if adopted by many MS. The UK is currently developing a baseline and would welcome to hear about other MS’s thoughts on ambient noise level. There were questions of whether there are plans similar to the exemplified North Sea for other seas. This was confirmed by TG Noise adding that it requires data from the MS. Poland referred to the LIFE+ project which deals with the effects of underwater noise on purpose and might be useful in 2018. Romania added that it has started working on first measurements of underwater noise in August and plans another cruise in October. Its experts will contact TG Noise later on. Ireland has a research project similar to the UK one, with information becoming available in spring 2012. III. Biodiversity A. Species: Descriptor 1 (partly), 4, 2 The Commission presented the results from the MS contribution for the informal meeting of 7 September (Presentation 10 on CIRCA) for which input from five MS had been obtained. Several debate issues were identified: i. What degree of specificity should be aimed at for GES description and target levels: ‘biodiversity’ versus ‘ringed seal’?; ii. Will the use of different phraseology (‘threatened’, ‘vulnerable’, etc.) in GES descriptions and targets lead to misunderstandings at (sub) regional level?; iii. How much will the use of different baselines (e.g. natural levels, 5-year baselines) affect a common understanding of GES for particular components?; vi. Does ‘more biodiversity’ equate to GES (strong focus on trends)?; v. Does emphasis on state targets/indicators help in identifying measures? vi. Should there be more focus on pressures and impacts?; vii. Are by-catch and disease the only ‘problems’ to be resolved?; viii. The range of species of birds, mammals, and fish is often large: what is expectation of balance between species-level and functional group level assessment?

10 After the presentation, the RSC were invited to provide comments. - OSPAR invited NL to present the biodiversity advice document (mentioned earlier). NL started by emphasizing the importance to figure out what the commonality between the MS is at indicator level rather than GES and target level. They stressed that the ultimate aim of the advice document is to produce a table summarising the common indicators and targets. A workshop to be organized beginning of November will provide an overview on the current indicators considered by MS. The core of the advice document explains methods and how they can be used for different ecosystem components. The document on CIRCA is a draft document, endorsed by OSPAR, but lacks comparison of indicators (which will hopefully be improved after the November workshop). - UNEP/MAP raised the issue of indicators for non-indigenous species and how to approach this. In the Mediterranean, the main problem concerns species which are introduced via the Suez Canal. - Romania mentioned the Advisory Group Conservation of Biological Diversity within the Black Sea and its role to provide methodology for marine food webs along with expertise for taking appropriate protection measures. The group developed the Protocol on protection of biodiversity and landscapes for the Black Sea. A meeting in week 40 will update the red list and the list of exploitation fish and other leading resources. - HELCOM activities on species were summarized as follows: the CORESET project, running since June 2010, focuses on biodiversity and hazardous substances and uses the pressure approach prioritized based on impact. The focus is on state indicators although the selection procedure was via pressures. Draft CORESET indicators address both MSFD (D1, 2, 4, 6) and BSAP. Currently 18 core indicators are proposed. Not all functional groups are yet covered by these indicators. The background report has been improved a lot during September and many interesting issues regarding the CORESET indicator arose (How well do they cover: i. Commission requirements ii. Annex III, 3; iii. Which pressures are most pressing). Many MS had questions and comments about D2. It was noted that a proposed target for indicator 2.1.1 refers to the Ballast Water Convention which might lead to a vicious circle since only three MS have ratified this Convention. In response to an argument that so far for species, 44 targets were proposed and this number might reach 100, which would render any study infeasible financially, technically and practically, the Commission clarified that the presentations are examples of what the MS have delivered, but should not be seen as a requirement. The UK summarised its actions on biodiversity as follows: it has made good progress in defining the targets for species for D1, 4 and 6, covering all key groups. It specifically discussed maintaining state or negative trends. It developed targets from high level targets /indicators downwards. In 2012, it will focus primarily on seal species, but, for 2018, other mammals are envisaged, too. For birds the targets are using indicators covering all key functional groups. For fish, large fish indicators will be used to assess if a fish ecosystem it at GES or not and subsequently find a way by which key functional groups of fish are responding, based on opportunistic species (maintaining status) versus vulnerable species (improving status). One MS voiced concerns regarding regional coordination and degree of specificity. It noted that 3 categories of indicators used so far in draft reports: i. fully operational and harmonized indicators (e.g. OSPAR); ii. some that are in principle harmonized but different in target setting at the national level (i.e. habitats indicators); iii. national indicators or new proposals not yet used widely (e.g. population size improving) which are too general to be useful and must be made operational. Romania informed that it has started to make a data inventory including historical data on biological elements and habitats. Three LIFE + projects starting in October 2011 will address these issues. NGOs shared some concerns: - Seas at risk pointed out that many of the targets are about maintaining current situations (e.g. no negative trends are given) and that this doesn’t include the quality of a population at the present moment. It requested a reference for fish stocks since there are no indications for the population status of non-commercial fish. A process to deal with this aspect is desired.

11 - Birdlife International raised some issues concerning the Common Understanding document: i. for population size, the wording seems to negate recovery or precautions to ensure that system remains resilient; ii. the mentioned 5-year average might result in a moving baseline; iii. for non-indigenous species the focus seems to be on stopping new intrusions whereas on specific locations, removal may also be necessary but it does not seem to have been considered as yet; iv. in the present form generic target setting shows a level of disparity rather than coherence and the question is when this will be addressed. - WWF was happy with the table elements referring back to existing standards developed under RSC. However, the MS need to take into account the proper formulations by OSPAR ICG-COBAM or EcoQOs, in which it is supported by the Commission. The Commission shared the NGOs’ concerns about the diversity so far expressed in the draft proposals. It mentioned that Table 2 on pressure and impacts might be extended by a few more targets on pressures and impact. This might link potential targets closer to impacts, and help make them operational. There was no clear consensus among participants whether increased diversity means GES and it was mentioned that this really can only be answered knowing the sea conditions (e.g. if due to increased temperatures species with high biomass move out of an area and high numbers of species with low biomass move in, this might not be GES). Some MS wondered if the grouping of state- and pressure descriptors would bring clarification. When looking at pressure descriptors, the MS might want to develop state-targets rather than pressure-targets in order to avoid repetition of the pressure descriptors. Germany confirmed that this comment is true for the German contribution. It has more pressure targets designed to pressure descriptors all of which are relevant for the state elements of D1, 4 and 6. Eventually all these targets are relevant for D1, 3, 6. Measures to be taken are based on targets, therefore targets should represent all pressures. A checklist could be made to check whether all elements of pressures and impacts are covered. This idea is embraced by the Commission as a constructive way to deal with the threat of too much isolation of state based targets. The Commission emphasised that a lot still needs to be done yet some very good work on harmonisation and implementation is ongoing. GES and targets must be expressed as clearly and consistently as possible, especially where information comes from existing targets. For the relationship between GES and pressure descriptors, strong guidance is needed. Advice from Germany in using the relationship between different descriptors to assess the sufficiency of the suite of targets is welcome. B. Species: Descriptor 3 The report from the ICES first workshop on this descriptor is available on CIRCA (Document 8). The next workshop will take place in week 40. Issues addressed concerned the possible concept of D3, a definition of commercial fish, commercial landings and where to find data. - Since the Data Collection Framework is relatively new, the FAO Fishstat database is more useful although probably slightly outdated. - The report defines species to be included in this descriptor, which equates to species representing over 1% of the total commercial landings. In the Baltic, it was agreed to have 0.1% of commercial landings. - These species are dominated by cod, herrings, etc. and the distribution between pelagic and benthic species is uneven. - Although regional stocks are discussed, national stocks should also be considered when deciding on which stocks to include. - For stocks with extensive data, the indicators fish mortality and spawning biomass could be used. - Data poor stocks might be better reflected in the Decision secondary indicators. - In addition, other indicators should be considered (Eurostat, EEA, DG MARE, MSFD). Some of these indicators are nearly identical, which is not a smart use of financial resources.

12 The Commission was asked to produce a map to allow for the comparison of different regions and how to use primary and secondary indicators in each region. The delegates were informed about a CFP reform proposal adopted in July. The Commission's position is to have initial provision with a clear objective of fishing mortality compatible to MSY by 2015 (although this still needs to go through co-decision) and a biodiversity strategy with marine target. The MSY objective is the international non- binding Johannesburg decision. The large number of references to precautionary levels was unexpected. The discussion then revolved around the compatibility of fishing mortality with MSY. The idea of a threshold was perceived as confusing since some stocks are in a seriously bad state and yet represent very low catches even if they used to be economically significant. It is agreed that it is not possible to look at all commercial species. Therefore looking at meaningful species should also include looking at species of particular interest (even if not commercially significant). The MS which have approaches not using MSY are invited to state why. The Commission acknowledged that there can be exceptions but these should not become the rule and some safeguards could be envisaged. The Commission (DG MARE) noted that if values for all species biomass would be estimated, the estimate would exceed the realistic biomass. MSY indicators are not solid but can be updated as ecosystems move, and parameters such as growth and perceptions can change, resulting in changes in inter-species competition. The CFP recognizes ecosystem interactions, yet, although the required information is available there is no useful advisory system developed. Progress can, however, be made in i. provision of multispecies advice in the Baltic Sea (herring, cod and sprat); and ii. integration of the annual variation into the North Sea stocks. Both aspects will go into the advice of 2012. For other species more advice and fundamental research are needed. The discussion on primary and secondary indicators arose again and the Commission stated that secondary indicators are an alternative when the primary indicators cannot be used. If it is increasing comparability, the secondary indicator may be used in addition to primary indicators for all areas. ICES stressed that in order to be able to compare across regions, both primary and secondary indicators are needed. The importance of developing indicators within D3, which are coherent with other descriptors, was emphasised. The logic of MSFD and CFP is that secondary indicators are proxies for primary FMSY indicators which should help to deliver efficient and comparable data. The Commission was confident that adjustments will be made. In principle, MSFD and CFP should be coherent. C. Habitats, Descriptors 1 (partly), 6, 7 The Commission presented the results from the MS contribution for the informal meeting of 7 September (Presentation 11 on CIRCA). Relevant issues are: i. What degree of specificity should be aimed at for GES description and target levels?; ii. Common terminology should be used to avoid misunderstanding / misinterpretation in GES descriptions and targets; iii. The use of different baselines can affect a common understanding of GES for certain habitats and components; iv. Coherence in the selection of the most relevant habitats is needed to address targets/ measures at regional/sub regional level, within an EU common approach; v. Which kind of targets/indicators can help to better identify measures? State-based targets versus pressure and impact targets. The Commission and some MS agreed that a clear division between state-based versus pressure-based indicators is not possible and that a mixture of both should be used since both aspects need to be addressed. One MS suggested that for certain protected habitats (Habitats Directive) their approach might be to use a baseline based on reference conditions and define targets as a deviation from these reference conditions. This approach might, however, be more difficult for more extensive habitats (e.g. some sediment habitats) where there is very little information available to set a target on what percentage of the habitat should be in good condition. It was pointed out that the distribution pattern of current habitats types does not allow for recovery and that the figures provided by the Habitats Directive guidance (20%/60%) could be used to ensure alignment of the MSFD. Furthermore, the presented information from MS does not seem to address deep-sea habitats. The Commission clarified that it can be appropriate to use the Habitats Directive FCS guidelines but the 20%/60% figures refer to selection of protected areas rather than achievement of FCS.

13 DG MARE stressed that in order to achieve further coherence of targets and indicators with D3, targets and indicators need to be considered under both biodiversity and habitats and have strong links to commercial fish stocks. It is desirable to strengthen the work between fisheries and biodiversity at national and EU level (e.g. use of same data) in order to have a comprehensive picture, and see how the CFP will contribute to the biodiversity targets and vice versa. Some MS used the survey data from fisheries to model deep-sea habitat (habitat maps), others have used the existing approaches of the Habitats Directive (criteria for favourable conservation status) and extended this to other habitats types. Still some knowledge gaps remain since the focus has been on the existing frameworks (i.e. special habitats) and the predominant habitat types had not yet been addressed. For Article 10 targets the MS focused on pressure-based operational targets, e.g. establishing MPAs including no-use zones. The Commission informed about the proposed CFP reform which contains a provision obliging MS to follow the Habitats and Birds MPAs and MSFD MPAs, and the Commission is allowed to take control if this provision is not followed in MS waters. It could take measures regarding fishing in MPAs. Art. 15 of the MFSD defines that if the management of certain activities is not controlled by MS, the Commission “shall” ask competent authorities to take action. Therefore environmental authorities could ask the Commission for its help in MPAs. A debate followed on seafloor integrity (Presentations 12 and 13 on CIRCA). On certain aspects, such as hydrographical conditions, only a few MS had given information on 7 September. One approach was based on compliance with already existing regimes (EIA/SEA, etc.) and reflects OSPAR advice. Others also consider measures for fisheries and trawling impact, which is a linkage between fisheries and this Descriptor. It was commented that some land-based activities can also impact hydrographical conditions and should be taken into consideration. However it was recognized that hydrographical problems originating in coastal areas are dealt with under the WFD. The scale at which targets should be defined with regard to D7 was a concern shared by many MS. There is a need to define the significance of any hydrographical changes (adverse effects) and at scales appropriate to MSFD implementation; a particular issue is accounting for cumulative effects within a region or subregion (also in relation to other pressures). The OSPAR advice document on this Descriptor includes some information on the linkages between WFD and MSFD. A consolidated version of the advice document, to be shared with the Commission, will be available at the end of 2011. 5.3 Conclusions The Commission concluded by saying that a lot of effort is being made in the different marine regions and that the fact that some MS are already very advanced sends a positive message. However, it is also clear that there is currently a broad variety of approaches and it is difficult to know how far to engage in specificity for target sand indicators at this stage. The Commission sees that there is active cooperation within the RSC on the development of the methodology for identifying indicators and targets but somehow this is not well reflected in what has been presented so far at EU-level meetings. In a number of areas, MS should engage more actively in trying to understand better what their neighbours are doing in order to be able to compare effectively. Key issues that have come out of the discussions include: - An adequate spread between state and pressure-based targets is needed. Individual targets can address several descriptors/criteria. - For the moment, the question of whether the level set for the targets is enough to reach GES has not been asked and answered. However, it will need to be, in particular with regard to comparison with neighbour countries. - The question of sufficiency of the suite of targets is crucial: are we looking at the right elements to address all aspects of the Directive? - More efforts are needed on measurability, i.e. if you cannot monitor an indicator it is worth including it as a core indicator? The programme of measures should achieve a balanced relation between the measures taken and the necessary monitoring. The Commission noted that useful discussions have arisen under the different thematic issues, in particular, the debates on noise and marine litter had been most lively as outputs from the Technical Groups were available to stimulate discussion. One of the reasons why the MSFD CIS has not gone as far as it could have is that the discussions remained too general on specific thematic issues (e.g. the right questions on marine litter have come

14 when the debate was carried out on this specific theme). The Commission therefore asked MS to comment on how they could see improvements for the CIS. As many meetings are coming up in the RSC (in particular OSPAR and HELCOM), the distribution of information to the other regions is crucial to help MS where their methodology is less advanced. Work should be continued within the RSC. There is a feeling that some RSC are looking at stopping cooperation in advance of the July 2012 completion deadline to allow MS time for their own “homework”, however, the Commission strongly emphasizes that regional cooperation should continue, also in view of the development of monitoring programmes and the programmes of measures. With regard to the public participation process, the Commission reiterated its interest in Belgium’s formal invitation to its neighbours. In particular, the issues of sufficiency and adequate levels could be addressed in these occasions. With regard to the Art. 12 assessment, some issues are still pending and open including the issue of the follow-up to this process. The Commission wants to have an important role, as far as possible, but it also needs to adjust expectations to the reality. Apart from an MS compliance role, the process is driven by a need for coherence across the region/subregion. Therefore, the Commission also has an integrating role. 6 Links between WG GES and other WGs Update on the activities of WG DIKE The Commission presented the status of proposals on the development of reporting in 2012 for articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Directive and on the specific reporting sheets proposed (Presentation 15 – Documents 9 and 9.a on CIRCA). It mentioned that the reporting concept paper had been very well received within WG DIKE and that the reporting sheets helped to provide clarity on the expected reporting requirements. There was a general feeling within WG DIKE that the proposals for the reporting of Art. 9 and 10 were sensible and reflected the common understanding document. The Commission underlined that internal coordination within MS between the representatives of the different MSFD working groups is going to become even more crucial with the development of the reporting sheets. It mentioned that the reporting system will be very helpful to MS to understand what is happening in other MS and that RSC will have a key role to play in using the information at the regional scale. The long-term aim is to streamline the reporting process, so that it could, for example, feed European-scale assessments for the CBD (post- Nagoya) and the UN Regular process for global marine assessments. The main issue is to strike the right balance between the need for flexibility and the need for structure to facilitate the Art. 12 assessment and European-scale state of environment assessments. Some MS mentioned that in the reporting sheets, as they stand, there seems to be an implicit requirement to make a direct link between one pressure and its impact, which is not always possible. The Commission responded that reporting sheets allow for the possibility to report on both pressure and impact separately. There was also concern about the use of a new IA reporting sheet when some MS have already completed their IA. The Commission was also asked to confirm that data already submitted by MS to the Commission for other processes (e.g. to DG MARE) or to other international organisations (e.g. OSPAR) would not need to be resubmitted to DG ENV. The Commission confirmed that it is sufficient if the Commission is informed about the location of the data already sent to the Commission. However, MSFD information needs to be reported to the Commission until the synergies with other processes can be fully established in order to avoid double reporting. Several MS shared concerns about the lack of clarity concerning the different responsibilities between WG GES and WG DIKE.

15 Update on the activities of WG ESA The Commission provided a brief update on the activities of WG ESA. The main issue at the moment is to prepare the initial ESA. A question is how this will be integrated in the IA. A guidance document has been developed. Several methodologies of socio-economic analysis currently exist and MS use different approaches. Consideration of social and economic concerns in the setting of targets and the cost-effectiveness of the programme of measures are also crucial issues which the group is starting to look into.

The Commission mentioned a project carried out for the Commission by ARCADIS on an inventory of policy measures to implement the MSFD and their effectiveness. The commission asked for subjective reflection and feedback after the meeting on this expert judgement of effectiveness of measures to achieve GES. The Commission underlined the need to ensure communication between the WGs in the process of setting targets and developing measures so that cost, benefit and socio-economic impacts are taken into account. 7 Glossary of terms The Commission mentioned that a draft glossary of terms used in the CIS has been developed on the basis of existing glossaries (OSPAR, Common Understanding Document, WG ESA Guidance document). It will be included in the Common Understanding Document as work in progress. 8 Research Initiatives DG Research presented the call for proposal “Ocean of Tomorrow” as well as “Horizon 2020”, which will come out at the end of November (Presentation 16 on CIRCA). The Commission remarked that the MSFD is gradually emerging in the scientific community and in EU programmes and that the CIS members need to be more familiar with existing projects. Participants were reminded to identify research needs to the Marine Directors. The Commission mentioned that it needs the help from MS to filter the research needs identified by the JRC which are not yet reflected in research programmes. HELCOM offered to send DG Research information on an upcoming noise mapping project (still at proposal stage), which was accepted by DG Research. 9 AOB The next GES meeting will be in 2012.

16 Annex 1 – List of participants at WG GES, 27-28 September 2011

Member States representatives

BELGIUM MUMM

BULGARIA Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water

Marine Environment Division, Department of Fisheries and CYPRUS Marine Research (DFMR), Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment

DENMARK Danish Nature Agency

ESTONIA Ministry of Environment of Estonia

Marine Research Centre, Finnish Environment Institute FINLAND (SYKE)

FRANCE IFREMER

Ministère de l'Ecologie, du Développement Durable, des FRANCE Transports et du Logement, Direction de l'eau et de la biodiversité

GERMANY German Federal Environment Agency

GERMANY Bundesamt für Naturschutz

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und GERMANY Reaktorsicherheit

Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche GERMANY Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

17 Greek National Center for the Environment and Sustainable GREECE Development

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local IRELAND Government

ITALY Ministero dell'Ambiente e Tutela del Territorio e del Mare

ISPRA (Institute for Environmental Protection and ITALY Research)

MALTA Malta Environment and Planning Authority

POLAND Polish Environmental Protection

ROMANIA Ministry of Environment and Forest

SLOVENIA Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia

SPAIN Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino

SWEDEN Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

THE Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment NETHERLANDS

THE Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, Directorate NETHERLANDS General for Water, the Netherlands

18 UNITED KINGDOM Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

UNITED KINGDOM Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Non-Member States

Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and CROATIA Construction, Croatia

Regional Seas Conventions

HELCOM

OSPAR Commission

UNEP / Mediterranean Action Plan Coordinating Unit

UNEP/MAP

Stakeholders

Seas At Risk

European Seaports Organization (ESPO).

UEPG

ICES

GEOTRACES

19 EWEA - The European Wind Energy Association

WWF

Coastal & Marine Union - EUCC

GEOTRACES

EAA, the European Anglers Alliance

ICOMIA

BirdLife International

European Commission – JRC – EEA and Contractors

Berrozpe-Garcia Carlos European Commission, DG Environment

Casazza Gianna European Commission, DG Environment

Christiansen Trine European Environment Agency

Connor David European Commission, DG Environment

D’Eugenio Joachim European Commission, DG Environment

20 De Vrees Leo European Commission, DG Environment

Ekebom Jan DG MARE

Gago Pineiro Jesus-Manuel European Commission, DG Environment

Hanke Georg JRC

Nilsen Hanne-Grete European Commission, DG Environment

Nastaseanu Ariana DG Research

Piha Henna JRC

Zampoukas Nikolaos JRC

21 Annex 2 – List of papers and presentations (available on CIRCA)

Item Agenda item CIRCA Number Documents, presentations 1 Opening of the meeting and Adoption of the Agenda Document 1 Draft Agenda 2 Approval of Minutes of 5 April 2011 meeting Document 2 Revised Minutes- GES 5 April 2011 4 Information on the Public consultation process within MS Presentation 1 Public consultation update table a) Development of the Common Understanding to Art. 8, 9 Document 3 Draft Common Understanding and 10 document Document 3a Addendum to the Draft Common Understanding Document 3b Commenting sheet Presentation 2 Draft common understanding - Progress of intersessional work 5.1 b) Outcomes from the Regional coordination process Document 4 Development of HELCOM core set indicators with GES boundaries Document 5 OSPAR update on MSFD regional coordination c) Way Forward Presentation 3 Article 12 Assessment of the Commission - Initial Considerations I. A Nutrients enrichment (descriptors 5) Presentation 4 GES analysis - nutrients enrichments I. B Contaminants (descriptors 8 and 9) Presentation 5 GES analysis – contaminants Presentation 6 Presentation GEOTRACES programme

II. Disturbance (descriptors 10 and 11) Document 6 TSG Litter Second Interim Report 2 Document 6.a. First draft of advice from TSG Marine Litter Document 7 TSG Noise Second Interim Report Presentation 7a Marine Litter GES Technical Subgroup presentation 27.9.2011 GES Presentation 7b Meeting 5.2 Presentation 8 First draft of advise on determination of GES - TSG Marine Litter Presentation 9 TSG Noise progress with MSFD indicators GES analysis - litter and noise

III. Biodiversity Presentation 10 GES analysis – Species A) Species: Descriptor 1 (partly), 4, 2 Document 8 ICES Workshop Report 2 Descriptor 3 Presentation 11 GES analysis - HABITAT – Biodiversity B) Habitats: Descriptors 1 (partly), 6, 7 Presentation 12 GES analysis - III B- Habitat analysis 6 SEAFLOOR integrity Presentation 13 GES analysis - III B- Habitat analysis 7 HYDROGRAPHICAL conditions Presentation 14 Proposed WG GES work packages for 2012-2013 Document 9 Approach to reporting for the MSFD (DRAFT) 6 Links between WG GES and other WGs Document 9.a. Draft MSFD reporting sheets for Articles 9 and 10 Presentation 15 Approach to reporting for the MSFD