The Marine Directors Are Invited To

MD/2013-2/2rev

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

Common Implementation Strategy

Marine Directors

Meeting of 5 December 2013, Vilnius

Agenda Item: 2.3 a

Document: MD/2013-2/2rev

MSFD Common Implementation Strategy – strategic Title: document including a work programme for 2014 and beyond

DG ENV following principle endorsement of Marine Directors and consultation from July to October 2013, Prepared by: discussion and endorsement at MSCG on 12/13 November

Date prepared: 30 November 2013

Background: This paper summarises and follows up on the strategic discussion during the MSCG in February and May 2013 based on the lessons learned from the Common Implementation Strategy so far. It was discussed at the Marine Directors on 30 May 2013 who agreed the following conclusions:

“ The Water and Marine Directors welcomed the document as a good basis to further develop and refine the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy work programme beyond 2013. In particular, the Water and Marine Directors noted positively the links between this document and the WFD Common Implementation Strategy work programme which

1 MD/2013-2/2rev

increase cooperation and coherence between the two implementation processes and will foster better cooperation and a more effective way of working.

The Marine Directors agreed to use this document as a basis for further developing and detailing the work programme, leaving the proposed architecture and priorities intact but focussing on the details such as who does what and by when (including deliverables). The Marine Directors requested the Commission, following consultation with the WGs, to prepare a detailed work programme including, in particular, the mandates of the Working Groups, and present it for adoption (in accordance with Article 6) by the MSCG in November 2013 and, if necessary, request the MSCG to table at the next Marine Directors outstanding issues which cannot be resolved at the MSCG. The Marine Directors also welcomed the proposals as regards the role of the Regional Sea Conventions in this document and requested that the conclusions of the discussions with the Executive Secretaries of the RSCs (see related agenda item 2.3 in the final synthesis) are taken into account in the next revision and invite the Commission and the EU Member States which are Contracting Parties to the Regional Sea Conventions to discuss this document and its proposals at the next occasions within the responsible bodies of these Conventions.”

In addition, the Marine and Water Directors agreed a work programme 2013-2015 for the WFD CIS which contains a number of activities contributing to the implementation of the MSFD. Also the importance of collaboration with other international organisations, such as ICES was highlighted and the interest expressed appreciated.

As a follow up, a consultative process was launched in July 2013 and completed on 24 October 2013. All WGs discussed the documents and the RSC were invited to contribute. Only a limited number of changes were introduced in the main part following the circulation in

2 MD/2013-2/2rev

July (see track changes).

The final draft has been discussed and agreed at the next MSCG on 12/13 November 2013. The track changes are comments included as a result of the MSCG discussion. Following the endorsement of this decision by Marine Directors, work will be carried out in 2014 on the basis of this programme and the mandates in the annex. Following the publication of the Commission's Article 12 report, the MSCG and the Marine Directors should review the work programme, if necessary. In addition, further contributions from RSCs and other can be received in 2014 and should be discussed. Finally, the MSCG will monitor progress and implementation of this work programme on a regular basis.

This revised version includes comments received by 29 November from DE, FR and PT following the MSCG.

The Marine Directors are invited to:  Take note of the work programme and the related mandates in the Annex incl. latest comments;  Endorse the agreement by the MSCG.  Request the MSCG to monitor progress and review the programme in the future, as necessary, in particular in the light of the Article 12 report.

3 MD/2013-2/2rev

The Common Implementation Strategy for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

"Learning the lessons and launching a re-enforced phase of implementation"

(Strategic document including a work programme for 2014 and beyond)

[Final version agreed at MSCG, 15/11/2013]

1. Introduction

The Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) has supported the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD – 2008/56/EC) since its adoption. The CIS together with similar ways under other directives of working between the European Commission, the Member States and other interested parties, are recognised as a useful process to implement EU legislation and an example of good governance at EU level.

The aim of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) is to allow, as far as possible, a coherent and harmonious implementation of the MSFD within the EU. Implementing the MSFD is first and foremost a Member State responsibility. Each Member State faces specific questions and challenges related to national, regional and/or local situations and conditions, which can be resolved only by that particular Member State. The Common Implementation Strategy is developed in full recognition of this.

Nevertheless, each Member State sits within and shares one or more marine (sub)regions and is explicitly required by the Directive to both determine Good Environmental Status (GES) at the level of the marine (sub)region and to work with neighbouring Member States and third countries in order to implement the Directive and achieve GES. A common understanding and approach is therefore crucial to successful implementation, and is required by the MSFD to not only ensure a sufficient degree of commonality in the determination of GES but also to ensure a 'level playing field' for economic uses of the marine environment. A common understanding also limits the risks of poor, diverse or inadequate implementation of the Directive and of subsequent disputes and should encourage proactive and aspirational implementation.

The Common Implementation Strategy of the MSFD has efficiently backed up the MSFD implementation in Member States so far, and registered many successes. Now however, following completion of the first phase of the Directive (Art. 8, 9 and 10), the MSFD enters a new, ambitious phase of implementation, and the CIS will need to meet new challenges, while making the best possible use of existing resources in a challenging economic climate.

This document summarises the lessons learned from the CIS and the Article 12 assessment report (so far), sets out the future challenges and suggests possible way forward including the main areas of work

4 MD/2013-2/2rev and activities to be carried out beyond 2013. The document is based on the outcome of the strategic discussions at the MSCG (see Annex 2).

2. Achievements and lessons learnt

Several years of running the CIS have yielded good results. Among these, one could note for instance that the CIS (see Annex 1 for overview):

 Supported the preparation of the Decision on Good Environmental Status and developed a number of other useful products which contributed to the good implementation of the directive.

 Created a considerable network of experts and expertise on the MSFD at EU level and contributed to build trust and understanding on its implementation.

 Worked transparently and attracted attention from numerous stakeholders.

 Contributed to help MS meeting important implementation deadlines.

 Some groups work well and are productive and practical. For example, TGs have made good progress and the Project Coordination Group (PCG) offers unprecedented opportunities to develop jointly actions that directly contribute to the concrete implementation of the Directive, and to reaching its objectives.

In addition, the CIS has delivered results while remaining light and streamlined, with only three permanent working groups (GES/DIKE/ESA). It has also tested successfully some ad-hoc and temporary working structures (e.g. dedicated workshops and the task groups) which allow flexibility and reactivity.

Still, despite these important successes, a number of points now deserve attention:

 Over time, the roles and responsibilities of the working groups, the MSCG and the Marine Directors have become blurred with some discussions repeated at various levels,

 Lessons have been drawn from the first major reporting exercise in 2012 and need to be translated rapidly into action in order to improve future reporting cycles

 Regional specificities need to be reflected in the work planning and the regional cooperation including the coordination with the Regional Sea Conventions can be improved to enhance synergies and improved sharing of work.

 Some of the discussions are general or on an abstract level, too often based on lengthy presentations (e.g. GES group looking at all descriptors and mainly based on presentations) and other discussions may have been too detailed and technical on what is needed at EU level (e.g. on reporting).

5 MD/2013-2/2rev

 It is difficult to deal with cross-cutting issues and the groups are often too large in numbers to have an interactive and fruitful debate.

 The quality and quantity of results of meetings has been variable.

3. The next challenges of MSFD implementation

The CIS process is entering the next phase following the finalisation of the implementation of the first phase (articles 8, 9 and 10) and the Commission is in the process of finalising its Article 12 assessment. According to the Commission, the preliminary results of this exercise revealed a number of issues for concern, in particular:

 The majority of Member States were delayed in reporting, some as late as summer 2013. Although this was to some extent the result of complex reporting system which ideally could have been available earlier, it is a matter of concern, in particular, for the implementation of Article 9 and 10.

 The approaches of Member States are very different; coordination within the Regional Sea Conventions did not yet ensure a sufficient level of coherence and comparability.

 While some time lag is inevitable, the information reported often related to past assessments and methodologies as they existed (well) before 2012. In the meantime, it appears, many Member States reports (especially on Art. 9 and 10) may be outdated because newer work is being undertaken on these issues within the Regional Sea Conventions (e.g. in OSPAR and HELCOM).

In this next phase the CIS process is facing the following additional implementation challenges:

 The calendar of MSFD implementation is ambitious, especially as it must integrate the need for regional cooperation and coherence across borders.

 The MSFD addresses a complex, multi-dimensional and changing subject matter (the marine environment), where diverse possible solutions to scientific, technical and practical issues exist. MS, RSCs and the Commission may have a different understanding of MSFD provisions.

 More dialogue is needed on different levels (e.g. EU, RSC) in order to jointly define good environmental status taking into account the requirements of the MSFD that this definition is ultimately the responsibility of Member StatesDirective.

 The interaction with other policies is complex. More discussions and decisions are needed to be able to benefit from other policies and legislations and avoid duplication.

 Capacity must be built at various levels in parallel to the implementation of the MSFD and the still incomplete technical and scientific basis must be improved. This is true especially on a number of fundamental issues in the Annexes (in particular I and III) and in the GES Decision

6 MD/2013-2/2rev

(2010/477/EU), which need to be further elaborated to make the transition from principles and general definitions to practical implementation successful;

Today, in addition:

 The MSFD enters in its decisive phase. The monitoring programmes and the programme of measures will have to be prepared within a short timeframe.

 Member States and the European Commission must deliver on the ambitious objectives of the MSFD with limited resources and increased efficiency.

 The 2020 deadline for GES is getting closer.

It seems therefore particularly timely to look into possible improvements of the CIS process.

4. Mission and objectives of the CIS

At the start of this new phase, it is important to re-launch the commitment of all involved towards the partnership that the Common Implementation Strategy represents. This partnership has the following mission:

Working together at EU level to achieving “ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas in the EU 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”, i.e. to achieve good environmental status (GES) in their marine waters by 2020.

This will be promoted and realised, inter alia, through the following specific objectives:

1. Ensure the best possible implementation of the MSFD and the 2020 objective to achieve GES, in particular through making sure Good Environmental Status is clearly defined and can be assessed in a comparable way, so that it is possible to clearly determine, also at EU level, whether GES has been reached or not (and thus making it enforceable);

2. Maintain or ameliorate the status of the marine environment through conservation and, where practicable, restoration of its ecosystems, and by securing sustainable use of the marine environment within the limits of marine ecosystems, through more effective management of activities. Through this and other action, the objectives of the MSFD should be achieved which will support sustainable Blue Growth and the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) and thereby applying the ecosystem-based approach in practice;

3. Improve the marine knowledge base for assessing and managing the marine environment, in particular on pressures and impacts from human activities (including climate change) and the ability to assess progress in achieving GES;

7 MD/2013-2/2rev

4. Strengthen the regional capacities and coordination to implement the MSFD, in priority in cooperation with the Regional Sea Conventions, to implement the MSFD;

5. Enhance investments and (co-)financing for marine protection and management, where and when required or necessary.

The partners in the Common Implementation Strategy, namely the EU Member States and the European Commission, supported by close link with the Regional Sea Conventions, the Accession and Neighbouring or other Third Countries sharing a marine region with the EU, other international organisations, stakeholders including industry and NGOs, can only achieve these objectives through close cooperation. The key milestone which will allow an indication on how much progress has been made towards achieving GES will be the review of the assessments in 2018.

The CIS process could also help ensure that the necessary evidence has been gathered to prepare for a review of the MSFD if and when it is decided (at the latest in 2023 as required by Article 23).

5. Working areas and priorities for the Common Implementation Strategy beyond 2013

The MSFD implementation is already now characterised by three main working areas, namely:

1. Assessment and Monitoring of the marine environment (Good Environmental Status)

2. Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange on the marine environment (WISE-Marine)

3. Management, measures, economic and social analysis of human activities affecting the marine environment

These three working areas are mainly addressed by the three Working Groups (GES, DIKE and ESA) but activities are also going on well beyond the remit of the WGs already. In future, the WGs should re-focus and prioritise their tasks and activities in support of the MSCG addressing the core issues in the Directive including the coordination with the work under the Regional Sea Conventions which work on similar issues (in support of achieving specific objective 4 above). It will also become increasingly important to cooperate closely between the Working Groups and address issues jointly, when necessary.

In addition, other demand-driven activities are carried out in these working areas using existing fora and groups under other Directives or ad hoc set ups to progress the agenda. It is the role of the MSCG to mandate, coordinate, oversee and approve the results of these activities since all of the activities report directly to MSCG.

For each working area, the structured list of the main future activities is provided below. The detailed mandates of the various groups under the MSFD CIS is provided in Annex 3 to this document which will be reviewed and amended, if necessary, on a regular basis.

8 MD/2013-2/2rev

5.1. Working Area: Assessment and Monitoring of the marine environment

Operational objective

This working area aims at developing a common understanding of the assessment and monitoring requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to ensure a high level of coherence, comparability and consistency of the approaches within and between the marine regions in support of achieving specific objectives 1 and 2.

Activities of WG GES

The Working Group should focus in future on overall conceptual and cross-cutting questions related to assessment and monitoring (but not reporting). It will deal in particular with descriptors 1, 4, 6 and 7 with the aim to develop an ecosystem-based assessment framework in line with Article 3.5 and establish links to descriptor 3 whose assessment should be consistent with the CFP-based assessments. The WG should integrate these descriptors into a holistic framework and establish links to the pollution-based descriptors 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 which are dealt with by more specialised groups (see below). In doing so, the WG GES shall address the following tasks beyond 2013 (tentative timing in brackets):

 Further develop a common understanding of GES (mid-2014), clarifying and simplifying the terminology, where possible, and translate it into some common elements or even requirements (ensuring still flexibility for Member States to reflect their particular circumstances) for descriptors 1, 4, 6 and 7;

 Develop an assessment framework and methodology for GES, including for cumulative effects as well as temporal and spatial aggregation to allow for the combination of different scales (first phase by mid-2014);

 If agreed by the MSFD Committee, advise the Committee on the possible revision of the GES Decision 2010/477/EU based on Articles 9.3, 11.4 and 24 of the MSFD (2015);

 Common understanding on application of descriptor 2 in close collaboration with the implementation of new instrument.

 Ensuring coherence of the objectives and targets for MSFD with related EU policies, and vice versa, in particular WFD, CFP, CAP, Birds and Habitats Directives and the EU Biodiversity Strategy, through streamlining and developing comparable monitoring and assessment methods, as appropriate (see above);

 Where current knowledge is insufficient to make GES descriptors operational and there are significant risks to the marine environment (national and regional level), apply the precautionary principle and launch necessary initiatives to develop tools and mechanisms to issue early warnings and undertake risk analyses to close knowledge gaps including needed research and demonstration projects. This work will be also discussed in the context of the

9 MD/2013-2/2rev

exemption guidance (see p. 13) and it will be complementary to developing the risk-based approach and adaptive management as introduced by MSFD and aims also at exchanging best practices.

 Analyse effectiveness of existing measures to improve the status of marine ecosystems under the lead / jointly and in close cooperation with WG ESA.

 Identify necessary additional measures to improve the status of marine ecosystems, contribute to the analysis of their cost-effectiveness and coordinate the definition of necessary measures from a scientific and ecosystem-related point of view (mid-2014) in close cooperation with WG ESA.

Other activities1

In addition, the following activities will be undertaken:

 Common understanding on application of descriptors 10 and 11 through the work of the two Technical Groups.

 Common understanding on the application of descriptor 3 and its link to the other relevant descriptors as well as other activities proposed by the workshop of 9/10 April 2013 (through ad hoc workshops supported by ICES).

 Common understanding on the application of descriptor 5 (through the work carried out under the WFD ecological status e.g. through the WFD Eutrophication Guidance Document).

 Common understanding on the application of descriptors 8 and 9 including additional work on criteria 8.2, if necessary (through the work carried out under the WFD priority substances e.g. in the respective WFD working group).

 Common understanding on coherence and representativeness of MPAs in support of GES (through Marine Expert Group under the Habitats Directive).

Possible input from RSCs

In order to ensure a coordinated approach with the work carried out by the Regional Sea Conventions, the RSC are invited to contribute to the above activities. In particular, the RSC could contribute the following input, if available, in accordance with the timeframes agreed in this work programme:

 Joint coordinated regional monitoring programmes and, as appropriate, joint monitoring programmes to address all or selected parts of MSFD requirements (by July 2014);

1 These activities are part of the same working area but will not be led by WG GES and its role will need to be defined. Details on how these activities will be carried out, by whom and with what deliverables and timetable will be defined later.

10 MD/2013-2/2rev

 A regionally agreed set of common GES criteria and characteristics, environmental targets and associated indicators and other methodological agreements on assessment and monitoring to feed into the Common Understanding at EU level and the possible review of the GES Decision ;

 A revised initial assessment and a review of GES and target requirements by July 2017 in order to feed into the MS reports on Article 8, 9 and 10 MSFD in July 2018 taking into account national processes, i.e. of public consultation (e.g. as an integral part of the MS report demonstrating this coordinated approach).

5.2. Working Area: Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange on the marine environment

This working area aims at developing and implementing a concept and arrangements for a shared, streamlined and efficient management of data, information and knowledge between the EU, the Regional Sea Conventions and the Member States as well as other partners based on (but not limited by) the obligations under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and building on the experience of the Water Framework Directive and WISE. This process should thereby improve the marine knowledge base resulting in sound, available and targeted EU-level assessments on compliance, on the state-of-the- marine environment, assessments at European and regional levels, information to support MS implementation of the Directive, on trends/scenarios, on policy evaluations and on impact assessments in support of achieving specific objective 3.

Activities of WG DIKE

The Working Group should focus on the practical arrangements for reporting under the MSFD as well as for data sharing and/or making data available.. In addition, the WG will explore the links to other relevant initiatives where the MSFD can benefit from, in particular, Marine Knowledge, EMODnet, Copernicus (ex-GMES), INSPIRE and others.

The WG DIKE is supported by a Technical Group on Data which is subject to a separate mandate within the MSFD CIS work plan. The TG shall work in close collaboration with WG DIKE on the deliverables; WG DIKE shall set the direction for the TG's work, but it formally reports to MSCG as regards its mandate and activities.

WG DIKE is supported by a technical group. The technical group works closely with the relevant groups.

In doing so, the WG DIKE shall address the following tasks beyond 2013 (tentative timing in brackets):

 Develop the reporting system further, in particular on the programme of measures (in close collaboration or even jointly with the WFD reporting), the revision of the initial assessment, GES and targets in 2018 and the next revision of monitoring programmes in 2020.

 Develop and implement a concept for shared data and information management by 2016 by making data available on the marine environment, building on Article 19.3 and involving the

11 MD/2013-2/2rev

data management at the RSCs as well as ICES and other data providers which streamlines data flows, ensures interoperability and reduces administrative burden on all involved taking fully into account the legal issues related to the collection, reporting and transmission of data (in particular those whose transmission is not legally required);

 Discuss the assessment approaches by the Commission and EEA (on the basis of the MS reports), e.g. in accordance with Articles 12 and 16, and advise the Commission and the EEA when preparing assessments across the EU’s marine regions (starting with the EEA's EU baseline assessment);

 Launch of WISE-Marine portal as a platform to share data and information under the MSFD (by 2014) to make MSFD data and information available and interoperable (e.g. with other similar portals such as IPChem).

Other activities2

In addition, the following activities are carried out:

 Establish reference datasets and other technical specifications to support EEA, Commission, Member States and others work in making available data and information that is coherent and comparable (through the Data Technical Group led by EEA).

 Develop a MSFD “modelling toolbox” and related data needs for the assessments and future scenario-building by developing or refining indicators and assessment techniques, better understanding of the relationships between pressures and impacts and development of models (through specific ad-hoc activity led by JRC).

In order to ensure a coordinated approach with the data and information management carried out by the Regional Sea Conventions, the RSC are invited to contribute to the above activities. In particular, the RSC could contribute the following input, if available, in accordance with the timeframes agreed in this work programme:

 Develop a concept for sharing data and information between EU/EEA, ICES and RSCs and translate it in a formal arrangement (e.g. MoU) taking into account legal issues , where necessary (by end 2014);

 Align data flows and data needs for next round of initial assessment (to be agreed by end 2016).

5.3. Working Area: Management, measures, economic and social analysis of human activities affecting the marine environment

2 These activities are part of the same working area but will not be led by WG DIKE and its role will need to be defined. Details on how these activities will be carried out, by whom and with what deliverables and timetable will be defined later.

12 MD/2013-2/2rev

This working area aims at developing a common understanding and a coordinated approach as regards the management of the marine environment, the measures to be taken, in particular at EU or regional level, and the economic and social analysis to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, building on the experience under the Water Framework Directive. It also seeks to ensure a similar high level of ambition and a level playing field across the EU in support of achieving specific objectives 2 and 5.

Activities of WG ESA

The Working Group focuses in future on overall conceptual and cross-cutting questions related to cost- effectiveness of measures, introduction of new measures including associated impact assessment (and cost-benefit analysis) and benefits of taking action (or the costs of inaction) including from ecosystem services. In doing so, the WG ESA shall address the following tasks beyond 2013 (tentative timing in brackets):

 Develop a common understanding on cost-effectiveness of measures, building on WFD methodologies and experience, recognizing their differences, and appropriate scales (national, regional, EU) for dealing with (types of) measures (mid-2014);

 Contribute to the sharing information on cost-effective measures in particular those specific to the MSFD not addressed elsewhere (mid-2014) together with WG GES;

 Further develop the discussion on measures based on the outcome of the GES/ESA workshop in June 2013 including possible concept paper, information sheets and/or exchange of best practices, in close cooperation with WG GES.

 Analyse effectiveness of existing measures to improve the status of marine ecosystems jointly and in close cooperation with WG GES.

 Building on the relevant experience of the WFD, sharing information on the identification of specific MSFD measures beyond existing measures and obligations at regional and EU level and improvement of the effectiveness of existing measures which contribute to the achievement of GES in close collaboration with WG GES.

 Develop a common understanding how ecosystem services and the costs for inaction can be accounted or other approaches can be used for when preparing measures and/or justify exemptions, building on WFD methodologies and experience.

13 MD/2013-2/2rev

Other activities3

In addition, the following activities are carried out:

 Establish an exchange of best practices for certain types of (marine) measures based on the outcome of the GES/ESA workshop in June 2013 (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity).

 Discuss measures of regional and EU-wide importance and the related financial support available (including through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), Cohesion Funds, (including through EMFF, etc. and supported by the macro-regional strategies e.g. EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region) and thereby develop a common understanding of the possible applications of Articles 15 and 22 MSFD (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity or organised through the Project Coordination Group).

 Common understanding on the application of spatial protection measures as part of the programme of measures (through Marine Expert Group under the Habitats Directive).

 Common understanding on exemptions (Article 14) including significant risk and how the precautionary principle can be applied and how the precautionary principle can be applied in the development of programmes of measures (trough ad-hoc activity led by the Commission).

 Making fisheries and other Blue Growth sectors sustainable and compliant with achieving/maintaining GES and demonstrating the contribution of marine/coastal environment protection measures to sustainable use and growth (through link to Integrated Coastal Management). Specific activities to be defined, starting with developing MSFD-compliant guidance for sustainable aquaculture (through dedicated ad-hoc activities).

 Exchange information on effectiveness of public participation processes and approaches and encourage best practices of MS public participation and information requirements, building on the WFD experience (Art. 19) (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity).

 Assessment of economic benefits from marine and coastal ecosystem services (e.g. in the Mediterranean and Baltic) WG MAES (Mapping and Assessing of Ecosystems and their Services).

In order to ensure a coordinated approach with the work carried out by the Regional Sea Conventions, the RSC are invited to contribute to the above activities. In particular, the RSC could contribute the following input, if available, in accordance to the timeframes agreed in this work programme:

 Coordinated programmes of measures and, as appropriate, a joint programme of measures (by 2015) including:

3 These activities are part of the same working area but will not be led by WG ESA and its role will need to be defined. Details on how these activities will be carried out, by whom and with what deliverables and timetable will be defined later.

14 MD/2013-2/2rev

o Valuation of ecosystem services, assessment of cost of degradation or other relevant approaches,

o Contribution to the identification of cost-effective measures of a transboundary nature taking into account/building upon the existing frameworks of measures (e.g. recommendations, action plans, strategic plans) in the RSCs (e.g. management of environmentally adapted shipping, management of MPAs, gas/oil exploitation in open seas).

5.4. Working Area: Cross-cutting issues

This working area aims at developing some cross-cutting activities in support of different areas in the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to ensure an effective and efficient application.

Activities

 Project coordination (coordinated through the Project Coordination Group): exchange information on relevant projects and activities with the aim to maximise their benefits for the MSFD implementation.

 Scientific advice: A JRC-based Competence Centre on GES (CC4GES) will be established to manage flexible experts networks responding to needs and requests of Member States and RSCs identified through the CIS with the aim to produce predefined deliverables feeding directly to the implementation of the MSFD. The CC4GES could, inter alia, contribute to several activities of the MSFD implementation, such as compiling an agreed glossary of MSFD terms, developing an inventory of methodological standards and supporting the WG GES in the possible revision of the GES Decision 2010/477/EU. Any output of the CC4GES with relevance to the MSFD implementation will be presented to the MSCG or the Committee, if necessary for agreement. Agreement will be required for any output supporting the possible revision of the GES Decision 2010/477/EU. More detailed information on the establishment and functioning of the CC4GES will be presented to the MSCG in 2014.

Relevant international organisations, in particular the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), are also invited to provide a systematic scientific input to deliverables under the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy according to their expertise and in close collaboration with the CC4GES.

 Science-policy interface (coordinated through the Project Coordination Group): development and establishment of a science-policy interface addressing aspects of dissemination, relevance for the MSFD implementation and identification of future short-, mid- and long-term research needs (supported by STAGES and JPI Oceans).

15 MD/2013-2/2rev

In order to ensure a coordinated approach with the work carried out by the Regional Sea Conventions, the RSCs are invited to contribute to the above activities. In particular, the RSCs could contribute the following input, if available, in accordance with the timeframes agreed in this work programme:

 Active participation in the Project Coordination Group;

 Identification of regional short-, mid- and long-term research needs as a contribution to an EU process;

 Identification of regional scientific advice needs from ICES and others.

6. Working arrangements and structures

The overall structure and arrangements of the CIS to date have been proven useful. However, the role of the various groups needs to be clarified and strengthened, in particular in the light of the new Rules of Procedures (RoP) adopted for the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG) on 4 February 2013 which also apply to all sub-groups (Working Groups, TGs, workshops) mandated by the MSCG (in accordance with Article 7 of these RoP). A simplified organisational structure of the MSFD CIS process in provided in Figure 1.

In accordance with Article 1 of the RoP, the role of the MSCG is, in particular, to:

 Coordinate and monitor the different working groups and activities under the Common Implementation Strategy, evaluates and agrees the outcome of the different working groups. It gives guidance on key activities and addresses cross-cutting issues. Moreover, it is in charge of preparing, agreeing and further developing the CIS work programme and reviewing its functioning.

 Advise and assist the Commission in the preparation of the Article 25 Committee and delegated acts.

 Assist in the preparation of meetings of the Marine Directors and, as appropriate, call on the Marine Directors to resolve open issues.

16 MD/2013-2/2rev

Figure 1: Simplified organisational structure of the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy

The role of the Working Groups and other ad-hoc structures (such as the Technical Groups or workshops) are defined through Article 7 RoP. This role can be generally summarised as preparing the work of the MSCG, find technical and scientific solutions and aim to prepare concise documents summarising work done so far and indicating clearly when input is needed from the MSCG. The WGs may also advise the MSCG if new activities would be useful. There may need to be a differentiation of approaches between WG GES, WG DIKE and WG ESA and collaboration between WGs should be promoted, if and when necessary still respecting the lead role of a particular WG on a subject. The groups are different in nature and this may need to be reflected more clearly in the mandate and the way in which they are operating. In addition, more flexible, ad-hoc ways of working such as the TGs or workshops on selected topics can also be useful to achieve concrete progress on selected issues. This ad-hoc approach would be mandated by the MSCG and the relationship to the permanent working groups would be clarified from the outset (e.g. monitoring workshop). Finally, the use of existing groups under other legislation, in particular the Water Framework Directive or the Habitats Directive, may be considered, as appropriate. Again, the relationship to the permanent WGs and the MSFD should be clear.

17 MD/2013-2/2rev

The main role of the Marine Directors is their function as the initiator and driver of the CIS, focusing on more political and high level issues or difficult technical issues that could not be resolved in MSCG. In practice this could be translated into A points (more technical documents agreed by MSCG which can, but do not have to be, endorsed additionally by Marine Directors) and B points (documents prepared in MSCG which need further input from Marine Directors).

The informal and consensual nature of the Marine Directors meeting is key to its efficiency and allows exchanges of views, geared towards finding solutions, building trust and understanding and, where necessary, consolidating the results of the CIS process.

Another important aim of the future CIS process is to further strengthen the role of the Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs), namely the Oslo-Paris Convention (OSPAR), the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM), the Barcelona Convention (UNEP MAP) and the Bucharest Convention (BSC). Where the EU is a Contracting Party to a Regional Sea Convention, the implementation of the MSFD should also be seen as the European commitment to these conventions, which, per se, are directly linked to marine good environmental status. The EU invests considerable financial and human resources in RSCs and this investment is continuously assessed, in the light of RSCs' contribution to MSFD implementation, taking also into account the utilisation by MS of RSC deliverables to facilitate compliance with their MSFD obligations. A coherent implementation within the marine regions is largely dependent on the opportunities for coordinating activities by the RSC. It is clear, however, that there may be a need for a differentiated approach. Proposals for specific elements for the work programme for the different marine regions are laid down in Annex 4. It is ultimately up to the Contracting Parties of each Convention to accept this role or develop it into a different direction.

In order to make this role operational, it would be necessary to agree a clear, specific and timely input of the RSCs into the CIS process, through the following elements:

 Contribution to CIS work programme: an initial and specific list of inputs is provided above under the different working areas. This would have to be further developed and regularly revised.

 Reporting: If the RSC provide timely input to the MSFD implementation, it would imply that EU Member States have fulfilled their obligations pursuant to Article 6 provided that Member States incorporate the results of the RSC work into their national implementation and report it accordingly to the Commission. In order to achieve this, an idea could be to formalise the RSCs' input through a “roof report” to the Commission which is identical for all EU Member States which are Contracting Parties to a particular Convention and which is complemented by a more detailed “national report” (or sub-national, as appropriate). Should such input not be available (on time), Member States would have to organise and demonstrate the coordination of their work in another way.

 Information exchange: Developments within RSCs should be more consistently reported and be the basis for further EU level work. The MSCG should have a regular agenda item where RSCs report and make recommendations for collaboration. This reporting can be done by a MS which

18 MD/2013-2/2rev

is Party to the RSC, on behalf of all the other MS which are Parties to the same RSC. Furthermore, the Project Coordination Group (PCG) could address issues which can possibly be resolved in the short to mid-term by research groups (such as the PERSEUS) or other projects.

 Practical cooperation: a number of practical and concrete steps could be taken to facilitate the cooperation, e.g. joint time / calendar planning (for more issues see also Annex 2).

 Encouraging transfer of knowledge between different regions, as in the Baltic to Black Sea project which is considered as good practice and develop joint research projects or twinning projects between countries or regions.

In addition, the role of other existing Regional Conventions within the catchment area of a marine region or subregion like established structures under the WFD (2000/60/EC), i.e. especially River Protection Conventions and their Commissions (e.g. ICPDR, ICPR, IKSE, IMK, ...), is, where appropriate, to extend coordination and cooperation between Member States with marine waters and landlocked Member States (cf. MSFD Art. 6). Four key issues were identified of particular relevance to landlocked Member States:

1. Abundance/distribution of key trophic groups/species, including, where appropriate, long- distance anadromous and catadromous migrating species (Descriptor 4.3);

2. Minimising human-induced eutrophication (Descriptor 5);

3. Concentration of contaminants (Descriptor 8);

4. Marine litter (Descriptor 10).

Moreover, the role of Member States in the CIS process can be strengthened, bearing in mind their main responsibility for implementing the directive. This can be achieved through giving Member States a more active role in leading the work on MSFD implementation, notwithstanding the specific Commission duties and responsibilities in this area. To that end, a Member States, or a group of Member States could lead, on a voluntary basis, together with the Commission, the preparatory work on a specific issue of common interest (possibly focussed on a (sub-)region) and present results for discussion, comments, and eventually approval, in the relevant working groups, the MSCG or the MD. This would be in line with the proactive role Member States take for instance in some RSCs. Ideally, the leading role of some Member States in the RSCs could be combined with such a role in the CIS process leading also to some kind of burden sharing where not all MS have to develop the same expertise on all issues (e.g. regarding different groups under the biodiversity descriptor). Member States could also co-chair working groups, and/or lead countries could be designated to advance work on specific issues (i.e. prepare first draft concept papers etc.) prior to consideration by the relevant working group and/or MSCG.

Last but not least, stakeholders, NGOs, other interest groups or public and private organisations can play an important role in supporting the implementation process. Many organisations are already registered as observers in the Marine Strategy Coordination Group and participating actively in the Common Implementation Strategy. Others are able to join this process, provided they fulfil the criteria

19 MD/2013-2/2rev laid down in the RoP. At regional and national level as well, these partners can and already do make a substantial contribution. Their role can become increasingly useful, e.g. in the context of identifying and implementing measures and sharing their wealth of relevant experience in identifying and implementing practical and cost-effective environmental protection measures (e.g. from industry, NGOs, etc).

Finally, the future CIS process can benefit from improvements in the quality and timing of the preparation including the forward planning, the procedural and organisational aspects. A CIS calendar should therefore be prepared by May every year for the subsequent year, discussed at the MSCG and updated via the MSCG on a regular basis.

7. Conclusions and outlook

Following the first milestone in the implementation of the MSFD, the CIS process is entering into a new phase in which monitoring and measures will demonstrate and realize the added and concrete value of MSFD for the marine and coastal environment. The Marine Directors, the MSCG and the WGs have discussed the future orientation of the CIS process and drawn conclusions from lessons learned as a basis to tackle the challenges at hand. This outline for a work programme beyond 2013 sets the scene for the next important milestones, namely the implementation of the monitoring programmes (2014), the preparation (2015) and implementation (2016) of the programme of measures and the revision of the initial assessment leading to possible reviews for GES and environmental targets in 2018). Therefore, this CIS work programme is going to be essential for delivery of the 2020 objective to achieve GES, as set by the MSFD. At the same time, it is important to make the CIS more effective, while not putting additional stress on available resources.

This document outlines the mission, the objectives and the main priorities for the coming years. It does so by clarifying and streamlining the roles and working arrangements, in particular strengthening the role of the Marine Directors, the MSCG, the RSCs and the Member States. It also mirrors and complements the work programme under the CIS process for the Water Framework Directive by establishing closer cooperation and synergies.

Based on this document, the detailed work programme including, in particular, the mandates of the Working and other Groups (Annex 3) and specific work programmes for the marine regions (Annex 4) and have been incorporated. These mandates and regional specific activities can be amended, updated and further developed as the implementation progresses without changing the main part of the work programme. The MSCG will review the progress of the work programme and ensure that it is "fit for purpose". The MSCG can also make suggestions if and when the work programme needs to be adapted, e.g. in the light of future findings of the Article 12 assessments of the Commission.

20 MD/2013-2/2rev

ANNEX 1

Overview of deliverables of the Common Implementation Strategy 2008-2013

Date Title Brief description Link

A1 - Official Documents

25 of June 2008 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive http://eur- Parliament and of the Council of 17 June lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? 2008 establishing a framework for uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF community action in the field of marine environmental policy

1 September 2010 Commission Decision on criteria and Decision on criteria to be used by the Member States to http://eur- methodological standards on good assess the extent to which good environmental status is lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? environmental status of marine waters being achieved, accompanied with references to uri=OJ:L:2010:232:0014:0024:EN:PDF (2010/477/EU) applicable methodological standards where available, are set out in the Annex.

14 October 2011 Staff Working Document (SEC(2011) The document provides supplementary technical http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/ 1255) information on certain elements contained in the SEC_2011_1255_F_DTS.pdf Commission Decision on GES criteria (descriptors definition)

16 November 2012 Report from the Commission to the This report aims to meet the requirements of Article http://eur- Council and the European Parliament - 20 (2) of the MSFD: to assess the Directive's lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? Contribution of the Marine Strategy contribution to the implementation of existing uri=COM:2012:0662:FIN:EN:PDF Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) to the obligations, commitments and initiatives of the implementation of existing obligations, Member States or the EU in the sphere of commitments and initiatives of the environmental protection in marine waters. While Member States or the EU at EU or recognising some constitute obligations originating international level in the sphere of from international agreements, these various strands environmental protection in marine will be addressed under the term 'commitments' for

21 MD/2013-2/2rev

waters COM(2012) 662 final the purpose of this report.

A2 - Interim and Final Guidance documents

22 November 2011 Common Understanding of (Initial) This is a living document which should be revisited and The document is available on CircaBC : Assessment, Determination of Good revised due to increased knowledge and/or > A – Documents Environmental Status (GES) & experiences with the MSFD implementation. > A2 – Guidance documents Establishment of Environmental Targets (Articles 8, 9 & 10 MSFD)

20 May 2011 ESA Guidance document This Guidance Document focuses on the economic and The document is available on CircaBC : social analyses required for supporting the > A – Documents development of the Initial Assessment (art. 8.1 of the > A2 – Guidance documents MSFD). It describes what the MSFD says, and presents some methods that could be applied.

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/bdcafa98- 1ede-4306-997e-ec2d991dcb6f

05 December 2011 Recommendation on reporting in 2012 Annex 1 : Approach to reporting for the Marine The document is available on CircaBC : for the Marine Strategy Framework Strategy Framework Directive; Annex 2 : Reporting > A – Documents Directive sheets > A2 – Guidance documents

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/84ea7503- ed2a-47bc-8aa7-e09b6eefa67c

22 May 2012 Guidance for 2012 reporting under the https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/54e95b2e- Marine Strategy Framework Directive ab7d-4dfe-a9be-20c96e19b1e9

07 May 2013 MSFD recommendation on monitoring This document aims to set out some basic monitoring The document is available on CircaBC : and reporting principles for the establishment of monitoring > A – Documents programmes under MSFD. It has been drafted > A2 – Guidance documents following a discussion within the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy. A more detailed and technical guidance document on MSFD monitoring

22 MD/2013-2/2rev

was developed in parallel which is in accordance with this concept document. It includes examples, practical experiences, best practices as well as emerging knowledge and tools and builds on the results of the JRC workshops held in autumn 2012.

A3 - Technical reports

March 2010 Scientific Support to the EC on the MSFD This report prepared by the Management Group The document is available on CircaBC : - Management Group Report provides information on a number of issues that are > A – Documents common to all of the Descriptors. Executive > A3 - Reports from Task Groups and summaries and tables summarising key information Management Group for each of the Descriptors are also included. Readers are referred to the individual Task Group reports for more details on scientific and technical recommendations associated with each Descriptor. Discussion on implementation should be based on the full Task Group reports and not just this Management Group report. The Management Group has also provided some comments on what it believes are important next steps as they relate to scientific support of the MSFD.

April 2010 Task Group 1 Report on Biological The document is available on CircaBC : Diversity > A – Documents > A3 - Reports from Task Groups and Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 2 Report on Non-Indigenous The document is available on CircaBC : Species > A – Documents > A3 - Reports from Task Groups and Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 3 Report on Commercially The document is available on CircaBC : Exploited Fish and Shellfish > A – Documents

23 MD/2013-2/2rev

> A3 - Reports from Task Groups and Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 4 Report on Food Webs The document is available on CircaBC : > A – Documents > A3 - Reports from Task Groups and Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 5 Report of Eutrophication The document is available on CircaBC : > A – Documents > A3 - Reports from Task Groups and Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 6 Report on Seafloor The document is available on CircaBC : Integrity > A – Documents > A3 - Reports from Task Groups and Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 8 Report on Contaminants The document is available on CircaBC : and Pollution Effects > A – Documents > A3 - Reports from Task Groups and Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 9 Report on Contaminants in The document is available on CircaBC : Fish and Other Seafood > A – Documents > A3 - Reports from Task Groups and Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 10 Report on Marine Litter The document is available on CircaBC : > A – Documents > A3 - Reports from Task Groups and Management Group

April 2010 Task Group 11 Report on Underwater The report outlines the limited extent of knowledge of The document is available on CircaBC : Noise and Other Forms of Energy the effects of underwater energy, particularly noise, > A – Documents and particularly at any scale greater than the > A3 - Reports from Task Groups and

24 MD/2013-2/2rev

individual/group level. These limits on knowledge give Management Group difficulties in proposing indicators, more so than most other descriptors. The report contains much background scientific information and has suggestions for possible further indicators in the future for noise, as well as on the assessment of the effects of electromagnetic fields and heat on the marine environment.

A4 - Other documents

25 January 2013 Marine Protected Areas under the This working document presents Commission's views https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/7edf330c- Marine Strategy Framework Directive on MPA provisions under Article 21 and Art 13(4) of 7d25-4fa3-a19c-b1f59f691995 2008/56/EC MSFD for information purposes. The Commission also intends to present it at WG GES in March and to the Marine Directors meeting in May, 2013.

03 February 2012 Report - Marine Strategy Framework Report of a process undertaken by ICES to provide https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/5ccaa29e- Directive - Descriptor 3+ guidance to support EU. Member States (MS) in the d1b4-4e58-bda4-3b78250205f5 implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, Directive 2008/56/EC). The process focused on Descriptor 3 (D3), commercially exploited fish and shellfish, but fisheries-related information relevant for the other Descriptors is also identified and reported on.

13 February 2012 Concept paper on the technical Description of the overall approach for the technical https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/6c0050f6- assessment of Member States assessment of Member States’ products required 5c69-486d-bb22-a6518abc053a submissions required under Article 12 of under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Marine Directive, that the Marine Directive (version 3.0) were due to be notified to the Commission by 15 October 2012.

Document prepared by Milieu Ltd Consortium.

30 May 2013 Results of the Marine Litter Conference Outcome of the International Conference on https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/2b2eaafe-

25 MD/2013-2/2rev

Prevention and Management of Marine Litter in edf7-409a-8fe8-6118208e65dc European Seas, 10 - 12 April, co-organized by the German Federal Ministry of the Environment, the German Federal Environment Agency and the European Commission.

A5 - Workshops results

19 May 2011 Outcome of the workshop on the initial On 10 May 2011, the Marine Strategy Coordination The document is available on CircaBC : assessment (10 May 2011) and way Group (MSCG) met in form of a workshop on Initial > A – Documents forward Assessment (IA). This document summarizes the main > A5 – findings of the workshop. It also highlights a number of points which were raised at the workshop and would benefit from further discussion and where https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/5498d947- possible a common understanding concluded by 1d3d-4423-85c3-93413ff2f5ea Marine Directors.

13 September 2011 ICES Report of the Workshop on Marine The document summarizes the main points of https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/d9769d05- Strategy Framework Directive - discussion of the first workshop in a process leading to d4ae-44b0-8861-48fd557c555c Descriptor 3+ a technical/scientific ICES report aiming to support EU Member States (MS) in the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The process of elaborating a technical/scientific ICES report is focusing on Descriptor 3 (D3), commercially exploited fish and shellfish, but fisheries-related information relevant for the other Descriptors is also going to be identified and reported on.

A6 – CIS work programmes and mandates

26 MD/2013-2/2rev

ANNEX 2

Outcome of discussion at MSCG of 4/5 February 2013

The Commission underlined it was a good timing when starting to assess the first MS reports to reflect on lessons learnt. It presented the discussion document prepared to initiate the debate on lessons learnt, challenges and future strategy, including clarification of roles and responsibilities (Document MSCG/9/2013/5 and presentation 9/2013/3).

The Netherlands presented its contribution to the discussion underlying that proportionality and subsidiarity are at the heart of the Directive along with a risk-based approach, and should therefore guide discussions on future strategy (presentation 9/2013/4).

Denmark also presented inputs to the debate looking at the EU process, cooperation with the RSC and coordination aspects (presentation 9/2013/5).

OSPAR presented their views and experience with regard to planning mechanisms for delivering tools whereby work plans are made with clear deliverables and actions. They also addressed the issue of constraints in resource and advocated improved cooperation.

Discussion

A tour de table and discussion showed a general agreement on the strategic vision and its implications for the CIS at a strategic level and in terms of concrete steps. The discussion resulted in the following points which were shown and amended at the meeting:

The strategic aim of the Directive is seen as the sustainable use of the seas while protecting and preserving the marine environment.

MSFD has to demonstrate added value through:  Promoting integration across and building on relevant policies: Blue Growth/IMP, water, fisheries, transport, CAP, biodiversity, chemicals, Marine Spatial Planning, etc.  Encouraging investments and financing for marine protection - link with measures and EMFF.  Ensuring that GES is reached, maintained and understood the same way across EU, including shared vision among stakeholders.  Improving knowledge of the marine environment. For the CIS this means:

At strategic level:

 More focus is needed as the implementation of the MSFD faces serious time and resources constraints. This can be achieved through not loosing time on details, gap analysis and strategic approach (including risk based approach) concentrating on what is the heart of the MSFD: reaching GES (measures) and better understanding GES.  The programmes of measures should be coordinated.

27 MD/2013-2/2rev

 Bridging with other environmental policies and other sectors, but also with international processes e.g. IMO, UN, is key.  A meaningful RSC involvement in the MSFD implementation process should be secured, avoiding redundancy in the work carried out at EU or RSC level. The RSC should not be an echo chamber for what is happening in the MSFD. A strategy should be developed on how to work with the RSC, recognising differences between the four RSCs, exploring various options (joint reporting, request for advice, align work programmes), in the short, mid and long term.  The roles and responsibilities within the CIS and across various actors in marine policy should be clarified (EU, MS, RSC, etc).  Coordination at national, (sub)regional level (including through RSCs) and pan-European should be improved.  Addressing emerging issues such as for instance climate change is important and is not so well expressed under the MSFD. Through concrete mechanisms:

 Clarify roles and responsibilities within the CIS o Tighten the work plan o Avoid duplications and repetitions between the CIS. o Implement practice of A and B points for the preparation of the Marine Directors’ meetings by the MSCG. o Designate lead countries to advance work on specific issues or play a role as facilitator at regional scale o Set ad-hoc, focused expert groups  Improve coordination with other sectors: o Workshops, including on CFP and transport, bringing together people from different sectors.  Simplify reporting: o Assist MS with monitoring and data handling and simplify the reporting of the monitoring. o Streamline reporting between MSFD, Nature Directives and WFD. Adopt comparable definitions and parameters in advance.  Improve dissemination: o Marine conference at high political level and addressing stakeholders. o MSFD library: development of guidance e.g. on GES by 2020, on geographical assessment scale or classification of coastal/marine waters, avoiding the tendency to write down every detail.  Improve link with RSC: o Permanent reporting process from RSCs to MSCG and / or Marine Directors. o Encouraging RSC to make the initial assessment and MS to use it, discussing early enough with parties future assessment products which would support the MSFD implementation o Encouraging transfer of knowledge between different regions, such as Baltic to Black Sea project which is considered as good practice. o Asking RSC to give advice to the MSFD / CIS. o Aligning work programmes. o Memorandum of Understanding o Joint research projects or twinning projects between countries or regions

28 MD/2013-2/2rev

ANNEX 3

Mandates of Working Groups, Technical Groups and the Project Coordination Group

Part 1: Mandate of Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES)

1. INTRODUCTION The Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES) is overseeing technical work on issues related to the assessment and determination of good environmental status (Article 8, 9), the related environmental targets and indicators (Article 10) and the monitoring obligations (Article 11). It provides a platform for expert exchange at EU level between the Member States, other countries, stakeholders and NGOs as well as the related ongoing work in the Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs).

2. OBJECTIVES The WG GES contributes to developing a common understanding of the assessment and monitoring requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to ensure a high level of coherence, comparability and consistency of the approaches within and between the marine regions in support of achieving specific objectives 1 and 2 set out in the work programme. Building on the past work, the WG GES should in particular aim at:

 Continuing the development of common approaches for determining GES and, as appropriate, environmental targets in order to ensure coherence and consistency of GES across all marine regions/subregions;  Overseeing the application of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters and provide technical oversight for the [possible] review of the Decision;  Addressing the linkages between the Habitats Directive, Birds Directive, Water Framework Directive, Biodiversity Strategy, CFP and CAP and MSFD in relation to the definition and achievement of GES and associated objectives in the other directives;  Further improving the development of a framework for coordinated monitoring programmes which will deliver data to assess whether GES and associated environmental targets are being achieved;  Support or provide expertise to Member States for coordinated programme of measures in the marine regions in cooperation with WG ESA.

The WG GES should keep an oversight of the various aspects relevant for GES but should not duplicate the work of other groups. It should identify and focus on a few priorities which it can pursue directly and otherwise rely on the input and expertise from other groups.

3. MAIN ISSUES – SCOPE OF WORK The Working Group should focus in future on overall conceptual and cross-cutting questions related to assessment and monitoring (but not reporting). It will develop an ecosystem-based holistic assessment framework to assess the state of the marine environment against GES in the meaning of Art. 3.5 MSFD. For this purpose, it will deal in particular with descriptors 1, 4, 6 and 7 and on ensuring coherence with descriptor 3 work, whose assessment should be consistent with the CFP-based assessments. The WG

29 MD/2013-2/2rev should integrate these descriptors into the holistic framework and establish links to the pollution-based descriptors 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 which are dealt with by more specialised groups (explained in more detail below). In doing so, the WG GES shall address the following tasks beyond 2013:

 Further develop a common understanding of GES, clarifying and simplifying the terminology, where possible, and translate it into some common elements or recommendations (ensuring still flexibility for Member States to reflect their particular circumstances) for descriptors 1, 4, 6 and 7;

 Common understanding on application of descriptor 2 in close collaboration with the implementation of the new instrument on invasive species.

 Develop a framework for ecosystem-based assessments to determine the state of the marine environment against determined GES and develop associated methodologies, including for assessing cumulative impacts as well as for aggregating different temporal and spatial scales;

 If agreed by the MSFD Committee, oversee the review of Commission Decisions 2010/477/EU and Annex III MSFD and advise the Committee on the possible revision of the Decision based on Articles 9.3, 11.4 and 24 of the MSFD and of Annex III MSFD;

 Aiming at greater coherence of the objectives and targets for MSFD with related EU policies, and vice versa, in particular WFD, CFP, CAP, Birds and Habitats Directives and the EU Biodiversity Strategy

 Streamline and develop comparable monitoring and assessment methods, as appropriate (see above) for MSFD and other related policies in particular WFD, CFP, CAP, Birds and Habitats Directives and the EU Biodiversity Strategy and RSCs.

 Where current knowledge is insufficient to make GES descriptors operational and there are significant risks to the marine environment(national and regional), apply the precautionary principle and launch necessary initiatives to develop tools and mechanisms to issue early warnings and undertake risk analyses to close knowledge gaps including needed research and demonstration projects. This work will be also discussed in the context of the exemption guidance (see p. 13) and it will be complementary to developing the risk-based approach and adaptive management as introduced by MSFD and aims also at exchanging best practices.

 Contribute to developing conceptual principles and guidance for the development and implementation of measures under Article 13. Contribute to the analysis of their cost- effectiveness and coordinate the definition of measures from a scientific and ecosystem-related point of view. This work will be led by WG ESA in collaboration with WG GES.

The WG GES will also oversee and advice, as appropriate, the other activities in this working area which are predominantly carried out in other groups.

30 MD/2013-2/2rev

In order to ensure a coordinated approach with the work carried out by the Regional Sea Conventions, the WG GES may want to review and exchange information regularly. The representatives of the regional sea conventions (experts from Member States or secretariats) shall make proposals for the agenda on relevant issues, as appropriate.

4. ORGANISATION The WG GES is a sub-group of the MSCG and is there to advice the MSCG and, where appropriate, the MSFD Committee on matters related to GES. The WG is organised in line with the MSCG rules of procedures.

The WG GES will be chaired by the Commission (ENV and JRC) and co-chaired by Germany.

Participants are nominated representations of the EU Member States, other countries (in particular from EEA and Candidate Countries), regional sea conventions and other international organisations such as ICES, stakeholders and NGOs which are registered at the MSCG. The criteria in the rules of procedures for the MSCG apply.

The WG GES meets regularly, usually twice a year in time to prepare the MSCG meetings. In addition, thematic workshops or specific meetings may be organised, as appropriate, and following approval of the MSCG.

The WG GES is supported by a Drafting Group consisting of the co-leaders and GES members of EL, FI, FR, NL, RO, SE and UK which prepares the WG GES by facilitating the planning and drafting preparatory documents. The DG is mandate by the WG on an inter-sessional basis.

5. TIMELINES AND DELIVERABLES Task Timelines Output 1. Revision and further development of Common Mid-2014 Guidance / Understanding Document (including risk analysis, [end-2014] Recommendations to be application of the precautionary principle and how adopted by MSCG to deal with knowledge gaps) 2. Guidance on scales / aggregation (based on Mid-2014 Guidance / project – could be combined with CU) Recommendations to be adopted by MSCG 3. Technical preparation for revision of 2010 GES End-2014 Recommendations for MSFD decision 2010/477/EU Committee 4. Guidelines on measures as a contribution to the Early 2014 Guidance / WG ESA work on Programme of measures Recommendations to be adopted by MSCG 5. Cost-effectiveness of measures (together with Ongoing See WG ESA WG ESA) 6. Link to assessments and monitoring under other Ongoing EU legislation and policies 7. Link to related work of RSCs and regular review Ongoing of their work with relevance to GES

6. LINKS TO OTHER ACTIVITIES

31 MD/2013-2/2rev

The WG GES will work closely with the other WGs under the MSFD CIS process, namely DIKE and ESA, contributing with its areas of expertise without duplicating or developing the issues under the responsibilities of other WGs.

The WG GES will also keep an oversight of all activities going on in more detail in other EU groups which have more specific expertise, in particular the link to the Water Framework Directive and its groups dealing with good ecological status and chemical substances, to the Birds and Habitats Directive, in particular its Marine Expert Group and the link to the Technical Groups on Litter and Noise, as well as the fisheries experts gathering regularly in workshops.

The WG GES will ensure that the detailed discussions result in comparable and coherent approaches across descriptors and will advise the MSCG on such issues, as appropriate. The WG GES does not, however, have to endorse results from other EU groups but rather takes note of what other groups are presenting to the MSCG.

The WG GES also plays an important role in bringing together the results of the related work taking place in the Regional Seas Conventions and should be used as a platform to exchange information and improve coherence and comparability between the four regions.

The WG GES should, as appropriate, foster these collaborations with the view to improving coherence, comparability and streamlining of work and ensure that all relevant expertise is considered. Such cooperation can be achieved through many means, such as joint workshops, etc. There is a need to establish effective working routines and feedback mechanisms between WG GES and groups under other EU policies (e.g. WFD CIS, Habitats/Birds-Directive) without duplicating discussions or decision- making processes.

32 MD/2013-2/2rev

Part 2: Mandate of Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (WG DIKE)

1. INTRODUCTION The Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (WG DIKE) is overseeing technical work on issues related to the data, information and knowledge exchange for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), including in relation to assessments of good environmental status (Article 8) and monitoring obligations (Article 11). It provides a platform for expert exchange at EU level between the Member States, other countries, stakeholders and NGOs as well as the related ongoing work in the Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs).

2. OBJECTIVES The WG DIKE contributes to developing and implementing a concept and arrangements for a shared, streamlined and efficient management of data, information and knowledge between the EU, the Regional Sea Conventions and the Member States as well as other partners based on (but not limited by) the obligations under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and building upon the experience of the Water Framework Directive and WISE. This process should thereby improve the marine knowledge base resulting in sound, available and targeted EU-level assessments on the state-of-the-marine environment, contribute to Commission’s assessments foreseen in MSFD articles 12 and 16, and support assessments at regional and national levels to support Member State implementation of the Directive. It should also contribute to trend/scenario development, policy evaluations and impact assessments in support of achieving CIS work plan specific objective 3.

The WG DIKE should keep an oversight of the various aspects relevant for data, information and knowledge exchange, including reporting, but should not duplicate the work of other groups. It should identify and focus on a few priorities which it can pursue directly and otherwise rely on the input and expertise from other groups.

3. MAIN ISSUES – SCOPE OF WORK WG DIKE should focus on the practical arrangements for reporting under the MSFD as well as for data sharing and/or making data available. In addition, the WG will explore the links to INSPIRE and to other relevant initiatives which the MSFD can benefit from including, in particular, Marine Knowledge, EMODnet, Copernicus (ex-GMES) marine service.

In doing so, the WG DIKE shall address the following tasks beyond 2013 (tentative timing in brackets):

 Any necessary further work on reporting systems for monitoring programmes by mid 2014, including, for example fostering decentralised systems and joint documentation; in any case, decentralized systems should be an option for the reporting in 2014;  Define/ design the reporting system on the programme of measures (in liaison with WG ESA leading the work on programmes of measures, as appropriate and pertinent) and in close collaboration with the WFD reporting by mid 2014 and develop the reporting tools/sheets by end of 2014;

33 MD/2013-2/2rev

 Revise the reporting system by 2016 for the 2018 updating of the initial assessment, GES and environmental targets and by 2019 the next revision of monitoring programmes in 2020; taking into account the experiences gained during the first cycle and suggestions for reducing member states’ administrative burden.  Develop and implement a concept for shared data and information management by 2016 by making data available on the marine environment, building upon MSFD Article 19(3) and involving the data management at the Regional Sea Conventions, ICES and other relevant data providers, which streamlines data flows, ensures interoperability and aims to reduce administrative burden on all involved  Discuss the use of the reported information by the Commission and EEA (on the basis of the MS reports), and advise the Commission and the EEA when preparing assessments across the EU’s marine regions (starting with the EEA's EU baseline assessment);  Assist in the preparation of WISE-Marine portal, in conjunction with the Data TG, as a platform to share data and information under the MSFD (phase I by 2014) to make MSFD data and information available and interoperable (e.g. with other similar portals such as IPChem);  Develop integrated and streamlined reporting flows between MSFD and other EU policies and those of international conventions, with a view to improving coherence of the information and reducing administrative burden in is preparation and exchange. 4. ORGANISATION The WG DIKE is a sub-group of the MSCG and is there to advice the MSCG and, where appropriate the MSFD Committee, on matters related to data, information and knowledge exchange. The WG is organised in line with the MSCG rules of procedures.

The WG DIKE will be chaired by the Commission and co-chaired by [MS] and the EEA.

Participants are nominated representations of the EU Member States, third countries (in particular from EEA and Candidate Countries), stakeholders and NGOs which are registered at the MSCG. The criteria in the rules of procedures for the MSCG apply.

The WG DIKE meets regularly, usually twice a year in time to prepare the MSCG meetings. In addition, thematic workshops or specific meetings may be organised, as appropriate, and following approval of the MSCG.

The WG DIKE is supported by a Technical Group on Data which is subject to a separate mandate within the MSFD CIS work plan. The TG shall work in close collaboration with WG DIKE; WG DIKE shall set the direction for the TG's work, but it formally reports to MSCG.

34 MD/2013-2/2rev

5. TIMELINES AND DELIVERABLES Task Timelines Output 1. Finalise reporting arrangements for monitoring Mid-2014 Reporting sheet, guidance programmes under Art. 11 and tools/mechanisms 2. Reporting arrangements for Programmes of End 2014 Reporting sheet, guidance measures under Art. 13 and tools/mechanisms 3. Revised reporting arrangements for Art. 8, 9 and Mid-20164 Reporting sheet, guidance 10 and tools/mechanisms 4. Revised reporting arrangements for monitoring End 2019 Reporting sheet, guidance programmes under Art. 11 and tools/mechanisms 5. Develop and implement shared data and 2016 Operational data and information systems between MS, RSC and EU information systems within levels RSCs 6. WISE-Marine portal for access to MSFD data and Phase 1 by the Operational WISE-Marine information, linked to BISE, EMODnet, Copernicus, end of 2014 giving access to MSFD- RSC systems and other systems Phase 2 by the relevant information end of 2016 7. Review, streamline and harmonise, where Progressively Streamlined and harmonised appropriate, reporting streams under EU policies to 2016 reporting of marine relevant and international conventions data and information Work plan to be reviewed periodically in view of progress made and future priorities. 6. LINKS TO OTHER ACTIVITIES The WG DIKE will work closely with the other WGs under the MSFD CIS process, namely GES and ESA, contributing with its areas of expertise without duplicating or developing the issues under the responsibilities of other WGs. WG DIKE will maintain oversight of the work of the Technical Group on Data, receiving regular reports from it and guiding its ongoing work. The WG DIKE will also maintain oversight of activities which are relevant for its work but which are undertaken in more detail by other groups with more specific expertise, in particular the link to the Water Framework Directive, Birds and Habitats Directives and their groups dealing with reporting and data/information issues. The WG DIKE will ensure that the detailed discussions result in comparable and coherent approaches across Member States and will advise the MSCG on such issues, as appropriate. The WG DIKE does not, however, have to endorse results from other groups but rather takes note of what other groups are presenting to the MSCG. The WG DIKE also plays an important role in bringing together the results of the related work taking place in the Regional Sea Conventions and should be used as a platform to exchange information and improve coherence and comparability between the four regions. The WG DIKE should, as appropriate, foster these collaborations with the view to improving and streamlining data and information flows work and ensure that all relevant expertise is considered. Such cooperation can be achieved through many means, such as joint workshops, etc.

4 To allow for input to assessment by Regional Sea Conventions

35 MD/2013-2/2rev

Part 3: Mandate of Working Group on Economic and Social Analysis (WG ESA)

1. INTRODUCTION

The WG ESA was established in 2009 to act as a forum for the discussion of all social and economic matters covered by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The initial focus was the development of a Guidance Document on the economic and social analyses required to support the development of the Initial Assessment https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/bdcafa98-1ede-4306-997e- ec2d991dcb6f5. Since then WG has focused on sharing experience in the preparation of initial assessments, reaching a common understanding of Articles 13 and 14 and identifying research needs.

2. OBJECTIVES

The Objectives for WG ESA are:

(a) To analyse lessons learnt from Member States' initial economic and social assessment and conclusions from related activities under the Regional Seas Conventions. In light of this, review and as necessary update the WG ESA guidance document on initial assessment.

(b) Consider approaches to the development and analysis of measures in close cooperation with WG GES and drawing on experience from the WFD CIS, in particular:

• socio-economic analysis of potential common measures needed to close the gap between BAU and targets for GES; and

• exchange of information and experience on approaches to assessing social and economic impacts of measures, including cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit analyses and application of disproportionate cost.

(c) Identify priorities for research and address knowledge gaps to support social and economic matters covered by the Directive.

(d) Promote communication, cooperation and coordination between marine regions and subregions in order to improve the consistency and coherence of social and economic assessments.

(e) Facilitate cooperation and links between WG ESA and other MSFD CIS work, especially with WG GES on measures.

3. MAIN ISSUES – SCOPE OF WORK

The WG’s remit is to act as the focus point for all MSFD related socio-economic issues. It is responsible for discussing and providing advice to MSCG on these issues and in particular Articles 8 (c), 13 (3), 14 (4) and Annexes IV (9) and elements of Annex VI. More generally, it is responsible for advice on:

(a) overall conceptual and cross-cutting questions relating to the cost effectiveness of measures;

5 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/bdcafa98-1ede-4306-997e-ec2d991dcb6f

36 MD/2013-2/2rev

(b) Analyse effectiveness of existing measures to improve the status of marine ecosystems in close cooperation with WG GES

(c) introduction of additional measures including associated impact assessments (including cost-benefit analysis);

(d) benefits of taking action (or the costs of inaction) including from ecosystem services; and

(e) disproportionate costs.

4. ORGANISATION

Sweden, the UK and EC will co-lead and co-chair the working group. WG group meetings will be held in Brussels, Sweden or the UK, or other Member States that offer to host. The secretariat of the ESA working group will be held by Sweden. The WG will meet at least twice a year. If necessary, the WG ESA can set up sub-groups with responsibility for certain tasks. These subgroups will be appointed by and report directly to the WG. The WG ESA will report to the MSCG.

The working group will comprise of

• European Commission (DGs: ENV, JRC, others on occasion, and the EEA);

• Member States;

• Representatives of regional sea conventions (Secretariats and/or specific Member States), other marine protection conventions, international marine scientific organisations; and

• European stakeholder organisations.

5. TIMELINES AND DELIVERABLES

Task 1 Coordination and chair of the Working Group ESA

Objective To ensure the effective delivery of the working group’s aims and objectives

Principal tasks (a) Coordinate the delivery of agreed “products”.

(b) Convene and chair WG ESA meetings including drafting agendas and minutes of meetings

(c) Promote communication, cooperation and coordination between marine regions and sub-regions in order to improve consistency and coherence on social and economic assessment issues

(d) Report the WG’s advice to MSCG and facilitate cooperation and links with other MSFD CIS work programmes, especially WG GES.

Deliverables Milestones

37 MD/2013-2/2rev

WG ESA work programme Update at least annually (in consultation with MSCG)

Meetings, meeting records and papers At least two meetings per annum (invitations and draft agendas) sent out at least 15 working days before the date of the meeting

Papers circulated/uploaded on to CIRCABC 10 working days before meetings

Draft summary minutes of the meeting to be circulated for comment no later than 10 working days after the meeting.

Task lead Mats Ivarsson (Sweden)

Task Dominic Pattinson (UK), Cyril Michel (EC) contributors

Task 2 Further develop the draft document “Programmes of Measures under MSFD Recommendations for implementation and reporting”

Objective To develop a common understanding on key definitions and messages for the establishment of programme of measures, to identify where existing policies contribute to MSFD objectives, and set out a «mixed» approach for engaging with others policies.

Principal tasks Draft the document including:

 a focus on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost benefit analysis (CBA)

 Lessons learnt from experience of implementing the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Habitat and Bird Directive

 Explaining the link with measures of existing policies

In close collaboration with:

 WG GES on the definition of measures and understanding the link between pressures and impacts; and

 WG DIKE on reporting and reporting links with other relevant Directives.

Final draft Recommendation Adoption at Feb 2014 (MSCG) or May 2014 at the latest.

38 MD/2013-2/2rev

Task lead Dominic Pattinson (UK); Cyril Michel (EC); Uli Claussen (DE)

Task UK, SE, NL, DE, FR plus WG GES volunteers contributors

Task 3 Contribute to the sharing of information on cost-effectiveness of measures, in particular by building on WFD methodologies and experience, and on cost benefit analysis.

Objective To support Member States implementation of the MSFD by providing examples and best practices on the practical application of such analysis

Principal tasks Member States to identify suitable materials, particularly practical examples of how problems/issues were resolved on:

- how MSFD specific measures not addressed elsewhere have been or are to be implemented;

- how existing measures e.g. existing obligations under existing Directives could be improved to contribute to the achievement of GES;

- how the CEA and CBA can be addressed for various measures and marine environmental problems (descriptors).

Dedicated workshop and outcome of it By spring 2014

Task lead NL

Task contributors DE, UK, FR, LT, FI, LV

Task 4 Develop a common understanding of how ecosystem services and the costs for inaction can be accounted or other approaches can be used when developing options for measures and/or to justify exemptions, including building on WFD methodologies and experience.

Objective To help Member States in their assessment of measures by providing common guidance on how ecosystem services or other suitable approaches can be used.

Principal tasks Draft guidance document detailing common understanding.

Common understanding document By end 2014

39 MD/2013-2/2rev

Task lead ? Volunteers still need to be identified

Task ? Volunteers still need to be identified contributors

6. LINKS TO OTHER ACTIVITIES

The following activities are related to the work of WG ESA but will not be led by WG ESA.

The following activities are considered as priorities:

 Common understanding on exemptions (Article 14) and how the risk based approach and the precautionary principle can be applied in the development of programmes of measures (through ad-hoc activity led by the Commission in close collaboration with WG ESA and WG GES).

Role of WG ESA: ESA would like to play an active role in the development of the common understanding on exemptions especially as far as disproportionate cost is concerned.

 Establish an exchange of best practices for certain types of (marine) measures based on the outcome of the GES/ESA workshop in June 2013 (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity).

Role of WG ESA: ESA will contribute through the task 3 on sharing best practice.

 Discuss measures of regional and EU-wide importance and the related financial support available (including through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), Cohesion Funds, (including through EMFF, etc. and supported by the macro-regional strategies e.g. EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region) and thereby develop a common understanding of the possible applications of Articles 15 and 22 of MSFD (through dedicated ad-hoc activity or organised through the Project Coordination Group).

Role of WG ESA: ESA would like to be consulted by PCG on that point and contribute to the development of a common understanding on Articles 15 and 22 . The PoM Recommendation (task 2) will tackle this issue (Annex 2).

 Common understanding on the application of spatial protection measures as part of the programme of measures (through Marine Expert Group under the Habitats Directive).

Role of WG ESA: ESA would like to play an active role as it should be part of task 2 (PoM Recommendation paper)

Concerning the following activities, WG ESA should receive updates from relevant experts at WG ESA meetings and will assess the need for further inputs/actions:

 Making fisheries and other Blue Growth sectors sustainable and compliant with achieving/maintaining GES and demonstrating the contribution of marine/coastal environment

40 MD/2013-2/2rev

protection measures to sustainable use and growth (through link to Integrated Coastal Management). Specific activities to be defined, starting with developing MSFD-compliant guidance for sustainable aquaculture (through dedicated ad-hoc activities).

 Assessment of economic benefits from marine and coastal ecosystem services (e.g. in the Mediterranean and Baltic) WG MAES (Mapping and Assessing of Ecosystems and their Services).

Concerning the following activity, it is not clear for the time being what would be the added value of ESA involvement:

 Exchange information on effectiveness of public participation processes and approaches and encourage best practices of MS public participation and information requirements, building on the WFD experience (Art. 19) (through a dedicated ad-hoc activity).

In order to ensure a coordinated approach with the work carried out by the Regional Sea Conventions, the RSC have been invited to contribute to the above activities.

41 MD/2013-2/2rev

Part 4: Mandate of Technical Group on Marine Litter (TG Litter)

1. MAIN ISSUES – SCOPE OF WORK

EU Member States had requested the set-up of a technical group on marine litter according to a mandate by the Marine Directors from 2.12.2010. Work in 2011 resulted in the report “Marine Litter – Recommendations for the Implementation of MSFD Requirements” (EUR 25009). EU Marine Directors have requested on 8.12.2011 a continuation of the technical group based on the roadmap developed as part of the recommendations by the group. Particular focus should be on issues related to the identification of sources of marine litter. The WG GES in February 2012 amended slightly the Terms of Reference. Particular focus was given to the harmonization of protocols including prediction for the cost of monitoring, the further identification of sources of marine litter and the assessment of the harm it causes to the coastal and marine environment.

2. ORGANISATION

The TG Marine Litter will be chaired by France and co-chaired by JRC IES and Germany. The Group will continue to support Member States in implementing the MSFD with particular focus placed on identifying and collaboratively addressing common evidence gaps, developing and promoting common monitoring and assessment protocols, and the sharing of best practice.

The work of the technical group on litter will be reported to the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG) where relevant actors (Member States, neighbouring countries, international organisations such as regional sea conventions and marine scientific organisations, stakeholder organisations) are represented.

Membership The technical group consists of persons who should be able to: a. Demonstrate expertise applicable to the task, b. Demonstrate experience in providing practical scientific advice, c. Ensure the range of expertise necessary for the task The membership of the group will remain the same and regular consideration will be given as to whether the appropriate expertise is available for the issues under consideration.

Most of the work of the TG Marine Litter will take place via correspondence through a web based communication tool (Basecamp). The TG Marine Litter will have a maximum of two physical meetings per year in order to plan and coordinate the programme of work. Intermediate progress reports will be used to inform the MSCG. Since February 2013, The Coastal & Marine Union (EUCC) and Arcadis have been contracted to support administrative, organisational and logistic support to the TGs on Marine Litter and Underwater Noise (2013-2014).

42 MD/2013-2/2rev

3. TIMELINES AND DELIVERABLES

The group has finalised a draft version of the first guidance report, entitled Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas (EUR 26113). The full report and each of the chapters separately are available on CIRCABC6. These were submitted to Members of the MSCG and WG-GES in July 2013 for their perusal and feedback. This document will be finalized and published in November 2013.

The TG Marine Litter will address the following items in the year 2014:

1. Sources and pathways of marine litter The group will continue to support work currently underway to provide better identification and quantification of sources and pathways of marine litter. Technical options such as backtracking modeling will be evaluated and communicated more widely. The evaluation of source strengths will also be considered and an approach developed to support the selection of management measures by Member States.

2. Riverine litter The need of quantification of riverine litter as important source to the marine environment has been recognized. The group has started to collect information on available approaches and data. Coordination with the WFD WG chemicals has started. The Commission recently (October 2013) launched a contract for Identification and assessment of riverine input of (marine) litter. This contract will apply the monitoring guidance as developed by the TG Marine Litter in a river basin setting and in close cooperation with River basin authorities. The results of this study and national studies (e.g. monitoring activities on river Lee and Weser) will be reviewed by the TG Marine Litter for the further development, testing and harmonization of methods.

3. Monitoring guidance follow-up and implementation support on open issues After the publication of the guidance document, further work will be carried out on the harmonization of a number of methods which have not yet been fully developed (such as e.g. those for microplastics and floating litter) and the specification of protocols in the light of national experiences and considerations, the possible establishment of a network for microplastic measurements, and further discussions and advise on a database with litter information from MS states which can serve as a baseline for marine litter.

4. Possible review of COM decision If a revision of the MSFD Commission Decision (2010/477/EU) will take place, the TG would be the logical place for a transparent discussion on the marine litter related criteria within the MSFD CIS. The TG can advise on the formulation of adequate criteria for descriptor 10 and the linkage to regional dedicated aspects.

5. Science - policy interface

6 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/6dfdb7af-a74c-4191-81f1-d07a813aa8f6

43 MD/2013-2/2rev

The TG will review on-going research efforts in the field of marine litter and based on this, prioritize and propose further research needs as an input to the science agenda related to the MSFD. The TG will make important research findings available to the MSCG and the Member States.

6. Communication exchange platform for regional sea action plans Three of the four Regional Sea Conventions with European relevance (HELCOM, OSPAR, Barcelona) are developing or plan to develop Regional Action Plans on marine litter. For the Black Sea, an update of the Strategic Action Plan includes marine litter. The TG Marine Litter can act as a platform to exchange knowledge and experiences for these regional seas action plans.

7. Assessing harm There is no consolidated common understanding of what constitutes 'harm' from marine litter or how it can be assessed with respect to the implementation of the MSFD. Research efforts to develop robust approaches for assessing biologic and socioeconomic harm will be identified. The group will consider and assess the available evidence base and attempt to develop a consensus on how to approach the issue.

8. Harmonizing protocols for assessments There are some potential environmental impacts arising from marine litter which are not currently being considered, for example due to a lack of monitoring or uncertainty over how best to approach the issue i.e. assessing levels of entanglement or ingestion of litter by other target species such as marine mammals or shellfish. The group will identify where potential gaps in our understanding exist and develop proposals for assessment and monitoring to address them in a coordinated, realistic and cost effective manner.

9. Reporting Interim reports will be required prior to the meetings of the MSCG. These brief reports should indicate the status of the technical group work. The final report should explicitly address the issues identified in the ToR and will be available at the latest by October 30 th 2014.

4. LINKS TO OTHER ACTIVITIES A linkage with the WG Chemicals of the WFD exists for setting up monitoring litter in river basins. A linkage with regular ICES surveys exist, e.g. in terms of the annual surveys for fish stock assessments and fish diseases.

Input from RSCs The work in the Technical Group is also related to activities undertaken in Regional Sea Conventions with regard to monitoring and setting up regional action plans on marine litter. In order to ensure a coordinated approach with the work carried out by the Regional Sea Conventions, the RSC are contributing to the above activities.

44 MD/2013-2/2rev

Part 5: Mandate of Technical Group on Underwater Noise (TG Noise)

1. MAIN ISSUES – SCOPE OF WORK EU Member States had requested the set-up of a technical group on underwater noise according to a mandate by the Marine Directors from 2.12.2010. TG (Underwater) Noise in 2011 has focussed on clarifying the purpose, use and limitation of the indicators and described methodology that would be unambiguous, effective and practicable. For both the impulsive as for the ambient noise indicator it has been possible to make significant progress towards practical implementation of the indicators. TG Noise further has identified knowledge gaps and future work, and advises on the way forward in 2012 and beyond. The EU Marine Directors have requested on 8.12.2011 a continuation of the technical group based on the recommendations by the group.

The TG Noise has identified potential priority work items for support to the operational implementation of Descriptor 11. In 2012 and 2013, the main focus of TG Noise was on developing a practical guidance for monitoring and noise registration for member states.

2. ORGANISATION The TG Noise will be chaired by UK and the Netherlands. The work of the technical group on underwater noise will be reported to the Marine Strategy Coordination Group where relevant actors (Member States, neighbouring countries, international organisations such as regional sea conventions and marine scientific organisations, stakeholder organisations) are represented.

Membership The technical group consists of persons who have: a. Demonstrated expertise applicable to the task, b. Demonstrated experience in providing practical scientific advice, c. Ensuring the range of expertise necessary for the task In principle the same group of people will continue. In the near future, it is advised that a wider range of Member States representatives will take part, especially those involved in monitoring, as well as a representation of the regional sea conventions. Additionally, for some meetings additional experts on a certain topic (for example electromagnetic fields) may be invited. Establishment and implementation of monitoring by Member States should be coordinated within the regional sea context (as required by MSFD art. 11), but it is useful to share knowledge and experience in a wider European context.

Most of the work of the technical group will be by use of a web communication tool. The technical group will have a maximum of two physical meetings per year, to ensure work is planned and coordinated efficiently. Intermediate progress reports will be used to inform the MSCG.

Since February 2013, The Coastal & Marine Union (EUCC) and Arcadis have been contracted to support administrative, organisational and logistic support to the TGs on Marine Litter and Underwater Noise

45 MD/2013-2/2rev

(2013-2014).

3. TIMELINES AND DELIVERABLES TG Noise was tasked to deliver guidance so that European Member States could initiate programmes for underwater noise monitoring. The draft Monitoring Guidance for Underwater Noise is available at CIRCABC (https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/0e019015-9373-4287-a04b-122797a69d99) (Executive Summary, Monitoring Guidance Specifications and Background information). The final version of this document is under preparation and will be submitted early November for the MSCG.

Based on the existing Terms of Reference, the TG Underwater Noise will address the following items in the year 2014:

1. Develop criteria to select additional indicators for noise and other forms of energy In 2011 the TG Noise identified high-frequency impulsive sounds and electromagnetic fields as the most relevant other possible forms of energy under Descriptor 11. Criteria will be developed, based on possible impacts on the marine ecosystem and abundance and extent of the pressure to assess the need and a justification for addressing these sources in additional indicators.

2. Review of the work under the Framework contract ENV.D2/FRA/2012/0025 Under this Framework contract the European Commission has commissioned a study on impacts of noise and use of propagation models to predict the recipient side of noise. Under this contract, a roadmap towards defining sound limits for Good Environmental Status will be developed, for instance by identifying indicator species and defining thresholds for the different impacts (e.g. physical injury and relevant displacement as regards impulsive sounds; zones of masking as regards continuous sources). Also, the contractor will assess propagation models to come to sound maps. Those two tasks have a strong relation to elements of the existing Terms of Reference. In the October 2013 meeting of the TG Noise it was discussed that the TG Noise is capable and has an added value to give a review of the results of the draft final product of the contractor. The contractor, (who includes some 4 members of the TG Noise) would then incorporate these comments and observations in the final deliverable under the contract. This review need to be carried out before the summer of 2014.

3. Participate in impact workshop The above mentioned contract will also compile existing information on impacts and organize a workshop to propose methodologies and guidelines on how to evaluate impacts of underwater noise, especially to fill the identified gaps. The members of the TG Noise with the relevant knowledge will be invited to participate in this workshop.

4. Assistance on implementation of Monitoring Guidance Monitoring and assessing underwater noise is a complex issue which requires dedicated expertise. This expertise is organized, for Europe, in the Technical Group. The TG Noise is prepared to deliver, on request by MSCG, assistance to (groups of) Member States on a number of issues related to the monitoring and assessment such as:

46 MD/2013-2/2rev

 Setting up the monitoring of ambient noise in a (sub)region;  Setting up and interpretation of the noise register  Applying the developed criteria and provide advice on additional indicators for noise and other forms of energy  Review and revise the COM decision with regard to descriptor 11  Assessment of Good Environmental Status  Review outcomes of relevant projects

NB: Originally, there was the following additional task in the ToR for 2012-2013: Develop recommendations on noise reduction and mitigation measures. This task requires another expertise than available in the TG Noise such as expertise with regard to building wind farms and other structures at sea. Within OSPAR, an ICG was established on developing guidance on best practices to mitigate the emissions and environmental impacts of underwater noise. It was noted that there are dedicated initiatives on identifying appropriate mitigation measures (e.g. initiatives of the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and of the German government). It is proposed not to duplicate this work of OSPAR and other parties by this TG Noise and to take note of that work.

4. LINKS TO OTHER ACTIVITIES As expressed, there is a strong link to the contract commissioned by the EC.

Possible input from RSCs The work in the Technical Group is also related to activities undertaken in regional seas conventions with regard to especially setting up a register of loud impulsive noise and the development of a joint monitoring programme for ambient noise, especially in the HELCOM and OSPAR area. In order to ensure a coordinated approach with the work carried out by the Regional Sea Conventions, the RSC have been invited to contribute to the above activities. In addition, the work carried out by OSPAR on mitigation could be shared with all Member States.

47 MD/2013-2/2rev

Part 6: Mandate of Technical Group on Marine Data and IT (TG Data)

1. MAIN ISSUES – SCOPE OF WORK Due to the technical nature of certain aspects of the remit of WG DIKE a technical group on data and IT- related issues is established to facilitate the necessary discussions and prepare suitable material for WG DIKE or other WGs (as appropriate) to consider. This TG Data mandate is of a general nature; WG DIKE plenary meetings will provide the opportunity to discuss more specifically what the technical group would do in the following period and get endorsement by the MSCG.

The work of the Data Technical Group will lead to conclusions on issues requiring specific technical expertise related to:

a. Accessing data and information according to MSFD Art. 19.3, in the context of WISE-Marine and associated to INSPIRE, EMODnet, and other relevant processes and projects; b. Geographic handling and visualization of reported information; c. Technical development of WISE-Marine, including linkages to other reporting requirements (e.g. for Regional Sea Conventions, Water Framework Directive and the Nature Directives), and preparation of dissemination products, including mapped information; d. Technical development of decentralised reporting methods and systems.

2. ORGANISATION The Technical Group will be chaired by the European Environment Agency, with participation open to Member States and stakeholder organisations who are members of the MSFD CIS. Due to the technical nature of the TG, the specific representatives of each Member State or stakeholder organization can differ from those attending WG DIKE. Participation from RSCs is particularly encouraged to facilitate joint development of information systems and solutions. For specific purposes, additional experts may be involved and be used as a reservoir of expertise for discussing specific issues. The selection of these experts will be decided in consultation with the TG chair and, when appropriate, with the Member States.

The Technical Group will operate fully within the Terms of Reference of the MSCG and report formally on a regular basis to MSCG.

3. TIMELINES AND DELIVERABLES The first period of the Technical Group covers 2013-2016. In this period the group may meet once or several times per year, depending on the demand from WG DIKE to progress on particular topics, with timing set to suit preparation of material to be presented to WG DIKE. Additionally, work can be undertaken intersessionally by correspondence. General principles are:  In order to ensure alignment of activities with those of WG DIKE, Data Technical Group reports and recommendations to MSCG should, wherever possible, be accompanied by a recommendation for action or support from WG DIKE;

48 MD/2013-2/2rev

 The European Environment Agency will prepare meetings and draft minutes of the meetings for consideration by the Technical Group and finalise the minutes on the basis of comments received.  Participants can submit written documents for the consideration of the Technical Group, e.g. comments on draft products.  All documents, presentations and minutes shall be made available via the European Commission's CIRCABC facility and the EEA Forum.

4. LINKS TO OTHER ACTIVITIES The work in the technical group is also related to activities undertaken in EMODnet projects 7. Thus, invitations will be extended, when appropriate, to the Marine Observation and Data Expert Group (MODEG) who oversee the development of the EMODnet projects and to representatives of the EMODnet projects. In addition, contributions from other large-scale activities like Copernicus marine service or relevant research projects will be invited. The TG will collaborate with the WISE TG, for example in organising common sessions, as needed.

7 Note: the Commission and EEA are unable to cover expenses for participation by members of MODEG and EMODnet projects in DIKE TG meetings.

49 MD/2013-2/2rev

Part 7: Mandate of the Project Coordination Group (PCG)

Terms of Reference for Project Coordination Group (PCG) (as agreed by Marine Directors on 30 November 2012)

Mandate

To give advice and consider practical means to improve the coherence of projects related to the implementation of the MSFD (the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive), in order to maximise synergies with other relevant activities, on-going and planned, at national, regional and EU level and improve coordination and information exchange between the EU and Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs). The project coordination group reports and, where appropriate, can make proposals to the MSCG (Marine Strategy Coordination Group).

Composition

Members of the Project Coordination Group are appointed in their personal capacity and will be asked to sign declarations on conflict of interest. They are nominated by:  Commission services (in particular ENV, MARE, DEVCO, RTD, REGIO, JRC, ELARG, ECHO, MOVE, ENER, CLIMA) and the European Environment Agency (EEA).  A representative number of EU Member States for each of the four marine regions8.  The Secretariats of the four RSCs relevant to the EU's marine waters (OSPAR, Helsinki, Barcelona and Bucharest Conventions)  Contractors of projects may be invited to meetings as observers if decided by the Chair.

Key activities

 Consider future needs for MSFD implementation support to which the IMP Programme or other EU financial instruments could contribute.  Advise the Commission on a medium to long term planning for possible assignments under projects discussed in the PCG, starting with projects directly linked to MSFD implementation.  Exchange information on relevant activities/projects at European, regional (RSCs) and national level.  Receive technical reports and other documents produced by the projects for comments, when appropriate  Members of the PCG are expected to share information on PCG activities with relevant colleagues in each Regional Sea Convention.

Operation

 The PCG normally meets twice a year.

8 Member States organize their representation per Regional Sea

50 MD/2013-2/2rev

 Meetings will be chaired by the Commission (ENV C2).  Draft agenda and meeting documents (including, for example, project reports) will be distributed by the Commission (ENV D2).  Other documents that PCG members would like to submit to the PCG are disseminated via the Commission (ENV D2).  After the meeting a draft information note to the MSCG will be distributed for comments to PCG members and, when finalised, transmitted to the MSCG; after consideration by MSCG the notes will be published on the EUROPA and CIRCABC website9. RSCs are encouraged to disseminate these notes to their Contracting Parties. Other documents and presentations for meetings of the PCG will be made publically available through CIRCABC unless indicated at the PCG otherwise.  The Commission does NOT cover any expenses for the participants.

9 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/f088529c-41a7-4b2e-b92a-e8838a6b3396

51 MD/2013-2/2rev

ANNEX 4

Specific elements of the work programme relevant for the different marine regions

[See separate document MD-2013-2/03 (Annex 4)]