1Opening of the Meeting and Adoption of the Agenda

MINUTES

1Opening of the meeting and adoption of the Agenda

The Commission opened the meeting and welcomed the participants. The meeting was chaired by David Connor. A list of participants is given in Annex1. The papers and presentations for the meeting are listed in Annex2 and are available on CIRCA[1].

The meeting adopted the draft agenda (DIKE DG/2012/01).

2Update on Common Implementation Strategy activities of relevance to WG DIKE

The Commission provided an update on the outcome of the Marine Directors' meeting on 8-9 December 2011. The Marine Directors had considered a proposal from WG DIKE on MSFD reporting in 2012; they approved the concept paper on MSFD reporting and the initial set of reporting sheets for articles 8, 9 and 10 (DIKE DG/2012/03). They had given a mandate for the development of the remaining reporting sheets and to developing a process for access to the data used in initial assessments (and future monitoring programmes) (DIKE DG/2012/02). The reporting sheets should be substantively agreed by the next meeting of WG DIKE (12-13 March), with the 2012 reporting 'package' presented for endorsement to the next meeting of Marine Directors in June 2012. It was highlighted that the 2012 reporting would be staggered, such that a further 6 months (after October 2012) would be allowed for reporting on ‘non-priority fields’. The Marine Directors had also agreed on a long term vision for reporting, building towards the next assessment in 2018.

3Proposals for reporting in 2012 on pressures and impacts (Article 8.1b, Table 2 of Annex III)

The Commission opened this agenda item by explaining that the main focus of the meeting was to discuss and develop the remaining reporting sheets under article 8. It was hoped that the majority of outstanding issues could be resolved during the meeting, such that significantly advanced versions could be presented to WG DIKE in March. However, given the short timescales available, further comments on the reporting sheets could be accepted after the meeting, but Member States were asked to avoid these conflicting with the conclusions of the meeting. It was also noted that the conclusions of the drafting group needed to be accepted by WG DIKE, as not all Member States were represented within the drafting group.

Following comments raised by Greece, the Commission indicated that the number of proposed reporting sheets was as agreed by Marine Directors, and that the proposals for reporting were considered to be fully compatible with the approaches being discussed within the Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES). However a check was needed that all GES criteria were adequately addressed in the reporting sheets. It was reiterated that the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG) was the group to address any concerns about the relationships between the MSFD Working Groups.

Action: EC to check all Decision criteria are addressed in the proposed reporting sheets (before WG DIKE in March 2012)

The Commission’s consultants MRAG/UNEP-WCMC/URS Scott Wilson introduced the proposals for the remaining reporting sheets relating to Article 8 and Table 2 (pressures and impacts) (paper DG/2012/04; presentation DG/2012/09). This started with an overview of the assessments of impacts per pressure in relation to seabed and water column habitats and functional groups of highly mobile species. Each reporting sheet was then considered in turn. The comments raised, and how these would be dealt with, are detailed in Annex3. The proposed use of reporting under other EU Directives was welcomed, with MSFD taking a high-level perspective to summarise the outcomes of reporting on specific issues (e.g. bathing waters). For reporting on the impacts of fisheries, the reuse of international fish stock assessment information illustrated where Member States could report on assessments undertaken across national boundaries. In such examples, the same information should be reported by each of the relevant countries). Addressing the reporting of contaminants proved particularly challenging; consequently, a subgroup met to help resolve this and propose a suitable way forward.

4Proposals for reporting in 2012 on ecosystem characteristics (Article 8.1a, Table 1 of Annex III)

The Commission’s consultants MRAG/UNEP-WCMC/URS Scott Wilson introduced the proposals for the remaining reporting sheets relating to Article 8 and Table 1 (characteristics of the marine ecosystems) (paper DG/2012/04; presentation DG/2012/09). Each reporting sheet was then considered in turn. The comments raised, and how these would be dealt with, are detailed in Annex3. Of particular relevance was the recognition that water clarity (equating to the amount of light penetrating the water column, and hence relevant to phytoplankton and macrophyte growth) should be addressed as a separate parameter to turbidity (equating to the amount of suspended matter in the water, which could additionally be due to seabed sediment disturbances). For reporting on marine acidification, it was agreed that an assessment of status (against GES) should not be sought for 2012 reporting.

5Proposals for reporting in 2012 on economic and social analysis (Article 8.1c)

The Commission’s consultants MRAG/UNEP-WCMC/URS Scott Wilson introduced the proposals for the remaining reporting sheets relating to Article 8.1c (economic and social analysis) (paper DG/2012/04; presentation DG/2012/09). Each reporting sheet was then considered in turn. The comments raised, and how these would be dealt with, are detailed in Annex3.

6Other issues for reporting in 2012

6.1Geographic boundaries

MRAG introduced the reporting sheet on geographic boundaries (DG/2012/04), highlighting that it dealt with three topics:

1. The boundary of marine waters of each MemberState;
2. The boundary of each region and subregion;
3. The areas used for assessment of each reporting element.

Boundaries of MemberState marine waters

It was reiterated that the landward boundary of marine waters should follow that used for coastal waters under the Water Framework Directive and that each Member State should already have this available in GIS format. There was a need to define the seaward boundary of marine waters, as the boundary with adjoining countries and, where appropriate, the boundary with areas beyond national jurisdiction. As the area of marine waters relating to the water column could be different to that for the seabed and subsoil (e.g. where the continental shelf area extended beyond the EEZ or territorial waters), separate boundaries were needed for the water column and seabed (although these may coincide for a number of Member States). A link was made to the INSPIRE Directive which would also require such boundaries to be produced, noting that these boundaries were needed for MSFD reporting on an earlier timescale. Member States were encouraged to follow INSPIRE standards, to avoid unnecessary additional work.

Boundaries of marine regions and subregions

The EEA provided an update on its consultation process with MS on the boundaries for MSFD marine regions and sub-regions (DIKE 4/2011/5). It demonstrated the on-line platform to be used for the consultation and advised that, to date, there had been no edits to the on-line maps. Italy indicated that it was content with the boundaries within its waters, whilst some Atlantic countries advised that the outer boundaries needed to take account of continental shelf area submissions that extended beyond EEZs and would provide the EEA with GIS shapefiles.

Action: EEA to liaise with relevant Member States to assess which region and subregion boundaries were agreed and which required further consideration (before WG DIKE in March 2012).

Spatial handling of assessment information

In considering this part of the reporting sheet, there was a need to define the area of marine waters addressed by each element/topic of the assessment (i.e. each pressure, ecosystem component and activity). There currently was flexibility for Member States to define such areas at any scale considered appropriate and to have different areas for each topic. The reporting sheet indicated that assessment areas were to be provided as GIS polygons, potentially requiring multiple polygons which could variously overlap.

Germany presented an initial proposal for reporting on a grid system that offered a way to handle the multiple areas of assessment and which would negate the need for Member States to report multiple GIS polygons as this was a potentially complex task (DIKE DG/2012/10). The proposal entailed assigning assessment information (i.e. what is captured in the reporting sheets) to a standard grid; this would retain MemberState flexibility in the areas used for the different parts of the assessment but provide structure and consistency in the way in which the assessments were reported. It had the advantage of facilitating the visualisation of the assessment information in a consistent manner at regional and EU level, whilst allowing Member States to control the way in which their assessments were spatially reported.

The initiative by Germany was welcomed, particularly as the spatial handing and visualisation of information for the MSFD was an important and potentially complex task. As this was the first introduction to the proposal, it was considered necessary to develop the proposal further so that the implications for reporting could be more fully understood. There was a need to consider, for example, how use of such a grid could work in practice, what size of grid would be appropriate (including possibly a finer grid inshore and a coarser grid offshore), and how to manage reporting along national boundaries.

Action: Germany, and other MemberStates wishing to contribute, to prepare a paper on spatial handling of assessment information (by 27 February deadline for papers to WG DIKE).

6.2Draft Guidance for reporting document

MRAG presented an updated version of the guidance document for 2012 reporting, which had taken account of the most recent changes to the reporting sheets (DIKE DG/2012/5). This would be updated prior to WG DIKE in March to reflect the revisions to the reporting sheets discussed by the drafting group.

6.3Further development needed prior to WG DIKE on 12-13 March 2012

On the basis of the progress made during the meeting on discussing revisions to the reporting sheets, the following timetable was agreed:

Action:

1. MS to submit any further comments on the reporting sheets to MRAG and the Commission by 27January;
2. MRAG consortium to revise the reporting sheets and guidance document by 20 February;
3. Commission to distribute revised proposals on reporting sheets and guidance document to WG DIKE by 27 February.

The Commission and its consultant Atkins introduced the technical work now needed for MSFD reporting in 2012, including a proposed timetable for its developing and testing (DIKE DG/2012/11). Following the same process as used for reporting under other Directives into WISE, the agreed MSFD reporting sheets would be converted into a database tool and schemas to facilitate the capture and transfer of the reported information to WISE via the EEA's ReportNet system. It was anticipated that Member States would use the database tool for entering their information, and that this would need a test phase and training prior to being fully released for use by July 2012. Given the short time available to build the application, it would be set up as a series of tables rather than develop bespoke data entry screens. The guidance for entering information would be made available in the application (not just in a separate guidance document); and certain quality assurance checks would be built in, based on previous experiences.

An early review of the schemas was advocated by several Member States, on the basis of their experience with the Water Framework Directive. Germany, Slovenia and the UK offered to contribute to an early review of the schemas.

7Access to and standards for data from MSFD reporting (Article 19.3)

7.1Identifying priority data sets, linked to reporting sheets

7.2Process to develop technical content/formats for data; links to INSPIRE process

7.3Practicalities of accessing data; relationship to EMODnet process

The EEA gave a brief presentation on initial considerations in relation to Member States’ provision of access to data and information under article 19.3 of the MSFD (DIKE DG/2012/12). There would be a need to prioritise data to be accessed based on the reporting sheets and to make best use of existing data flows and mechanisms, e.g. for other Directives and regional sea conventions, through EMODnet and from GMES. It was clarified that it was for WG DIKE to define, from an MSFD assessment context, the most relevant data sets and their content/standard.

The Netherlands introduced their paper (DIKE DG/2012/06) which emphasised the importance of embracing the mechanism and ongoing activities of EMODnet and INSPIRE to support the data needs of MSFD. This should aim to avoid duplication of work and to keeping data at its source.

The Commission introduced the draft extracts relating to EMODnet from the work programme of the Integrated Maritime Policy (DIKE DG/2012/07), and indicated that these would be further discussed at the examination committee of the IMP on 31 January.

During discussion, a number of points were raised which would help shape the forward process:

1. There was general support for the issues raised by the Netherlands and for a stronger engagement with the EMODnet and INSPIRE processes;
2. EMODnet may not cover all relevant types of data for MSFD, e.g. spatial GIS data, and other solutions may need to be considered as well;
3. Use of EMODnet needed consideration of its sustainability (currently funded on a project basis) and extension to other sea regions;
4. Whilst it would be important to align with INSPIRE standards, the process may not deliver MSFD needs in suitable timescales;
5. GMES had a focus on real time data and would need greater emphasis on past data to better support MSFD;
6. There was a need to more clearly explain how these different mechanisms could contribute to MSFD needs;
7. There was a need to map the MSFD data requirements to those available in EMODnet to assess usefulness and gaps.

It was concluded that the Commission (DG Environment) should continue to work closely with the EMODnet, INSPIRE and GMES processes to help ensure they were mutually compatible with and of benefit to MSFD needs. Member States should also contribute to achieving this, through the range of channels available to them. The EEA would prepare a paper for WG DIKE in March to provide a proposed way forward. The offer of the Netherlands to contribute to this was welcomed.

7.4GMES User Forum – brief update

The EEA informed the meeting that a preparatory workshop on the user needs of the GMES marine core service would take place on 25 January, as a precursor to the GMES User Forum meeting on 16 March. WG DIKE had been invited to the workshop and were encouraged to attend to give direction to the GMES programme. The Commission had been asked to give an opening presentation at the workshop on the marine policy needs; they intended to outline the possible ways in which GMES could support MSFD delivery, especially the provision of data on ocean climate change and variability and for predictive habitat modelling.

8Any other business

There was no further business raised.

9Closing remarks and next meetings

The Commission thanked all participants for the constructive discussions and good spirit and reminded them that the next WG DIKE meeting will take place 12-13 March 2012. The EEA were thanked for their kind hosting of the meeting.

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industries Unit1

Annex 1 – List of participants at the meeting

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

• pressures and impacts (Article 8.1b, Table 2 of Annex III)
• ecosystem characteristics (Article 8.1a, Table 1 of Annex III)
• economic and social analysis (Article 8.1c)

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industries Unit1