Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
Common Implementation Strategy
Tenth Meeting of the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG)
May 2013, Brussels
Agenda item: / 7B-a
Document: / MSCG/10/2013/6rev (including FR and DK comments)
Title: / Mandate for the GES Drafting Group for inter-sessional work [DRAFT]
Prepared by: / DG ENV / Co-chairs of WG GES
Date prepared: / 07/06/2013
Background / The meeting of the WG GES on 5/6 March 2013 agree that some parts of the agenda such as the future GES work programme, the advice to the MSFD Committee, the further development of the common understanding including the aspects on scales and aggregation should be further developed until the next meeting of the WG GES which is scheduled for 21/22 Oct 2013 (tentative date). It was agreed to revive the GES Drafting Group for these tasks which has been working on the common understanding in the past.
This intersessional mandate shall identify the main issues to be addressed and guide the Drafting Group in their deliberations. The Drafting Group is requested to report back with its findings to the next WG GES. This draft document was consulted with WG GES and comments from BG, NL, DK, RO and EEA were considered.
The Members of the MSCG are invited according to article 8 of the rules of procedure[1] (written procedure) to:
a. Take note and agree the proposed mandate for the GES Drafting Group as a basis for the inter-sessional work.
No reply by 7th of June will be considered as approval of the document.
Mandate for the GES Drafting Group for inter-sessional work
[FINAL, 06/06/2013]
1. Introduction
The ninth meeting of the GES Working Group (WG) discussed the future priorities of the WG and the need to further develop a common understanding on important MSFD issues linked to Good Environmental Status. Based on the discussion documents of the MSCG about the future of the CIS process (MSCG/9/2013/5) and the document of the MSFD Committee (Committee/6/2013/3), the WG GES was also invited to contribute to these discussions.
WG GES concluded that this inter-sessional mandate should be developed to clarifying the focus of activities until the next meeting of WG GES in October 2013 aiming at a work programme for beyond 2013 (preferably until 2018).
2. Objectives
Further work should take into account the fact that an on-going assessment of Member States initial assessment, GES and targets is currently taking place in the art.12 process.
The objective of the inter-sessional work on GES is to prepare discussions and contribute to, in particular:
· The further development of the common understanding on GES and environmental targets,
· The identification of future priorities and focus of WG GES for the work programme beyond 2013 regarding GES and environmental targets,
· The analysis on whether and how best to make use of the mandates provided by the MSFD for the MSFD Committee, in particular regarding the revision of the Commission Decision and taking into account Member States' competences as stated in article 9.1 of MSFD.
Through this preparatory work, the inter-sessional activities should, inter alia, help answering the following questions:
· How can we further develop coherence, comparability and consistency of approaches on GES and environmental targets and their coherence and comparability with related assessment under other EU legislation (e.g. WFD, Habitats and Birds Directive)? Should subsequent work be dealt with at EU level and/or at regional level (RSC, other international agreements or organisations) and/or national level?
· Should WG GES focus on some descriptors in more detail?
· How can the exercise of the mandates provided for by the MSFD (Art. 9.3, 11.4, 24) assist in improving common understanding and facilitate application of GES and related requirements of the Directive and consequently improve implementation?
3. Organisation and timelines and Deliverables
The inter-sessional work will be guided by the co-chairs of WG GES, i.e. the Commission and Germany and will be assisted by the Drafting Group.
The Drafting Group (DG) consists of nominated experts from FI, FR, GR, NL, RO, SE, UK. The DG will mainly work by email but may meet in June/July and/or Sept to discuss and prepare deliverables to the WG GES.
The DG should aim at producing one or several discussion documents for input to the WG GES in October and finally presentation to the MSCG and the MSFD Committee in November. These documents should include, inter alia:
· A proposal for the future work programme and priorities of WG GES for 2014 and beyond (preferably until 2018);
· An analysis on the best way and focus to exercise the mandates provided for by MSFD including the possible revision of the 2010 Decision;
· An outline and some first steps in further developing the GES and environmental targets common understanding document including a timeline and process for its completion (an indicative list of issues to consider in the review of the document is enclosed in Annex 1);
· Based on an overview of further actions to be envisaged to improve coordinated GES and target definitions, a proposal on which issues best to address at EU level, which at regional level and which at national level.
Annex 1: Indicative list of issues to be addressed in the review of the GES common understanding document (CU GES) or the revised decision
1) Analysis of differences of the implementation of Article 9 (GES) and 10 (environmental targets) based on respective national reports, in conjunction with Commission Decision 2010/477/EU, and, if appropriate, recommendations on how a more coherent approach could be developed (e.g. improved alignment of the implementation of Article8, 9, 10, AnnexI, III and the Commission Decision and possible amendments to existing legislation subject to Article24 and CIS guidance).
2) Analysis of and, if appropriate, recommendations on how to determine GES at the level of the marine region or subregion taking into account, inter alia,
(i) type of descriptors (ref. suggestions CU document) and whether there is a need for aggregation;
(ii) the way in which GES could be addressed in different parts of marine waters (ref. concept paper on monitoring) and in particular in marine protected areas (scale);
(iii) role of RSCs on work for GES, targets and indicators;
(iv) improvement of coherence and comparability in the EU between marine (sub)regions, taking into account that differences exist between marine (sub)regions due to natural conditions.
3) Analysis of and, if appropriate, recommendations on monitoring and assessment of GES elements (“methodological standards”), taking into account:
(i) how to handle the uncertainties in relation to the risk assessment and evaluation of good and not-good status, and the way in which the precautionary principle should be applied where GES is at risk not to be achieved or maintained;
(ii) the contribution of minimum requirements under existing EU legislation other than the MSFD and the question whether there is a need, if feasible, for establishing minimum requirements to improve coherence and comparability for MSFD purposes;
(iii) per (type of) descriptor(s) temporal and spatial assessment methods on the appropriate scale and the question whether there are practicable means to aggregate data and information resulting from the assessments (ref. new project).
(iv) whether the assessment of GES is influenced by the presence of spatial protection measures such as marine protected areas and if so, how, taking into account the requirements for a coherent and representative network of marine protected areas (art. 13.4).
4) Clarification on the level of detail – complexity of working on the GES common understanding.
5) Consider a more integrated assessment approach for applying those descriptors which describe the ecosystem, namely D1, D3, D4, D6 (and D7), building on the reflections of Annex VI of the current common understanding document.
6) Reflect on and ensure that the assessment of GES is coherent, consistent and/or complementary to related assessment under other EU legislation, in particular approaches regarding ecological status under umbrella of the WFD.
This work should also focus on:
(i) clarification on the level of detail (complexity of working on the GES common understanding) thereby taking into account the risk-based approach as laid down in the MSFD and the Commission Decision;
(ii) revision of terminology including a recommendation in which document the above issues could best be addressed, either in the revision of the Commission Decision, the revised common understanding document, a combination of both, or any other appropriate alternative (e.g. streamlining of Annexes I and III of the Directive).
As a first step, the list should be completed and validated with sufficient justification by the Drafting Group with the aim to be more explicit and clear what needs to be addressed. In this context, priorities should also be identified.
2
[1] Rules of procedure of the informal Commission group of experts on the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC