DIKE_10-2014-19
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)Common Implementation Strategy
10th meeting of the
Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (WG DIKE)
1400-1800: 29 September 2014
0900-1800: 30 September 2014
Conference Centre Albert Borschette, Rue Froissart 36, B-1040 Brussels
Document: / DIKE_10-2014-19
Title: / Minutes of the 10th meeting of WG DIKE - FINAL
Prepared by: / DG Environment & Milieu
Date prepared: / 05-01-2015
Background / These draft minutes were distributed for comment on 06 November 2014. The minutes have been finalised on the basis of comments received by 30 November 2014 from the following: Croatia.
Minutes of the 10th meeting of WG DIKE
1 Welcome and introduction
The meeting was opened and chaired by Joachim D'Eugenio and David Connor (DG Environment, European Commission). The Commission opened the meeting and welcomed the participants (listed in Annex1).The Chair informed that Denmark, Romania, Spain and Sweden could not be present and had sent their apologies.
The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted unchanged. This is given in Annex 2; the associated papers and presentations are available here.
2 Update on Common Implementation Strategy activities of relevance to WG DIKE
2.1 Report on Marine Directors’ meeting (5-6 June 2014)
The Marine Directors expressed their appreciation of the work carried out following the publication of the Commission’s Article 12 assessment report, in particular in the regional meetings with Member States that took place between March and May 2014. There are enhanced levels of cooperation via the Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs) and ICES to help improve the coordinated implementation of the Directive.
Having the second reporting round in 2018 in mind, WG DIKE should work towards developing a joined-up process for the next assessments which encompass the production of the regional roof reports. This has been accepted at the Marine Directors meeting and WG DIKE will be an anchor point of linking the various initiatives until 2018.
2.2 Reports on MSCG and other CIS meetings
The MSFD process was now moving onto the next phase of work, namely on the Programmes of Measures (PoM). The MSCG expected WG DIKE to make progress on development of the reporting requirements for the PoMs to complement the PoM Recommendation and to receive a reporting proposal at its next meeting in November 2014.
Poland and Portugal had reported that they were making progress on their Art. 8-9-10 reporting and intended to submit outstanding reports as soon as possible.
No comments had been received on the draft minutes of the 9th WG DIKE meeting in February 2014 and they were thus adopted. A final version is uploaded on CIRCACB.
3 Article 12 follow-up
3.1 Art. 12 assessment follow-up
A series of one-off regional meetings with Member States had been held between March-May 2014 (Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Baltic Sea, and NE Atlantic Ocean). The meetings were very constructive and operational conclusions had been reached. A follow-up to these meetings is required and it should be done by Member States in the respective regional fora of the RSCs and not at the EU level.
3.2 Assessment of geographic data on Marine Waters
The Commission reported that one part of the regional meetings discussed the geographic data reported by Member States (see presentation). A number of issues had been noticed, based on the reporting exercise of 2012. More specifically, looking at GIS data, there are three types of issues that need to be resolved.
a. Article 3.1 interpretation – some Member States appear to have included transitional waters in the scope of implementation of the MSFD;
b. Overlapping jurisdictional areas between neighbouring countries, sometimes where this is not described in the reporting;
c. Technical issues relating to the GIS data, where the boundaries between the counties’ waters do not match (they have gaps or they have overlaps).
The EEA advised that 70% of the GIS boundaries of Member States were not coincident. Member States were asked to coordinate with neighbouring Member States concerning their geographic GIS data on boundaries of their marine waters. Where the jurisdictional boundary is intended to be coincident, they are asked to prepare an agreed joint dataset (boundary line) to eliminate the current gaps and overlaps in the data. Where there is jurisdictional overlap (areas claimed by both countries), this should be clearly described in the 4geo.xml file. Overall Member States were asked to update their GIS data and 4geo files, where needed. The timeline for this update is to be determined by Member States, but where feasible it should be updated with the submission of the Art. 11 reports.
Discussion
UK and Ireland noted that the boundary overlaps in their reported files had been resolved in March 2014, and that the files will be updated.
Several Member States asked for clarifications in terms of what the resolution is for updating the files. EEA responded that the WFD Guidance No. 22[1] provided technical guidance on this. Generally, it was recommended to follow the same resolution as used at the national level between the two countries and to be as accurate as the measuring unit.
Action point
Member States are asked to check the GIS data for their marine waters and to remove, as far as possible, technical discrepancies in boundaries with neighbouring states; they should also clarify if there are areas of jurisdictional overlap. Updated GIS data and 4geo.xml files should be uploaded to ReportNet, where needed.
3.3 EEA baseline and JRC in-depth assessments – update
The EEA has prepared a marine baseline assessment. The assessment report has developed a narrative around the MSFD, but the EEA found it very difficult to directly use much of the information presented in the MS reports for MSFD Art. 8 due to the variation in its detail and conclusions. The report to be released to Member States for consultation will be a very advanced version. A consultation on this is expected to start on 1November 2014. It is recommended that Member States ensure that the appropriate persons at the national level have access to the consultation document, via their National Focal Points, when released. The assessment is planned to be completed before the launch of the EEA State of the Environment Reports (SOER) in 2015. It was noted that the subsequent SoE marine assessment due in 2019 should be based more clearly on MS/RSC-reported information, for which a much improved reporting of Art. 8 assessments in 2018 was needed.
The JRC’s in-depth assessments were published in February 2014. The in-depth assessment on Descriptor 7 was outstanding, and this has also now been published (summer 2014). Finally, the JRC has not been asked to make an in-depth assessment for Art 11 reporting on monitoring programmes.
4 Reporting on Art. 11 (2014 monitoring programmes)
4.1 Progress with Art. 11 reporting
A Commission presentation on the state of Art.11 reporting on the Monitoring Programmes can be accessed here.
The Commission highlighted the deadline of the Art. 11 reporting in October 2014 and briefly outlined the details of what should be reported. The types of reports that need to be submitted in XML format were listed and Member States were asked to respect a naming convention (explained in the presentation slides) for xml files. Most importantly, each file should end with a date (YYYYMMDD, e.g. 20141015) and any updates of the file be resubmitted with a new date ending.
It was reported that all Member States had announced their public consultations on their monitoring programmes. One country (Belgium) had already submitted their Art 11 report on 26 September 2014, while 14 others have already uploaded draft versions.
4.2 Reporting of Art 11 - issues of Member States
Several Member States reported that they had encountered issues using the EEA's web form system in the past week when trying to upload files for the Art. 11 reporting. The EEA confirmed that they had had a server problem due to increased demand because of other reporting deadlines. It was confirmed that the responsible team was in the process of addressing the issue and that a solution would be implemented immediately.
Discussion
One Member State asked about what is expected in terms of providing “copy” of all electronic resources referenced in the reports. The Commission clarified that this can take any form that is static i.e. a screenshot, image etc. with the choice left to the Member State.
Member States stated that they are happy with the style sheets developed. One Member State reported that there is a discrepancy between the three formats for some of the questions and this should be addressed.
One Member State advised that the underlying structure of the reports (tables) and technical delivery could be better optimised in future reporting rounds.
It was noted that the web forms of the EIONET website had been changed in recent weeks with fields being added and/or removed and selection lists modified. Several Member States echoed the comment that data fields should not be changed, especially at this point in time with the reporting due by mid-October. This creates problems in ensuring consistency in the work that Member States are undertaking. If such changes are unavoidable, they need to be communicated to the relevant persons in the Member States.
It was noted that while delays due to the technical problems are a burden on Member States, there is no possibility to extend the deadline for reporting as it is set by the Directive.
Action points
EEA to check status of the server problems and report back to official MSFD reporters, copied to WG DIKE, on latest development as soon as possible.
Member States were asked to send their comments in writing as they encounter issues so that they are addressed in a timely manner.
4.3 State of play on the use of national or regional 'fact sheets'
Germany gave a presentation here on the state of play in using decentralised reporting via 'fact-sheets'. It presented updates on how it has been using the monitoring fact sheets for the MSFD Art. 11 reporting. The EEA web form facility was used for reporting at the 'programme' level; while for the reporting of the sub-programmes they have been using their national website and their web-based monitoring manual. Missing fields relating to the Article 11 reporting format had been added in their national system. They had developed an XML export interface for the complete set of sub-programme questions. In addition, information on each sub-programme is available via a web link in field Q4l. Sub-programme factsheets have been developed for national and regional-level reporting. This has allowed Germany to adopt a decentralised approach for the reporting.
Discussion
The Commission welcomed the use of the decentralised approach and how it has been picked up in the regional context. It encouraged other Member States to build upon the work and use it for the next reporting cycle.
Several Member States made the link with the useful work that has been undertaken under the Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs). They specifically mentioned the HELCOM monitoring manual which facilitated some Member States’ national monitoring programmes; and the OSPAR factsheets which facilitated the work on how to address reporting at the regional and sub-regional levels; and the useful joint work between Bulgaria and Romania via a Commission support contract.
4.4 Methodology for Art. 12 assessment of MS monitoring programmes
The presentation by Milieu on the Art.12 assessment of the monitoring programmes can be accessed here. The overall aim is to use an approach comparable to the one followed for the assessments of Article 8-9-10 reports, reflecting on lessons learned from this, to be in line with Article 12 requirements and to be consistent with the reporting templates for Article 11.
The assessment will be based on the 10 key questions for the Art. 11 reporting, the more specific reporting questions, as well as the assessments of adequacy in respect to GES (Art. 9) and targets (Art. 10) already reported by Member States. A “reference list” is being introduced for each of the descriptors to enable the comparability of the assessments. This will provide a general framework to compare the elements reported by Member States with those commonly used at EU or regional (RSC) level for monitoring purposes. The lists have been developed based on existing EU legislation and on international/regional agreements (mainly RSCs); where there are no such EU/regional standards in place, the reference list is drawn from other sources, e.g. from CIS Technical Group work.
The expected outputs from the Art. 12 assessment include country and regional reports. The reports will include more graphs and visualisations for assessment and communication purposes. The text will remain the most important component, and efforts will be made to keep it concise.
Discussion
Several Member States asked about the background or the legal basis of introducing the “reference lists” as part of the assessment methodology. The Commission clarified that these lists are not going to be used by replacing any existing criteria already applicable, but they have been developed to facilitate the comparability and coherence of the assessment across Member States, and to make up for the fact that some of the GES and targets defined in 2012 by MS have gaps and inadequacies. The main focus of the assessment of the monitoring programmes will be against the GES and targets set by each Member State, with the reference lists providing additional context to facilitate a common discussion.