ESA_14-2016_03


Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
Common Implementation Strategy
Working Group on Economic and Social Analysis (WG ESA)
10h00-17h30: 29 February 2016
Room BU5 0/C, European Commission, DG ENV, Avenue de Beaulieu, 1160 Brussels
Agenda item: / 3a
Document: / ESA_14-2016_03
Title: / Feedback from MSCG_Minutes of the 17th MSCG
Prepared by: / DG Environment and Milieu
Date prepared: / V1 19-11-2015
V2 12-01-2016
Background:

The Members of the ESA are invited to:

Consider this draft minutes of the previous ESA CG meeting for validation.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Common Implementation Strategy
17th Meeting of the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG) / MSCG
Brussels
5 November 2015
Document: / Draft Minutes: 17th meeting of the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG), Brussels, 5 November 2015 – Deadline for comments: 4 January 2016
Title / Minutes of the 17th MSCG meeting
Date prepared: / V1 19-11-2015
V2 12-01-2016
Prepared by: / DG Environment and Milieu

DRAFT SUMMARY MINUTES

1  Welcome and introduction

The meeting was chaired by Matjaz Malgaj, Head of the Marine, Environment and Water Industry Unit, European Commission, DG Environment. A list of participants is given in Annex 1. The papers and presentations for the meeting are listed in Annex 2, and are available on CIRCABC.

2  Adoption of the agenda and of the Summary Minutes of the 16th MSCG meeting

One Member State stated that it regrets that there is no draft Commission Decision text being presented to the MSCG participants. Furthermore, one Member State added that documents which require in depth discussions, feedback and approval by the Working Groups should be circulated well in advance, as participants often do not have enough time to read them ahead of these meetings. One stakeholder also commented that the MSCG should have the opportunity to discuss the licencing work being done. The Commission took note of the comments. The Commission clarified that the Commission Decision Review process has been slightly postponed because of the delays in the technical work and that it had been decided to present to the MSCG the overall approach followed for the GES Decision review, rather than technical details for only a few of the descriptors. .

As such, the meeting approved the Draft Agenda and the summary minutes of the meeting of 4-5 May 2015.

3  Preparations for Marine Directors' meeting

Jean-Paul Lickes from Luxembourg presented the Joint Directors' meeting and the workshop which is planned to take place on 25-27 November in Luxembourg.

The Luxembourg team clarified that the parallel workshops will be discussing the same topics; as such it is not necessary that Member States send additional experts to attend all four of the groups. The purpose of the proposed structure is to allow participants to focus on one group without having the need to switch to other thematic groups and to see if discussions will yield the same outcomes. The agenda and background documents will be sent to participants ASAP.

It was noted that for future meetings, the fact that in some Member States the Marine, Nature and/or Water Directors are the same person should be kept in mind when organising these back-to-back or parallel meetings, as to ensure that all Member State can have the opportunity to participate in all the meetings taking place.

The presentation can be accessed on CIRCABC.

4  Implementation of the Directive

4.1  Transposition; reporting on articles 8, 9 and 10 and 11 (state of affairs)

The Commission presented the state-of play on pilots and infringements under the MSFD and on the reporting of Article 8, 9, 10 and 11.

Malta has reported on Article 11 at the end of October 2015. Poland requested that its “colour code” is changed from red to another colour to indicate that they have not replied to the Commission Recommendation because they have not received one. Belgium has also sent a reply to the Commission Recommendations on Article 8, 9 and 10 and so this should be updated in the table in the presentation.

Some Member States asked if the Programme of Measures as a whole or each one of the measures is to be subject to the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA Directive) and if the whole marine strategy or the Programmes of Measures only should be subject to the Strategic Environmental Assessment. Furthermore, a Member State asked which types of measures will have to be subjected to an SEA.

The Commission clarified that the applicability of the SEA Directive on measures should be done on a case-by-case basis, by Member States, depending on the measure itself but recalled that some information about the applicability of EIA and SEA Directives was already included in the "Recommendation on Programmes of Measures and Exceptions". The Commission will circulate information on the SEA Directive and its applicability on the MSFD PoMs.

The presentation can be accessed on CIRCABC.

4.2  Commission Article 12 assessment of Article 11 reporting – state of play and main findings

Milieu (consultant) presented the state of play of the Article 12 assessments of the Article 11 reporting, as well as the main findings from the assessment exercise.

The Commission clarified that it will produce (1) a report on the overall situation at EU level accompanied by (2) a staff working document containing recommendations to Member States, based on the technical assessments produced by the consultant.

The Commission clarified that the Article 11 report consultation answers are being reviewed and will be taken into account in the final version of the reports. The Commission also stated that the Article 11 assessment results package will be published in the first semester of 2016.

The presentation can be accessed on CIRCABC.

4.3  Update on relevant support projects

The Commission presented a series of updates on relevant support projects covering the Baltic Boost, ActionMed, EcApRHA and MISTIC'SEAS projects.

The Member States were also invited to take note of Experiences from the three New Knowledge pilot projects: BALSAM, IRIS-SES and JMP NS/CS, which contribute to improve coherence in the implementation of the MSFD and related international legislation. The details are presented in the following paper on CIRBABC.

In addition, WG MSCG members were asked to contribute to the ongoing project on MSFD and licencing, authorisation and permitting procedures. The consultants have sent a questionnaire to Member States and the Commission would be appreciative to receive feedback on it. There will be a workshop taking place in February 2016 on the topic, back to back with the next MSCG meeting. Finally, the Commission also announced that the results of the questionnaire, along with the desk study and the workshop results will be fed into a report mapping Member State practices.

Several Member States commented that the questionnaire which has been circulated is very heavy and detailed, requiring the input of several authorities within Member States. As such it was requested for the deadline of the input submission to be extended. Another Member State noted that the content of the questionnaire in terms of the law and regulations it is referencing is out of date and needs to be reworked.

Two Member States commented that they support this project as the results will be very useful at the EU and Member State level in understanding the state-of-play better. While the questionnaire is heavy, it asks important questions. One Member State commented that they will do their best to fill in as much as possible, and clearly indicate where the replies are not considered complete. One additional comment was that Member States should ask for the questionnaire in Word format to facilitate the process of answering it.

One stakeholder (NAVI) commented that it is very important for stakeholders to get involved in this work, as they have great experience in licencing. Furthermore, they added that the timeline of the questionnaires and workshop is very tight; as such the results might be partially adequate. The Commission commented that they will look into how to involve key stakeholders in this work, and ensure that it is done so with enough time in advance as to ensure effective input. Bulgaria requested to be added to the distribution list for the questionnaire.

The Commission also reported on the PCG meeting the previous day. Since the PCG will no longer discuss the details of the projects, the Commission plans to create an online platform to upload all the information in one central location (part of the Competence Centre of the JRC). The MSCG members are asked to review the draft repository[1] and provide feedback to the Commission.

The PCG heard about programming approaches undertaken by SCAR-fish[2] and JPI Oceans. Finally, WG MSCG was informed that PCG had been consulted via email on seven questions about the experience with past support grants and preferences for future support actions. It had transpired that not everybody had received this email, so it was going to be circulated again to Member States for feedback by 18.11.2015.

The presentation can be accessed on CIRCABC.

4.4  Information from Regional Sea Convention and Member State activities

Several Member States and the RSC’s updated the WG MSCG on the activities undertaken at the regional level.

-  Spain, France and Portugal have held a trilateral meeting on 22-23.09.2015 with the aim of discussing the common view of the implementation of the MSFD in the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast as well as Macaronesia. For the first cycle of the implementation of the MSFD: monitoring and PoMs were discussed and the following joint issues to address were identified: MPAs monitoring is an area to tackle in a coordinated manner (possibly agreeing on a common monitoring in these MPAs). Marine litter and noise joint monitoring is also being considered. Regarding the PoMs – the countries are at different phases in the process with Portugal having finished, France having almost finished, while Spain in the process of drafting the PoMs. For the second implementation cycle: the three Member States discussed methodological solutions for the risk assessment and agreed on taking on board the risk based approach. But criteria to identify risks are necessary at the sub-regional level (considering common risk criteria for the Bay of Biscay and Iberian coast and Macaronesia). Regarding the GES determination and targets at the sub-regional level; the agreement is that Portugal will prepare a roadmap of how to address these issues at the sub-regional level. Finally, Portugal and Spain will continue efforts to include all the Macaronesia areas under OSPAR.

-  France, Italy and Spain have held a trilateral meeting on 22.10.2015 discussing MSFD implementation in the Western Mediterranean sub-region. Common actions for monitoring and PoMs were agreed: (1) action needed on recreational fisheries and guidance at EU level would be very useful; (2) there is the need for coordination of reporting with the WFD. Also, it was recognised that there is an opportunity in the WFD review to re-enforce the link with the MSFD especially in the case of marine litter; (3) Maritime Spatial Planning implementation guidance in relation with the MSFD is needed. It was clarified that more detailed conclusions will be submitted to the Commission.

-  Romania informed the MSCG about the Bulgarian-Romanian cooperation efforts through the Commission project; with an outcome of 18 common measures between the two Member States and a roof report.

-  HELCOM informed the MSCG about its activities focusing on the preparation of HOLAS assessment which includes a comparison of the status with the initial assessment. In addition there is a roof report for the MSFD for the Baltic Sea, with the first version planned to be ready in January 2017, and updated in early 2018. This includes work on the spatial distribution of pressures (pressure-impact indices) and proposed Commission Decision review proposals; an assessment of the status of environment based on indicators (including ICES indicators) with a workshop on assessment for biodiversity which has already taken place; the assessment of social and economic impact; and identification of ecosystems services. There has also been cooperation between HELCOM and OSPAR – with the two RSC’s having looked at their indicators to see similarities and differences (all indicators which are intended to be used for 2018 are covered). Opportunities to join forces have been identified – for example HELCOM will look into the OSPAR protocols for the hazardous substances. For some indicators, comparability is expected but for some others not.

-  OSPAR informed the MSCG about its activities focusing on the production of the roof report on measures by spring 2016. Regarding the intermediate assessment in 2017 – timescales are challenging; but a structure has been agreed. A 2-page assessment sheet per descriptor and a longer paper will be produced. OSPAR is also developing an online tool to use the data in the sheets. Finally, coordination with other regional sea bodies is taking place: ICES, HELCOM and OSPAR are cooperating on mapping of data; OSPAR and HELCOM are also coordinating on noise, while efforts are being made to coordinate with UNEP/MAP and HELCOM on marine litter.

-  Member States also informed that there have been UNEP/MAP efforts including; a technical meeting in Rome where EcAP adopted IMAP; and the next meeting of the contracting parties being planned in February 2016.

5  Common Implementation Strategy

5.1  A) Points for adoption (in accordance with Article 6 RoP)

5.1.1  Reporting on Programmes of Measures (Art. 13) and on exceptions (Art. 14)

The Commission presented the guidance document on the reporting of the Programme of Measures and exceptions developed in WG DIKE. The document was reviewed following the test phase of the web reporting tool that took place over the summer and the feedback from the Member States. One Member State suggested that some flexibility should be possible in order to report existing measures. Before adopting the document, the Member States asked that the following changes are made:

-  The term “non-binding” was introduced on page 5 of the document, below the box on Article 13, in the sentence “This document provides non-binding guidance on reporting on MSFD PoMs and on exceptions”.

-  Page 18, the sentence “This detail should cover, as far as possible, the same type of information made available for the WFD measures and the new MSFD measures, particularly a short description of the measure and the relational information on pressures, characteristics, descriptors, environmental targets and KTMs” has been shortened and becomes “This detail should cover, as far as possible, a short description of the measure and the relational information on pressures, characteristics, descriptors, environmental targets and KTMs” in order to better highlight the difference between what needs to be reported for existing measures and for new measures.