DIKE DG/2013/04rev

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
Common Implementation Strategy
Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (WG DIKE)
Drafting Group on Monitoring
4 June 2013, 0930-1800
DG Environment, BU-5 Room 0/B, Avenue de Beaulieu 5, 1160 Brussels
Document: / DIKE DG/2013/04rev
Title: / Minutes of the drafting group of WG DIKE - FINAL
Prepared by: / DG Environment & Milieu
Date prepared: / 04-09-2013
Background / Draft minutes were circulated on 31 July to WG DIKE for comment by 31 August. The minutes have been finalised on the basis of comments received by: DE.

Minutes of the drafting group of WG DIKE

1.Welcome and introduction

The meeting was chaired by Joachim d’Eugenio and David Connorof DG Environment's Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit. The Commission opened the meeting, thanking all participants for coming to Brussels.A list of participants is given in Annex 1. The Commission indicated that the primary aim of the ‘drafting group’ meetingwas to review the document ‘Reporting on monitoring programmes’ (DIKE DG/2013/02) with a particular focus on further developing the draft reporting sheet. The meeting agreed to the draft agenda (DIKE DG/2013/01).Documents and presentations for the meeting areavailable on CIRCABC[1].

2.Update on Common Implementation Strategy activities of relevance to WG DIKE Drafting Group on monitoring

The Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG) adopted the MSFD recommendations for monitoring[2]on 7 May 2013, which included the 10 headline assessment questions for reporting on monitoring programmes. The EU Marine Directors welcomed the option for decentralised reporting at their meeting on 30 May 2013. The meeting noted the outcomes of the 7th meeting of WG DIKE (DIKE 7/2013/21).

3.Reporting mechanisms for 2014 MSFD monitoring programmes (Art.11), including defining relationship of decentralised and joint reporting to 'central' reporting

Whilst there is a formal reporting requirement to the Commission, starting in 2014 and every six years thereafter, the Commission is aiming to keep this to a minimum if more detailed information held by Member States and Regional Sea Conventions is also available to the Commission, possibly through use ofweb-based‘fact sheets’.The 10 questions from the Recommendation already provide Member States with a means to self-assess their monitoring programmes against the requirements of the Directive; the responses of MS to these questions will enable the Commission to undertake the Article 12 assessment.

Member States indicated it was too early to commit to one of the three scenarios presented in DIKE DG/2013/02. Elements that need to be further clarified are:

  1. What is the minimum information to be reported to the Commission?A balance needs to be found between the information needed by the Commission for its Article 12 assessment to assess the adequacy, consistency and comparability of monitoring programmes and the interests of Member States to reduce the reporting burden, to minimize duplication in reporting and to invest in a national information system.The minimum reporting requirements also depend upon the EU-scale products to be developed in WISE-Marine.
  2. What will be the format to report to the Commission? Reporting through XML is better orientated towards numerical and categorical values and away from textual information which is more difficult to analyse. Can the information to be reported to the Commission be easily exported from the national and regional fact sheets?What are the workflows and the processes in a decentralised reporting system? Which structure/template would a national or regional information system need to allow for easy exporting?Is there still a need for paper reports?
  3. What information is to be held in national and/or regional web-based fact sheets and at which level of detail?

During the DG meeting, only the first question on the minimum reporting requirements was addressed. Further discussion on the other questions would be had at theTechnical Sub-Group meeting on 4 July and atthe meeting proposed by Germany on the web-based fact sheets (planned for September -date not yet fixed).

It was agreed that the reporting tools and reporting sheet contentshould be testedby volunteer Member States. A representative set of users is needed, especially for the decentralised reporting.

One Member State asked whether the lists of indicators, GES definitions and targets reported in 2012 can be changed in order to match with the monitoring programmes. The Commission answered that this is possible, provided the Member State officially amends the 2012 reports. The format in which the amendment needs to be made does not necessarily require a renewed submission of the reporting sheets; it could possibly be done as an official letter containing the updated list of indicators, GES definitions and targets. It was noted that some monitoring (e.g. for new indicators) may not link directly back to 2012 reports but could be reflected in 2018 reporting.

4.Refinement of 'minimum' reporting requirement – draft reporting sheet

a)Defining monitoring programmes and sub-programme - comments on Annex 2

Annex 2 of DIKE DG/2013/02 presents a proposed common list of monitoring programmes to be used for Article 11 reporting. In total, 12 monitoring programmes are proposed: one monitoring programme per descriptor, except for D1-D3-D4-D6 which are split into 5 monitoring programmes: 1) birds, 2) mammals and reptiles, 3) fish and cephalopods, 4) seabed habitats, 5) water column habitats. During the meeting MS expressed a wish to keep D3 as a separate monitoring programme from D1-D4-D6, giving a recommended set of 13 programmes for 2014 reporting. Use of a standard set of programmes by all MS would facilitate regional cooperation and the Commission's Article 12 assessment.

Defining sub-programmes:

  1. These could be developed to cover a number of topics (e.g. onbenthos, plankton, nutrients, etcfor Descriptor 5 on eutrophication).The number of sub-programmes is flexible per Descriptor.
  2. The purpose of each sub-programme,e.g. oriented towards state/impact, pressures, activities ormeasures, needed to be identified; multiple labels are possible and the categories were not meant to constrain how the sub-programmes were defined as indicators and measurement data (e.g. nutrient concentrations) could be relevant for state, pressures and measures monitoring.
  3. In order to provide more clarity and to facilitate better comparison across Member States, one Member State proposed to develop concrete examples and use these as basis for discussion.
  4. Some sub-programmes would be relevant to several Programmes. A means to cross reference them was needed.

b)Review of headline assessment questions on general and programme level

The 10 headline assessment questions from the Recommendation had been developed into a minimum reporting requirement, as presented in Annex 1 of DIKE DG/2013/02; this comprised a Summary Information element, designed to capture information in a standardised way for easy analysis, and a Description element which would allow further elaboration of the MS response in free text formator with a web-link (or reference in a paper report) where more information can be found, if needed.

The meeting discussed each of the questions andproposed the following with respect to the content of the assessment questions:

  1. Question 1 and other questions with ‘Timeline to fill the gaps’: giving precision to a particular year was considered too prescriptive and should be replaced by ‘in time for the 2018 reporting (assessment)’.
  2. Question 3: more guidance on this was requested, but the Commission advised that the topics were of lower priority and considered it adequate to allow the MS to respond as they thought appropriate.‘Provide web link’ could link to the web-based fact sheetsif available. Otherwise, theMember State would be free to provide a link to the information deemed relevant.
  3. Question 4: the following changes are suggested:
  • Delete the Summary Information section 'description';
  • Move 'year started' to sub-programme level as it is to be answered specifically for each sub-programme;
  • Clarify ‘End date’incase monitoring has already ended (e.g. investigative short-term monitoring);
  • Move 'geographic coverage' to sub-programme;
  • ‘Which organisations responsible for monitoring’refers to the competent authority (previously designated under Article 7). It is not asking for a list of institutes implementing monitoring in practice but, if a Member State prefers, it can in addition to the competent authority also list the institutes involved in the monitoring itself.
  1. Questions 5/6/7: Section on ‘adequacy’ - split between the adequacy of thedata collection and the adequacy of the assessment methods to process the raw data. The possibility to tick more than one reason as to why a monitoring programme is not yet adequate should be foreseen.
  2. Question 5: Delete the section on ‘list the GES characteristics which are considered most significant in determining the distance from GES’–this is not part of Art. 11 reporting, rather Art. 9.
  3. Question 6: Section on ‘adequacy’ - Delete ‘how often will the targets be updated?’ and point B. ‘List the targets with an indication of how well the data collected can be used to assess the targets (such as traffic lights system or an indication of confidence)’.
  4. Question 7: Change formulation –as the Programme of Measures (PoM) only needs to be established in 2015 (art. 13), it would bedifficult to report on the monitoring of the performance of measures if the measures themselves have not yet been identified. The existing monitoring programmes however may address the monitoring of existing measuresand may bepart of reporting requirements under the relevant EU legislation; duplication of reporting under MSFD is to be avoided.
  5. Question 8: Change 'compatibility of other monitoring programmes' to ‘Which monitoring programmes contribute to and are compatible with the MSFD monitoring programme?’. In addition, programmes of Regional Sea Conventions can be termed more generally.The list proposed might also not be complete. A fixed dropdown list will limit the flexibility to link to all monitoring programmes, including those currently under revision.

c)Review of headline assessment questions on sub-programme level

Following changes are proposed to question 9:

  1. ‘Method used for monitoring’ is broad. It can refer to the sampling method or the method for data analysis and could be specific for each parameter. In addition, one parameter (e.g. Chlorophylla) could be measured by more than one methodology, e.g. by water sampling and satellite imagery. If monitoring would involve different methods, it could be considered as a separate sub-programme.One Member State considered a proliferation of sub-programmes at parameter level would not be appropriate.In order to ensure comparability, a dropdown list of methodologies can be proposed, e.g. based on the guidance JRC is developing at the moment.
  2. Duplication of reporting underother directives (e.g. WFD, HD) and Art. 8 should be avoided if possible, but a link could be used to where the information is readily available.
  3. ‘Density of sampling’is a difficult concept which could be difficult to report effectively as a means to check comparability of monitoring programmes. Density of sampling is difficult to report especiallyfor biodiversity which may not have fixed monitoring stations. One Member State indicated that information on the spatial resolution of monitoring is available as metadata in national and regional (e.g. ICES) databases and the possibility to make available GIS maps of the monitoring network. It is mentioned that the locations, frequency and parameters monitored may change as a consequence of the risk-based approach. Member States were invited to provide further ideas on the reporting of density.
  4. The ‘QA/QC’ question should be associated with the ‘method used’ question as both quality aspects can be covered by methodological guidelines. Member States were invited to provide further suggestions on reporting of QA/QC.

One Member State questioned the appropriateness of making available, as part of question 9, detailed information on the spatial and temporal resolution of monitoring, parameters/matrix, methods and QA/QC in the proposed format, given that this information is already available in national and regional documentation and as metadata with the collected monitoring data in national and international databases. As such it could be made easily available in a decentralised manner (see fact sheets and Art. 19(3) MSFD).

5.Timelines for further work

The timelinesfor further work, based on the timetable agreed by the Marine Directors, were reviewed and further detail added:

What / When / Who
Revise document, based on DG meeting / By 12 June / COM
Review document / By 30 June / WG DIKE
Discuss technical reporting aspects/mechanisms / 4 July / DIKE TSG
Update document, based on WG comments / By 12 July / COM
Final comments – written procedure. Basis for prep. of XML schemas / By 31 July / WG DIKE cc MSCG
Prepare database & draft XML schemas / By 20 September -tbc / COM/Atkins
Prepare paper on reporting sheet & draft schemas / By 23 September / COM
Workshop on national and regional fact sheets / September (tbc) / DE
Consider paper / 7-8 October / WG DIKE
Testing of database/schemas / By 31 October / MS volunteers
Finalized paper on Reporting Sheet / 5 November / COM
Adopt paper on Reporting Sheet / 12-13 Nov. / MSCG
Finalise database/schemas / 31 Dec / COM/Atkins

1

DG Environment: Unit C.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry

DIKE DG/2013/04rev

Annex 1 – List of participants at DIKEDrafting Group meeting, 4 June 2013

BELGIUM / Devolder / Mia / BMM-UGMM-MUMM
BULGARIA / Dimitrov Parlichev / Georgi / Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water
CROATIA / Dadić / Vlado / Croatian Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries
FINLAND / Bruun / Jan-Erik / Marine Research Centre, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)
FRANCE / Girard / Magali / Ministère de l'écologie, du développement durable et de l'énergie
FRANCE / Gözler / Cecile / Ministère de l'écologie, du développement durable et de l'énergie
GERMANY / Weiss / Andrea / MSFD-Secretariat Function for the Federal Ministry of the Environment/Umweltbundesamt
GREECE / Paramana / Theodora / University of Athens
IRELAND / Cronin / Richard / Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Ireland
ITALY / Giorgi / Giordano / Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale
MALTA / Borg / Duncan / Malta Environment and Planning Authority
NETHERLANDS / van der Graaf / Sandra / Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, RWS Centre for Water Management
POLAND / Krzyminski / Wlodzimierz / The Institute of Meteorology and Water Management
SLOVENIA / Peterlin / Monika / Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia
SWEDEN / Sahlsten / Elisabeth / Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, SwAM
UNITED KINGDOM / Moxon / Richard / Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
HELCOM / Kaitaranta / Joni / Helsinki Commission Secretariat
Connor / David / ENV - C.2
Cools / Jan / Milieu Ltd
D'Eugenio / Joachim / ENV - C.2
Michel / Cyril / ENV - C.2

1

DG Environment: Unit C.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry

[1]

[2] 2013. Monitoring under Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Recommendations for implementation and reporting. pp25.