ESA-03/2015/Draft Minutes
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)Common Implementation Strategy
Minutes of Working Group on Economic and Social analysis - meeting
(WG ESA)
9 March 2015, 14:00-18:00
10 March 2015, 9:30-16.30
Room 0C, European Commission, Conference Centre Albert Borchette, Rue Froissart 36, B-1040 Brussels
Document: / ESA-03/2014/DRAFT Minutes
Title: / Draft Minutes of the WG ESA – meeting
Date prepared: / 31 March 2015
Prepared by: / DG Environment & InterSus/Milieu (Eduard Interwies)
Background / Draft version for commenting by the members of the WG ESA before the next ESA-meeting (26th & 27th October 2015)
1 Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda
The meeting was co-chaired by DG Environment of European Commission (Lydia Martin-Roumegas and Joachim d'Eugenio), by UK (Dominic Pattinson) and Sweden (Max Vretborn). The Commission, the UK and Sweden opened the meeting and welcomed all participants. The agenda was adopted as such.
The list of participants is given in Annex 2. The agenda, papers and presentations for the meeting are listed in Annex 3, and are all available on CIRCABC (direct links to the different documents are provided in Annex 3).
2 Adoption of the minutes of the last ESA
Some questions were raised on the follow-up activities that took place after the last ESA-meeting. As a result, the Commission informed that the co-financing document was forwarded to other DGs which considered it to be useful, but no specific comments were received. Regarding the document on best practices on public participation and potential further work on the issue, the MSCG discussed this topic at its two last meetings. It was concluded to share the document as a “technical document” and that no further work of the issue will take place in the near future, thus also no further inputs are required by the ESA-WG.
A specific point was raised regarding the summary of discussions under agenda item 6.3 of the minutes. Based on this remark, the information was added to the minutes that the issue of WFD-MSFD-linkages was raised, and more specifically, if and how WFD-exemptions and MSFD-exceptions are linked, but that the discussion did not reach a clear agreement regarding this point.
After this modification, the minutes of the last ESA-meeting were finalized and adopted as such.
3 State of play with respect to programs of measures in various Member States and Regional Sea Conventions
Rob van der Veeren (NL) presented the document prepared regarding this topic. Information from 18 MS is included, showing many interesting practical approaches but also open questions for further clarification. Three MS (Portugal, Spain, Germany) presented the work done on the POM, focussing mostly on the economic analysis approaches.
Discussion:
All members of the ESA-WG thanked NL and all involved for the excellent work done with the “state-of-play”-document, which was considered to be very useful, since an exchange of experiences is a key function of the ESA WG. While some Member States saw this document as a “living document” that should be updated regularly, it was agreed to finalize it as a “snapshot” of the current situation and repeat a similar exercise at a later stage in order to share “lessons learned” for the second implementation cycle.
The presentations of three MS and the tour-de-table regarding the current status of the POM-development in the different MS showed that while significant work is done in all countries, differences exist on the progress so far. Some MS are still in the process of identifying existing measures and reforming the risk analysis not having stated with the economic analysis yet, while others already have a draft POM ready which is in the public consultation phase.
Some of the more general points raised (e.g. clarifying the risk-based approach) should be part of the “orientation debate” within the MSCG for the second MSFD-implementation cycle.
Conclusions / next steps:
All participants welcomed this exchange of experiences as a very helpful support for their work. The state of play-document should be finalized soon after an editorial check by the Commission/NL; no guidance "status“/approval by Marine Strategy Coordination Group needed. This document will not be updated on a regular basis, but similar “exchange of experiences” exercises will be done at future relevant stages in the MSFD-implementation.
4a Commission activities: Report on Workshop on coordination implementation of Nature, Biodiversity, Water and Marine legislation
Based on the information document regarding the outcome of the Workshop on coordinated implementation of Nature, Biodiversity, Marine and Water policies that took place in December 2014, the Commission (Joachim D´Eugenio) presented the context, objectives, content, key outcomes of this event as well as next steps planned.
Discussion:
The issue of various possibilities of financing related measures was discussed; here, sharing of MS-experiences gained in the process of Programme of Measures (POM)-preparation and their implementation is seen as a valuable way forward.
Regarding the use of RDP-financing for the implementation of WFD-measures, discussions between the MS and the COM are ongoing.
Conclusions / next steps:
The Member States are asked to forward any ideas/suggestions for the joint Directors-meeting (which is prepared by a dedicated preparatory/steering group consisting of a number of Member States and the Commission taking place end of November (Luxemburg-presidency) through their Marine Strategy Coordination Group-representative.
4b Commission activities: Report on Marine Protected Areas, in reference to article 21 of MSFD
The Commission report on the progress in establishing Marine Protected Areas (in reference to the Art. 21 of the MSFD) was presented by Anna Karasszon (COM).
Discussion:
The role of the Deltares report "Proposal for an assessment method of the ecological coherence of networks of marine protected areas in Europe" in the Commission report was discussed. It was clarified by the COM that while the European MPA-networks are neither coherent nor representative, there will be a reference to this study; this work is a first attempt to develop an EU-wide methodology and clearly not legally binding.
Conclusions / next steps:
This was an information agenda item, no specific next steps on this issue for the ESA-WG.
4c Commission activities: Building up the knowledge base on the marine environment, notably on socio-economic aspects
The current COM/JRC activity regarding building up the knowledge base on the marine environment, notably on socio-economic aspects was presented by Guenter Hoermandinger (COM).
Discussion:
Various aspects related to the content of the activity were discussed, e.g. the role of the SEA-Directive in the MSFD-Programme of Measures development and the marine modelling toolbox and it´s links to other ongoing (and completed) activities. Also the focus of the modelling toolbox on eutrophication was discussed, as well as that support on other topics is also needed, e.g. on the topic of sea bed integrity/protection.
Regarding the socio-economic aspects, it was mentioned that the earlier work of the ESA-WG (from 2011) as well as the results of the STAGES-project should be considered since it is of direct relevance.
Conclusions / next steps:
No specific next steps on this issue for the ESA-WG. The COM will further develop the structure and content of the activity based also on these initial discussions at the ESA-WG.
4d Commission activities: Support contract on "Mapping and assessment of marine ecosystem services and link to good environmental status (phase I)"
Myra van der Neulen (Deltares) presented the objectives, workplan and expected outcomes of this support contract, as well as raised some questions for the ESA-WG, esp. regarding potential stronger linkages between this project and the ESA-WG.
Discussion:
While it was not possible to go into detail through the questions raised, various issues regarding the mapping and assessment of marine ecosystem services were raised by the Member States. These included the potential use of this work for the marine spatial planning work/Directive, questions regarding the links to “blue growth” and the work done by the Member States regarding mapping/assessment in the context of the biodiversity strategy. Since there are various activities related to ecosystem services both at national but also EU/global level, duplication of work is a challenge and should be avoided. In addition, there are many different methodologies/typologies used, so there is an issue of coherence. Building links to the different regional and EU-wide activities on assessment methodologies is seen as beneficial here. Overall, practical approaches for dealing with the lack of data are needed.
Conclusions / next steps:
Some Member States expressed an interest in participating/supporting this project in order to ensure the linkages to MSFD-implementation; Deltares to send out via e-mail how Member States might get specifically involved and invite them to express an interest in doing so.
5a Other MSFD CIS groups activities: Article 15 of MSFD
The Commission (Clementine Leroy) presented a discussion document prepared by the COM on Article 15 MSFD and esp. on how to deal with incoming requests on this Article.
Discussion:
An updated version of the discussion document (based on the comments received by the MSCG) which will be in the format of a "guidance document", will be presented to the next MSCG meeting (May 2015) for endorsement.
Conclusions / next steps:
No specific next steps on this issue for the ESA-WG.
5b. Other MSFD CIS groups activities: WG DIKE on Programmes of Measures reporting
The Commission (Lydia Martin-Roumegas) presented the outcomes of last meeting of the DIKE-WG, including a timeline until March 2016 for POM-reporting activities
Discussion:
The issue regarding the timing of the next DIKE-meeting was clarified. The question was raised on what will be included regarding socio-economics in the reporting sheets/if the information required will remain the same as in the POM-recommendation/Annex II (esp. regarding the “open questions”). The Commission confirmed that nothing different will be asked for from what was agreed, so the basis for the reporting sheets is the Annex II. Since the aim is to have a “light” reporting, not all details of all measures will have to be provided, links will be sufficient.
Conclusions / next steps:
No specific next steps on this issue for the ESA-WG.
5c. Other MSFD CIS groups activities: WG GES review
The Commission (Anna Cheilari) presented a summary of the WG GES decision review.
Discussion:
The issue of “one-out all-out” was raised, as well as that the natural status needs to include human impacts. At the same time, these are topics that are discussed in the WG GES.
Conclusions / next steps:
This was an information agenda item, no specific next steps on this issue for the ESA-WG.
6 Future WG ESA work programme (2016-2018)
The Commission clarified that the overall CIS-work programme for 2016-2018 has to be finalized in the second half of 2015. Therefore, the timing for the WG ESA-work programme development has been aligned to this timetable, leading to the chance to have a further orientation debate during this meeting and a draft work programme to be developed based in this exchange over the coming months.
The Commission (Lydia Martin-Roumegas) presented an initial list of elements for the 2016-2018 WG ESA work programme, based on preparatory work by the COM but also integrating ideas collected during the first day of the meeting.
Discussion:
The different elements where discussed in more detail as well as additional potential topics raised. In general, it was agreed that a further specification of the proposals is needed including the specific outputs expected in order to better define and agree the scope of work to be done.
Regarding the proposal no. 1 (updating the ESA 2010-IA-guidance), it was agreed to initially check (by a small group of MS) if/which parts of the guidance need to be modified in order to keep the revision limited but useful for the Member States (“update what needs to be revised”). While many aspects of the guidance content have not changed, there are some things that could be out of date/could be added/refined (issues raised were adding good illustrations/experiences for the cost-of degradation/use of assessment, the RSC-perspective, the link to the blue growth perspective, possible sources of financing etc.). It does not seem that a change to the methods proposed/a major review of the document is necessary. UK is considering whether to volunteer for this activity.
Regarding the proposal No. 2 (developing marine knowledge base/modelling toolbox), the Commission clarified that further specification of the work contents regarding the modelling toolbox will be done and shared, with the WG ESA linking to the socio-economic perspective. Thus, the exact linkages to this activity/work input by WG ESA need to be further specified.
Regarding the proposal No. 3 (Define the information needs in relation to the impact/efficiency of measure, in relation to the preparation and implementation of the programme of measures), it was proposed to start with a (specific, limited) list of questions "from economists to natural scientists“, in order to then identify how (pragmatically – for the 2nd cycle) the gaps can be filled.
Regarding the proposal No. 4 (Mapping, assessment and valuation of ecosystem services), it was mentioned that this could also be linked to the natural capital approach and possibly to the Cost of Degradation work. Also here, it needs to be specified what the WG ESA-role might be.
Regarding the proposal No. 5 (Sharing best practices of POM-implementation), this is seen a central element of the WG ESA and is ongoing work. It is proposed to focus more generally on sharing experiences instead of best practices. The specific content and related deliverables/outcomes are to be discussed/specified in the upcoming work programme.
Regarding the proposal No. 6 (Sharing the best practices in licensing, permitting and authorisations of marine activities (linked to MSFD implementation)), this is seen also as part of the overall “orientation debate” within the MSCG for the second MSFD-implementation cycle. At the same time, an exchange within the WG ESA on the issue for sharing experiences (and not best practices) closely linking to the MSFD-measures and focussing on socio-economic aspects is considered to be useful. While this could be part of the 2016-2018 work programme of the WG ESA, it is proposed that this exchange can start already at the October 2015 - meeting of the group. Thus, the COM will invite the Member States to present their experiences at this next meeting.