Ad Hoc group on monitoring - concepts and reporting
22-23 January 2013
DG ENV, BU5, Brussels
Document: / Minutes of the meeting (DRAFT)
Date prepared: / 01-02-2013
Prepared by: / DG Environment & Milieu
Number: / MSCG/9/2013/3
Agenda Item: / 5
The draft minutes have been prepared by Milieu following AdHoc Monitoring meeting. MSCG is invited to take this draft document as background information. The document will be circulated among participants and will be adopted during next GES WG in March.
DRAFT MINUTES
1 Welcome and Introduction
The meeting was chaired by Joachim d’Eugenio, Deputy Head of the Marine Environment and Water Industries Unit. A list of participants is given in Annex 1. The papers annotated during the meeting and presentations for the meeting are listed in Annex 2, and are all available on CIRCACB[1]. The Commission opened the meeting, thanking all participants for coming to Brussels.
The aim of this meeting was to discuss the conceptual strategy on monitoring under the MSFD, from a content and procedural point of view. Two documents were presented in this meeting: 1) the concept paper on MSFD monitoring programmes, including an outline for a (JRC-led) guidance document on monitoring, as input for WG GES and 2) the approach to reporting on monitoring programmes, as input for WG DIKE. Both documents together form the strategy on monitoring. Comments on these documents were integrated as "track changes" during the meeting. The annotated papers are added in Annex 2.
2 Discussion of the concept paper on monitoring under the MSFD
The concept paper was discussed in terms of the overall approach and its content. The participants agreed on the main outline of the paper and gave recommendations to improve the concept paper, primarily on the key messages, scope and types of monitoring, the further process and the new guidance document on monitoring.
a) Recommendations on the concept paper
On key message 1, it is agreed that the on-going assessment of the environmental status is the overall aim of the monitoring programmes. It is however recommended to clarify the formulation, especially with respect to:
· the existing hierarchy in the specifications and conditions in the MSFD.
· the role of socio-economics in monitoring: socio-economics is part of the assessment, but doesn't require a monitoring programme.
Key messages 2 and 3 both refer to better coordination with other relevant monitoring programmes in order to achieve "coordinated", "compatible", "coherent" and "consistent" monitoring programmes. The participants proposed to clarify:
· The coordination of the monitoring programmes under the MSFD and the Regional Sea Conventions (RSC) and reconsider the overlap between key messages 2 and 3.
· The practical consequences and feedback process needed for the inclusion of the WFD monitoring programmes for coastal zones into the MSFD monitoring programme. Besides the coastal zones, the MSFD also covers the territorial waters, the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and the continental shelf beyond the EEZ.
· The terms "coordinated", "compatible", "coherent" and "consistent" by including definitions of those terms.
In accordance to the recommendations on key messages 2 and 3, the section on the "scope for monitoring" is to be revised.
In addition, new key messages have been proposed, namely:
· Key message 4: The need for comparability, interoperability and data access of the data collected by the monitoring programmes, based on elements partially included in key messages 2-4 thereby also providing a link to Art. 19(3) MSFD. (DE proposed to provide a formulation)
· Key message 5: Importance of having adaptive monitoring programmes. (DE proposed to provide a formulation)
· Key message 6: Linking the assessments to monitoring, including the use of a risk assessment approach as basis of a flexible monitoring design. In a risk-based approach, flexibility is needed on the choice of parameters, frequency and sampling density, depending on the varying risks from anthropogenic pressures to achieving GES. A second aspect of linking the assessments to monitoring is the challenge of the “sharpness” of the boundary between GES and non-GES; this encompasses both the degree of confidence in the data to determine status and, where needed, the provision of data to refine the boundary.
· Key message 7: The need to recognise different levels of maturity in monitoring programmes, for “immature” programmes to be developed jointly between Member States and the need to learn from Member States with more advanced monitoring programmes. (UK proposed to provide a formulation)
It is furthermore suggested not to use the terminology proposed in section 4-3 (types of monitoring), but rather refer to one monitoring programme with different elements and aims. It should be justified how different elements of the monitoring programmes (e.g. frequency, sampling density, parameters) are used and varied for different aims (e.g. status assessment, progress of targets). The principle of comparability of data is to be maintained. Adding a paragraph on "quality assurance" is also proposed.
b) Recommendations on the JRC-led guidance document on monitoring
The participants agreed in principle on the development of a guidance document on monitoring, led by JRC, based on the report on the methodological standards for assessment, monitoring and environmental targets by the JRC (Zampoukas et al., 2012) and ideas gathered on the recent workshops on eutrophication, contaminants and biodiversity. The aim of this new guidance document is:
· To focus on the gaps identified
· To gain a common understanding on MSFD monitoring as a means to facilitate European pan-comparability
· To provide guidance on how to obtain information on a timely basis for descriptors where standards are not available
To the outline proposed in Annex 1 of the concept paper, it is proposed to add the following sections: an executive summary, policy context, the process to coordinate within and between RSC, synergetic effects and an outlook that states issues and expectations for the future. A participant reminded to include the results on the feasibility assessment of the TSG Marine litter.
2.1 Discussion of the approach to reporting on monitoring programmes
The paper on the approach to reporting on monitoring programmes was discussed in terms of the overall approach and its specific content. The aim was to develop the content of the reporting sheets at an early stage, before the development of spreadsheet tables and IT tools.
The paper discusses which information needs to be collected to answer the question: are we in line with the requirements of the Directive and if not, what are we going to do about it? Is the design of the monitoring programme providing the data needed to assess environment status and progress with environmental targets?
The reporting format and content should speed up/simplify reporting, where possible, and aim to achieve consistency. The reporting on monitoring could potentially link to the provision of information needed for publication consultation according to Art. 19(2) MSFD and access to data from monitoring (Art. 19(3)), including a link to EMODnet where appropriate. Based on analysis of the requirements of the Directive, the proposed reporting is structured around key assessment questions with categorical answers at three levels: the general level, the programme level, and the detailed level. A draft reporting sheet can be found in Annex 2 of the reporting paper.
The participants agreed on the main outline of the paper and gave recommendations for its improvement. A number of recommendations were given as listed below.
· The reporting sheets should be tested with volunteering Member States before they are finalised. The testing should include, but not be limited to, programmes for descriptors D1-D4-D6. The need to develop a user-friendly interface to the database is requested in order to facilitate easy submission of data to the database by Member States. In order to fulfil the requirements of Art. 11 and Art. 19(3), there needs to be a distinction between what information can be defined at an early stage (Art. 11 reporting) and what is/will be variable information during implementation of programmes (which can be reflected as Art. 19(3) metadata).
· The reporting sheets should facilitate a pan-European comparison of the completeness, adequacy, consistency and coherence of monitoring programmes and resulting data/information.
· Two figures from the presentation of David Connor (DG ENV) are to be added to the paper, namely:
o The "data pyramid" figure illustrates three levels of a monitoring programme (data, data products and information about the programme itself). It also shows the possibility for use of a decentralised data system, where use of EMODnet or other systems could deliver Art. 19(3) requirements. Which data/information needs to be reported to DG ENV/ EEA and what can/should be managed locally needs further discussion. If information on monitoring programmes is already available in a structured way at the Member State level, filling out a reporting sheet with the same information could be simplified. DE proposed to use "fact sheets" and was invited to present this approach in more detail at the next WG DIKE meeting[2].
o The "eutrophication" scheme illustrates the general concept of the structure of monitoring programmes under the MSFD. The overall programme for a descriptor is expected to be composed of different components or sub-programmes to address, for example, monitoring of state, pressures and measures. It is to be checked - and revised if necessary - whether the term monitoring programme is used at the right level. A monitoring programme will encompass a suite of monitoring for the different parameters needed for the MSFD.
· Monitoring programmes should be reported for each sub-region of a Member State's waters. If the plans are similar between regions, the reporting can be similar, but this needs an efficient way to capture in the reporting system.
· The "general level" questions should be formulated in a more concrete way.
· The link of the monitoring programmes to spatial data and INSPIRE compliance is to be further elaborated.
· Further discussion is necessary on how the information from Art. 8, 9, 10 and the ongoing assessment for Art. 12 should be linked to the information that is coming (Art. 11). A similar question is raised on how to link the procedures and content of the WFD reporting on monitoring to the MSFD.
2.2 Process & Timeline
The next steps and timeline for the concept paper, the approach for reporting on monitoring and the JRC-led guidance document on monitoring is shown in the below tables.
Next steps for "monitoring concept" for WG GES
Action / Who / WhenHomework assigned to Ad Hoc group members / 30 Jan
Revision of first draft on Ad Hoc monitoring 2013/2 (Annex 1) / JRC / ENV D2 / 8 Feb
Written comments on revised draft outline / Ad Hoc group members / 18 Feb
Revised doc to be sent to WG GES / DG ENV D2 / 22 Feb
Discussion during WG GES / WG GES / 4-5 March
Next steps for "approach for reporting on monitoring" for WG DIKE
Action / Who / When /Homework assigned to Ad Hoc group members / 30 Jan
Revision of first draft on Ad Hoc monitoring 2013/3 / ENV D2 / 8 Feb
Written comments on revised draft outline / Ad Hoc group members / 18 Feb
Revised doc to be sent to WG DIKE / DG ENV D2 / 1 March
Discussion during WG DIKE / WG DIKE / 18-19 March
JRC-led guidance document on monitoring
Action / Who / WhenRevision of first draft on Ad Hoc monitoring 2013/2 (Annex 1) / JRC / ENV D2 / 8 Feb
Written comments on revised draft outline / Ad Hoc group members / 18 Feb
Revised doc to be sent to WG GES / DG ENV D2 / 22 Feb
Discussion during WG GES / WG GES / 4-5 March
Specific meeting(s) to develop guidance - gathering Ad Hoc group + RSC + others (?) / JRC lead / April? + June/July
Draft guidance to be presented to GES / JRC / 21-22 Oct
Final doc to be endorsed by MSCG and MD / JRC / Nov - Dec
1
[1] http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/marine/library?l=/implementation_coordinat/information_knowledge/1_-_meetings/information_knowledge&vm=detailed&sb=Title
[2] The fact sheets as well as the German handbook on monitoring is available at:
http://www.blmp-online.de/Seiten/Monitoringhandbuch.htm
http://eproxy.bsh.de:9080/blmpweb/kennblatt?id=1&kapitel=0&html=on&lang=en