Project Coordination Group (PCG) for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

10 February 2015: 9.30–16.30

Summary notes (draft, 17/4/2015)

Organisers/Commission:

Joachim D'Eugenio (ENV C2)

Lydia Martin-Roumegas (ENV C2)

Anna Karasszon (ENV C2)

Lucie Meura (ENV C2)

In attendance:

Members / Guests

Stela Barova (BG) Wendy Bonne (JPI Oceans)

Agnes Villmann (ES) Francesca Somma (JRC)

Ludovic Schulz (FR)

Emilie Pleybel (FR)

Ingo Narbenhaus (DE)

Richard Cronin (IE)

Juris Aigars (LV)

Irmantas Valunas (LT)

Sandra van der Graaf (NL)

Wim van Urk (NL)

Adriana Dembowska (PL)

Andrzej Podscianski (PL)

Ana Paula Simao (PT)

Otilia Mihail (RO)

Jakob Hagberg (SE)

Karin Pettersson (SE)

Dominic Pattinson (UK)

Jo Foden (OSPAR Secretariat)

Nicolas Fournier (Oceana)

All presentations and the final summary record will be placed in:

CIRCABC > env > Marine Strategy > Library > PCG > 07 - 7th Project Coordination Group (PCG) – 10 February 2015, Brussels

1.  Welcome and adoption of the agenda

DG ENV welcomed the participants.

2.  Adoption of the agenda and the minutes of the previous PCG meeting

The agenda of the meeting and the minutes of the 6th PCG meeting (23 September 2014) were adopted.

3.  Stock-taking and the way forward

DG ENV presented the note taking stock of PCG activities up to date and then opened the floor for comments on the specific points of the document.

Project planning

Member States generally agreed that forward planning for several years ahead was useful. BG underlined the need for more knowledge on transport, marine litter and noise. SE supported forward planning and linked the issue to discussions on PCG membership. PT asked for clarifying the role of the PCG. It emphasised the need for information exchange and dissemination, and supported the extension of PCG membership and the organisation of PCG meetings back-to-back with MSCG meetings. IE also considered re-defining the role of the PCG to set medium-term strategic objectives, and supported the back-to back organisation of PCG meetings with MSCG meetings. FR supported creating a stronger link with discussions in other WGs. UK considered that the added value of the PCG could be to have an overview of research activities and to think strategically where effort should be put. IE also underlined the need to link up project outcomes with strategic goals and provide policy guidance to technical groups. DE agreed that decisions on projects should not be made in technical groups and considered that the PCG could plan projects at mid-term level. DG ENV asked PCG members if they were interested in being consulted on calls for proposals. UK was in favour of this idea. FR wished to be more involved in project planning at a project level. DG ENV explained that this would be problematic due to a conflict of interest, and also to a lack of competence in some cases (i.e. the EMFF Committee is the only entity that can decide on money spent in the framework of the EMFF). UK also considered that it was not necessary for the PCG to get involved in specific projects – the PCG should make sure that MS priorities are well reflected in the forward planning of projects.

Project implementation

PCG members agreed that the list of ongoing projects should be updated regularly indicating the status of projects, outcome of projects and upcoming issues. This could be done in writing, lengthy project presentations at PCG meetings were not considered useful.

Project dissemination

Based on the discussion on project implementation, DG ENV proposed to produce a newsletter or overview document that could be circulated among PCG members. LV suggested rating documents based on their used. DG ENV did not consider this possible at the moment. FR informed PCG members of the establishment of a working group to identify knowledge needs.

Organisation of PCG meetings

There was consensus not to stop PCG meetings. PCG was considered to have an added value in strategic planning and oversight.

The PCG agreed to propose the MSCG:

-  the extension of PCG membership to all MS

-  organisation of PCG meetings back-to- back with MSCG meetings (part of MSCG, but at the end of MSCG as a separate issue).

Closed sessions would no longer be organised as the PCG would not be involved in specific project in the future. LV had some reservations concerning this point.

Conclusions:

-  Going on as business as usual is not efficient

-  PCG's added value lies in strategic forward planning

-  More effective communication is needed on projects

-  In light of the above, the mandate of PCG most probably needs to be changed

-  PCG meetings will be organised as part of MSCG meetings for a year and then a new stock taking exercise will be carried out

-  A proposal will be prepared for MSCG along these lines for May

4.  Project presentations

The following three projects were presented by DG ENV:

-  Administrative, organisational and technical support for the TSG on Marine Litter and Underwater noise

-  Background information for sustainable aquaculture development addressing in particular environmental protection

-  Development of an assessment methodology for coherent and representative MPA network in support of GES.

JPI Oceans gave an overview presentation of their ongoing activities.

5.  Science-policy interface – presentation of the JRC Marine Competence Centre

The JRC presented recent developments concerning the JRC Marine Competence Centre. MS appreciated the JRC's work. The MCC supports the Commission's efforts to create a science policy interface and DG ENV urged MS to liaise with the JRC on this issue. DG ENV will also use this forum for its reports which are related to GES.

6.  Dissemination activities

A list of ongoing projects was circulated among PCG members before the meeting. DG ENV explained that these projects were managed by the Commission and carried out by consultants. The Commission involves stakeholders in these projects through WG and technical groups. The list does not include projects carried out at MS or regional level at the moment.

An evaluation of the financing of IMP implementation had been carried out. Its ENV part was positively evaluated, but the conclusion was drawn that this area could be more capitalised upon.

7.  AOB

The 2015 EMFF Work Programme was presented. PT voiced its concerns about the financing of its Monitoring Programme. DG ENV explained that the implementation of legislation was the responsibility of MS. EU funding could support MS in certain cases, e.g. innovation. BG enquired about the timelines of projects. DG ENV explained that different timetables applied to tendering and calls for proposals. Calls for proposals had just started and were not expected to be over before Easter. IE was concerned about the project on human pressures project. This issue was getting higher and higher on the political agenda, and MS were looking forward to practical arrangements.