16-17 November 2016, EEA, Copenhagen
Draft minutes /
Minutes from /
Marine Eionet Workshop (draft)
VENUE / EEA(Conference room) , Kongens Nytorv 6, Copenhagen, DenmarkDATE / 16-17 November 2016
CHAIRs: / Stéphane Isoard (EEA), Anita Künitzer (UFZ),
Minutes takers: / David Vaughan, Joergen Noerrevang Jensen (ETC/ICM)
ANNEXES: / Annex 1: Agenda
Annex 2: List of participants
Presentations and meeting documents on Eionet forum: / http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-marine-coastal-and-maritime/library/2016-activities/marine-eionet-workshop
1st day, Tuesday 16 November 2016
Conference Room (13:00 – 17:30)
Welcome and introduction
Stéphane Isoard welcomed everyone – stating the need to have the first Marine Eionet meeting for 3 years. This was an opportunity to bring NRCs together to whether they would want to reinvigorate the Eionet and if so, how this was best done. The workshop was the first step and EEA were keen to ensure it was the right format for participants, so Stéphane informed the group that there was an online survey to fill in with ideas on how to improve the workshop.
Anita Künitzer introduced the European Topic Centre for Inland, Coastal and Marine waters (ETC/ICM) to describe its function in supporting the EEA with implementing its work program in the period 2014 - 2018.
1. Presentation of EEA marine roadmap 2016-2022
Stéphane opened the workshop with this presentation:
http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-marine-coastal-and-maritime/library/2016-activities/marine-eionet-workshop/workshop-presentations/1-marine-roadmap-nov-2016-eionet-marine-workshop
This showed how the EEA and ETC/ICM had developed their marine activities through creating a Marine Roadmap linking specific actions and products to the EEA’s Multi-Annual Work Programme (MAWP). This Roadmap shows how the EEA products link to specific policy drivers and policy initiatives and also the timelines needed to deliver the products. Stéphane confirmed the Roadmap would be made available to Eionet by mid-December.
Stéphane also discussed the meeting with the Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs) on the previous day. This meeting highlighted the strong willingness to cooperate between the EEA and the RSCs through strengthening the Eionet network. There was agreement at that meeting to mutually gain a better understanding of data flows and to avoid duplication of effort and process wherever possible. One outcome was that the RSCs should be given a more active role in Eionet and this would lead to a Joint Rolling Plan. There was to be a meeting in January to take this further between RSC and EEA Directors.
Questions for clarification
There were no questions from the meeting
2. Overview of EU marine and maritime policy developments
David Connor gave the European Commission’s view on delivery of MSFD and how this related to EEA and Eionet work. This is covered in this presentation:
http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-marine-coastal-and-maritime/library/2016-activities/marine-eionet-workshop/workshop-presentations/2_eea-eionet_connor_env
In summary this covered the elements of policy delivery at different scales: national, regional, European and global. MSFD and WFD were frameworks for the other marine-related directives. David Connor highlighted how the work to deliver MSFD had been organized through the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) with meetings of Marine Directors, the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG),
David Connor also introduce the MSFD Decision Revision which is intended to improve consistency by linking the Articles 8 and 9 better, with improved Annex I descriptors and Annex III elements. The overall aim is to streamline assessments and policy response.
Questions for clarification
- It was asked whether the approved map was now available as GIS polygons? EEA confirmed this would be made available before Christmas.
- It was asked how many people worked in Commission working groups; David Connor replied that there was still not complete join-up in Member States between different directives and that the aim was to improve this.
Session 1: Assessing the state and use of Europe´s seas – overview of key EEA marine products in 2014-2016
3. EEA marine data flows and indicators
Irene del Barrio introduced the session with a presentation saved here:
http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-marine-coastal-and-maritime/library/2016-activities/marine-eionet-workshop/workshop-presentations/3-dataflows-day-1
This covered Reportnet Infrastructures, the data flows to the EEA, and in particular the WISE data flows, leading to assessment products and indicators. Of the WISE data flows, two are marine (WISE-2 Biology and WISE-TCM). She also highlighted the changes in the new data model and the results of the consultation on this data model and the response to the country quality fact sheets.
Questions for clarification
- There was a question on the meaning of ‘QFS’ which is the quality fact sheets based on letters sent for consultation.
- NRCs wanted reassurance that the ICES reporting formats for annual data submissions would not change when EEA changed its formats. ICES emphasized that there are no immediate changes to the ICES reporting format. EEA stated that there is a close synergy as ICES is EEA collaborator. Data sent to ICES would not change though the format for the data tables is being revised
- OSPAR asked about consistency using the example of MPA data and whether the MPA data from RSCs and the CDDA were used. EEA said RSC data was compared against the Natura database for consistency checks.
- NRCs noted the importance of avoiding too many changes to the reporting format since this creates extra work for the data submitters.EEA stated that the recent changes were to simplify and streamline the reporting
- It was asked how the nine marine EEA indicators relate to MSFD. EEA said that indicator based reporting had been discussed with the RSCs. EEA is producing a concept paper to be submitted through WG-DIKE to discuss options for MSFD reporting, where the role of EEA indicators (and RSC) in the MSFD will be proposed.
Stéphane Isoard wound up the session by saying that the planned TCM data call had been cancelled as the EEA had had severe staff capacity problems. This would not be fed into an assessment this year and the next data call would be October 2017.
He agreed with comments that stability of data formats was needed but improvements did have to be made to maintain the system. He said the EEA had now committed to making the formats stable so that after this revision the format should remain stable. He also said that the aim was to ensure that data requested by an RSC would not be requested again by the EEA.
4. Marine Litter Watch: a citizen science data collection tool and community platform
Constança Belchior gave this presentation on Marine Litter Watch:
http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-marine-coastal-and-maritime/library/2016-activities/marine-eionet-workshop/workshop-presentations/4-mlw
She outlined the links between Marine Litter Watch (MLW) outcomes in terms of data and community engagement, and how it could support the MSFD and more recently the Circular Economy Package. MLW was also intended to explore the benefits of using citizen science for tackling marine litter. The outcomes of MLW so far were more related to building a network of users (i.e. MLW community) and learning from experience with beach clean-ups and on the use of technology for this purpose, such as the MLW beach survey app for iPhone and Android smartphones. The focus of MLW from 2016 onwards will be to develop a pan-European citizen-science based monitoring framework which can provide reliable, accurate and comparable marine litter data for years to come.
Questions for clarification
- The Croatian NRC informed about their experience in connecting the bathing water surveillance with the checking for beach litter and suggested it would better to develop web application as more flexible and to not focus on maps as there were concerns over technology. Micro-biological monitoring could also be linked into the system.
- The Polish NRC informed about their engagement in the HELCOM litter group and highlighted the difficulties in finding a common methodology and urged the need for a close cooperation with RSC on this issue. He felt the activity using citizens was a good trend for the future.
- It was asked if the OSPAR data available in the OSPAR marine litter database was connected to MLW. EEA said there was no connection at present but the aim was to explore data exchange with the RSCs in the future.
-
5. Marine protected area´s in Europe´s seas
Johnny Reker presented the work undertaken by EEA on MPAs in this presentation
http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-marine-coastal-and-maritime/library/2016-activities/marine-eionet-workshop/workshop-presentations/5-marine-assessments-mpas-jre
The policy background is from the Aichi target 11 and the European Union Biodiversity Strategy (EUBS) Target 1/action 1, as well as supporting Article 21 of MSFD for the EC. The data was extracted from the Natura 2000 and CDDA databases held at EEA and focused on EU states, so excluded some MPAs such as the OSPAR sites beyond 200nm from the coast. The methods are regarded as robust and aimed to answer whether Member States have protected 10% of their biodiversity, and whether the Natura 2000 network was complete.
Questions for clarification
None at this stage
6. State of Europe´s seas
Johnny Reker and Eva Gelabert gave a presentation on the State of Europe’s Seas:
http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-marine-coastal-and-maritime/library/2016-activities/marine-eionet-workshop/workshop-presentations/6_marine-assessments-eionet-2016-soes
DG-ENV wanted a State of Environment report around the MSFD initial assessment, which also coincided with the start of the Blue Growth initiative. Bringing this together lead to a focus on Ecosystem Based Management. This encompasses assessment of ecosystem services to enable common decisions to be made from the same basis without need for complex repeated analyses. This initial State of Europe’s Seas report showed the problems in the first MSFD assessment where there was very large number of ‘unknown’ statuses. This emphasizes that subsequent report need good data flows in order to meet policy targets such as measuring the distance to target for Aichi Target 11.
Questions for clarification
- Having a book is fine but in future it would be better to have a more online approach with interactive graphs + expert descriptions in order to meet a wide audience. EEA said this was the aim for future products though there were technical issues to be resolved with some of the interactive approaches.
- How far is it possible to translate ecosystem services to wider oceanic seas given that most data were restricted to 12-15 nm. EEA agreed, saying that the deep sea is 80% of area but not covered by most assessments (except for a little in the Habitats Directive reporting). However, the EU will evaluate its Biodiversity Strategy in 2020 so will want better response. EEA said at present we only have a few pieces of the whole picture hence the use of boxes in reports used highlight where we know there is a problem. The key is transparency about assumptions.
- It was asked whether it is therefore valid to say ‘the state of the sea is…’ and emphasized the need to identify the scientific references. EEA said the process was to undertake big reviews starting with Eionet members.
- EEA agreed with the discussion and said the report is to be updated in 2022 which is deliberately after MSFD reporting in order to ensure we have a much better data resource. EEA was producing a thematic biodiversity assessment in 2019 to explore data and analysis options such as those in the EU DEVOTES project indicator catalogue and RSC assessments and indicators.
7. Seafood in Europe – a food system approach for sustainability
Constança Belchior introduced the EEA’s ‘Seafood in Europe’ report:
http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-marine-coastal-and-maritime/library/2016-activities/marine-eionet-workshop/workshop-presentations/7-eea-food-system-approach-sustainability
She said this was an initial example from the EEA of moving from mostly problem-focused to solution-oriented assessments. This report brings a sustainability perspective to the food system, exploring the environmental, social, economic and governance dimensions around food and seafood in particular. It therefore departs from assessing the environmental impact of fisheries and aquaculture on Europe's marine ecosystems, which was assessed in the EEA State of Europe´s seas report.
The report highlights the need for a policy framework that embraces a food system approach, and that allows a shared understanding of the food system to be built. It also highlights the need to improve the knowledge base related to seafood in order to better understand interactions in Europe's food system and beyond. And finally, it points to more efforts in implementing an ecosystem approach to Europe's seas — a key principle in several EU policies — as a critical measure to securing the long-term availability of seafood.
Questions for clarification
- Stéphane Isoard said this work was an example of how EEA was bringing a systems assessment on the interdependencies between the environmental dimensions of using the sea and the development of marine sectors, such as those in in the EU´s Blue Growth strategy.
- Anita Künitzer said this was an example of transitions, which has come out of higher level EEA discussions with NFPs in the EEA/Eionet Review. There are questions to be answered such as how will these transitions work, for example for NRCs to work more closely with socio-economic groups.
- NRCs felt socio-economic assessments were not an easy process although necessary.
Open round for comments
Questions for clarification
Stéphane Isoard open the floor for questions, saying that he understood there was a lot of information to absorb on EEA work but the update was needed because of the long gap to the previous meetings.
- On MSFD reporting, it was important to recognize that countries were also developing National indicators and these needed to be kept even if they did not fit closely with MSFD requirements. This is because the parameters in national monitoring are fixed so we needed a way of bringing this together to allow for adaptation to MSFD.
- In WFD reporting, many indicators were not very useful for helping identify trends or to support policy. So the WFD indicators focused all the resources but were not so helpful in producing diagnostics. It was important that indicators for marine systems did not fall into same trap and that it should be remembered that compliance to regulations was important but more critical to have indicators useful management.
- What was happening with transitional waters in MSFD? There was a concern that they were lost in the reporting process. EEA responded that data was already being collected from transitional waters in WISE (plus territorial waters).
- National indicators if used for MSFD would need to map to the Decision Revision. This was not easy as there was rarely an exact mapping between national and MSFD indicators.