Informal Meeting of Water and Marine Directors of the European Union, Candidate and EFTA Countries

Budapest, 26-27 May 2011

Informal Meeting of Water and Marine Directors of the European Union, Candidate and EFTA Countries

Budapest, 26-27 May 2011

Final Synthesis

PART 3: MARINE DIRECTORS MEETING

The meeting was co-chaired by Peter Kovacs (Hungarian Presidency) and the European Commission (Claude Rouam).

Item 1. Information by the Commission on several relevant events since December 2010:

a) Fifth International Marine Debris Conference, 20 - 25 March 2011, Hawaii. Organized by UNEP and USA/NOAA.

The Commission informed about the results of the International Conference:

  • The conference is the first step for the development of the UNEP Honolulu strategy on marine debris, a matter ofgrowing importance.
  • The Plastic Industry committed to develop a voluntary approach to limit the impact of their products on the environment.
  • It was proposed that this issue should be on the agenda of future international events, including the UN Rio+20 summit.

b) Official visit to Greece of Commissioners Potocnik and Damanaki, 8 April 2011

The Commission reported that Commissioner Potocnik described the basic elements of a policy for marine litter including the Marine Directive, the agenda of the future COP of the Barcelona Convention and the use of the existing 'legal arsenal' (e.g. recovery rates for plastic waste under EU waste law). A Green Paper on plastic waste will be soon proposed.

PL mentioned the European Maritime Daysheld at Gdansk(19-20 May), with a first day on IMP and MSP, led by Commissioner Damanaki, and a 2ndday devoted to stakeholder events.

Item 2. Common Implementation Strategy activities for the MSFD: work progress in the Working Groups (information and discussion)

Due to timing reasons, the first point discussed was point 2.3, whereas points 2.1, 2.4 and 2.2 were moved to the next morning session (and discussed by this order).

2.3Activities of the Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment (WG ESA) - Guidance document for Marine Directors

The UK, as co-chair of WG ESA, recalled the three papers produced by WG ESA and made available to the participants: the update on the activities of the WG (doc. 2.3a), the guidance document on the economic and social assessment for the Initial Assessment (IA), a non legally binding document, (doc. 2.3b) and its future work programme (doc. 2.3c). The guidance document recognises the complexity of the work and the important challenges in knowledge and data. It sets out different and viable approaches to such assessment for 2012, while acknowledging the need for a more comprehensive coverage and convergence for the long-term.

A discussion took place on the guidance document. Some MD raised concern as the document did not go far enough in creating a common approach so it could only be seen as a first step. The guidance was welcome as a useful resource, which MS could use in the next months. The MD also agreed that, with regard to experience in economic assessment, the guidance document should be seen as a living document, which should be revised at a later date with a view to strengthen convergence among the options currently identified,and that WG ESA's evaluation of the use of the guidance should consider how guidance for future assessments could be revised. such revision should be explicitly reflected in the work programme of WG ESA. There was also an agreement on the importance of the involvement of WG ESA in the work on Article 10 (targets), and a corresponding adjustment in the work programme. The MD highlighted the need to closely coordinate with WG GES and with WG DIKE(for reporting). The Commission recalled that, based on Art.8(1)(c), the guidance by WG ESA alreadyproposes to identify and describe the different uses by the various economic sectors, which should be reflected in the reporting sheets for the IA. Discussion on this matter continued in agenda point 2.4 on the IA. One MDcommentedon Figure 2 and stated that, for clarity purposes, it should be clear that policy response should first be followed by an evaluation of measures taken. The issue of the opportunity to timely develop more concise directions on economic and social assessment was raised at the meeting and it was recalled that any such orientations should be the result of a collective exercise within the CIS.

2.1Activities of the Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES):

A summary on the activities of the WG GES (doc. 2.1a) had been circulated as background for the discussion. The Commission recalled the importance of coherence for the implementation of the MSFD. Important developments are taking place at national, bilateral, regional and EU level. On regional sea conventions, the intensity and extent of cooperation with RSC varies greatly, depending on the marine region (including their political context) but also on the various issues at stake. HELCOM and OSPAR have confirmed their role as platforms to facilitate the implementation of the Directive, and have put in place dedicated activities for this purpose.The Barcelona Convention is currently developing an ecosystem approach project to strengthen coherence with the MSFD context, including with the contents of the Commission decision on criteria for GES. Major challenges remain for cooperation in the Black Sea region.

On the basis of an information document circulated ahead of the meeting (doc. 2.1b), Germany, as co-chair of WG GES, informedon the progress of the draft document on a common understanding on Articles 8, 9 & 10,being developed by a drafting group. A first version was presented at the last WG GESmeeting on 5 April for initial consideration. It wasreviewed at a drafting group meeting in early May. It was agreed to continue this cooperative process. The objective is to finalise the document on common understandingin time for the next Marine Directors meeting, recognising that limited time is available.The drafting group will meet on 7 and 8 June in Berlin to prepare a revised draft, followed by broader informal consultation. Issues requiring attention include, among others, the relation between GES and targets and the need to address if and to what extent some approaches under the WFD can be used for the MSFD. MD agreed on the usefulness of including specific examples. on how targets could be set.

To make activities more concrete and practical, the Commission also proposedthat, in addition to the above-mentioned general conceptual framework, WG GESalso works around a few major themes, such as biodiversity, eutrophication, litter, noise.This would allow being more specific from this point in time. It was mentioned that most conventions are also working currently along such major themes, although several Marine Directors recalled that it is mostly for conventions to adapt to the requirements of MS under the Directive. On the relation between work at EU and regional level, it was agreed that, ultimately,MS and the Commission had the responsibilityto ensure coherence between all these processes.

The MD agreed on the need to avoid contradictory approaches within and across Regional Sea Conventions, as well as duplication (e.g. on chemicals). In some cases, the main risk was instead that current activities within conventions might not be sufficient to allow MS to reach meaningful and consistent outcomes, at least on certain matters, having regard to short timelines. In view of the particular difficulties experienced in the Black Sea region, priority should be put on the cooperation between the Commission, Bulgaria and Romania. Increased attention is also required in relation to the Barcelona Convention, where only one third of the parties belong to the EU and other parties give a higher focus on other matters than the protection of the marine environment (e.g. climate change or scarcity of water resources). EU coordination should be increased, notably for the next COP of the Barcelona Convention, early 2012. The Commission reminded that it presented priorities for the next COP to the Council WP and still expected that MS would respond to the invitation made at such WP for feedback on objectives.For both the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, there is also a need to ensure that third countries are not left behind e.g. through the neighbourhood policy instrument.

The Commission proposed to hold an informal meeting with MS to share theiron-going reflection on targets, on the basis of concrete draft examples being currently considered by MS. After an exchange on the matter, MD agreed to aim to hold suchan informal meeting with MS after the summer break to give more time for internal preparation, including on issues such as the link between GES and targets. The MD discussed that it would also be useful toget feedback from Sweden (unfortunately absent for logistical reasons) on its intention for a workshop after the summer on targets, linking HELCOM and OSPAR experts and inviting also MS experts from other Conventions. Further information from Sweden indicates that this is expected to be held in October at Gothenburg.

Several MD called for some flexibility in considering what can be effectively achieved for the 2012 deliverables, in view of time constraints. While full convergence of approaches on all matters might not be achievable in the initial period, some MD and the Commission also recalled that the main purpose of the Common Implementation Strategyis precisely to increase coherence in the implementation.It was therefore important,for any outstanding matters, to launchcooperative processes to strengthen convergence in the medium term, to avoid facing similar difficulties for the next implementation round.

MD also agreed that the different WG should work closely together, e.g. through meetings back to back. The objective should be that the various deliverables are addressed in an integrated manner, even though this ambition may only be achieved gradually throughout the implementation process.

2.4 Other issues from MSCG: Workshop on the Initial Assessment (10 May 2011)

As co-chair of WG GES, Germany, briefly presented a document (doc. 2.4b) that it had circulated on the main content and outcomes from the questionnaire on the implementation status of the Initial Assessment (IA), as a voluntary initiative that was developed and now completed by Germany.. This document was already presented at the Workshop on IA on 10 May.MD thanked Germany for this helpful initiative.

Spain briefly presented under this agenda point a document elaborated by the Barcelona Convention on the process and outcomes for implementing the Marine Directive within the Mediterranean region. It was highlighted that the project on the ecosystem approach being developed in the Mediterranean region shares the same basic principles as the MSFD. This process will still take some time but, if formally agreed at the next COP, it should allow substantial alignment throughout the whole Mediterranean region with the EU approach on major policy orientations.

For the discussion among MD, the Commissionfocused on the specific points contained in the last part of the document that it had circulatedon the outcome of the Workshop on the IA (doc. 2.4a). On the question of whether the IA should contain information on economic sectors,the general conclusion was that it would be useful to have information on human uses on in the IA, because it will create a link with pressures and will facilitate later on the development of the programme of measures. This was related to the usefulness of includingin the IA, where possible, spatial information on uses by such economic sectors, an issue for which several MS had already started to gather information. These two matters gathered general policy support, while it was also acknowledged that, for the 2012 IA, the description of economic sectors (including spatial information where available) will have to be based on available data, allowing for flexibility in the approaches by the various MS, to acknowledge the different levels of information available and different stages of work among MS. Several MD and the Commission also recalled that flexibility is useful as long as it does not affect comparability, as GES has to be determined at regional level.

There was a general agreement that the IA should aim to express where we stand now in relation to GES, although at this stage, it is recognized that there will not be the same level of information on all themes (e.g. noise) and that, on several issues, it could be expected to be more qualitative than quantitative. Some MD mentioned that a roof report (summarising the situation of the process) at the regional level could be useful to ensure that MS are notgoing in different directions and that work at the regional level is coherent.

2.2Activities relevant to the Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (DIKE)

The Commission informed that the WG DIKE had been re-launched with a meeting in early May 2011, now that several matters are clearer on the best way forward for developing the reporting system (WISE-Marine) for the Marine Directive. The Terms of Reference for the WG were updated to reflect current requirements, particularly in relation to section D, which was revised and now reflectsthe importance of linkages to other processes at EU, regional and global level (e.g. the UN regular process for global reporting and assessment). There MD raised no objections to the revised Terms of Reference and engaged into a discussion after the presentation by the Commission on the outcome of the last WG DIKE.

A summary on the last meeting of WG DIKE (doc. 2.2) had been circulated as background for the discussion. The Commission informed that WG DIKE had considered the overall need for a reporting system, bearing in mind the existing processes under WISE and the short-term and longer-term needs for MSFD reporting. The role of Slovenia as co-chair of the WG was welcome as it would bring experience in WFD reporting. There is a need to consider the different steps in the management process, linked to the key stages in the implementation of the MSFD. The objectives include providing a reporting system which is useful both to MS and at EU level, as well asvisualising and communicatingeffectively the information. One important issue should be to facilitate aggregation from national to regional, EU and global levels. For 2012, options on the degree of integration and the level of detail for reporting were considered, as well as the possibility to report about economic sectors. Seven MS had volunteered to test reporting proposals in time for the next meeting in early September, with a view to a substantial development of the reporting proposals (reporting sheets) in time for the next Marine Directors meeting in December 2011. The Commission recalled that there is also a need to define geographic boundaries for MS waters. MS were encouraged to engage actively in the ongoingprocesses under the INSPIRE Directive, including on marine issues, and in the on-going work within EMODnet. It will be important to support the preparation and submission of data associated with the Initial Assessment in formats compliant with INSPIRE.The Commission also recalled that an INSPIRE Conference in June (Edinburgh) will address questionsrelating to marine information.

There was a general agreement by MD to follow a medium-level approach to the detail required for the 2012 reporting. The need to ensure coherence of reporting formats with those ofother EU legislation and Regional Sea Conventions was highlighted, as well as the fact that reporting should take place only once, wherever possible. Several MD highlighted the need for pragmatism, recognising that 2012 reporting was a first step and that there was a need to improve over time. The objective of integrated approaches to reporting, combining wherever possible the different MSFD deliverables due in 2012 (i.e. assessment, characteristics of GES, targets, etc), was seen as a generally useful orientation. At the same time, as a matter of feasibility, some several MDs indicated that it would be possible to start with a separate approach to report on such different matters and then move gradually to a fully integrated approach, linking Art.8, 9 and 10, which would be rather a matter for the medium term.The MD concluded that the challenge was mainly the tight timeline for 2012 reporting and that therefore the development of reporting formats should be done fast and kept simple. The Commission mentioned that the goal to streamline reporting processes with other reporting, in particular with regard to other EU legislation and the work in Regional Sea Conventions, would need to be tackled gradually.

There was also a general call by MD to ensure the Marine Knowledge initiative by the European Commission (DG MARE lead) was effectively integrated into the work of WG DIKE to make best useof EMODnet for the purpose the requirements of MS under the MSFD, especially if EMODnet would start to mobilise substantial EU funds in the next years.

2.5Possible new activities – Co-leadership proposals

The Commission emphasised the importance ofworking on MPAs for the purpose of MSFD, having regard to international commitments (for 2012). The MD agreed to invite the next Nature and Biodiversity Directors (NBD) to gradually develop joint initiatives, including on MPAs. The ‘Marine Expert Group for the determination of Natura 2000 Marine Sites’, which isexpected to meet next time in September or October, will be a good opportunity for closer practical cooperation and for addressing matters of common interest on MPAs. MD and NBD could decide at a later stage whether or not to formalise a joint structure.The MD agreed on the importance of linking nature protection developments, as well as the EU action plan on biodiversity, with the implementation of MSFD. There was also recognition of the need for stronger coordination withUN processes on marine biodiversity, including the UN Regular process of marine assessment,and in particular with the work on MPAs in the UN, CBD and in regional sea conventions. On this point, the MSFD requires the establishment of coherent and representative networks of marine protectedareas, adequately covering the diversity of the constituentecosystems. The issue of MPAs in the Mediterranean was raised,including in the framework of the Biodiversity Protocol of Barcelona Convention, and it was agreed that it was important to ensure that the process does not end in designation of network components, but is also supported by effective management plans. Other new activities were not foreseen for the time being.