DIKE 7/2013/03

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
Common Implementation Strategy
7th meeting of the
Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (WG DIKE)
18 March 2013 1100-1800: Conference Centre Albert Borschette, Room 2D, Rue Froissart 36, 1040 Brussels
19 March 2013 0900-1600: Maison des Associations Internationales, 40 Rue Washington, 1050, Brussels
Agenda item: / 3
Document: / DIKE 7/2013/03
Title: / Review of 2012 reporting process
Prepared by: / ENV
Date prepared: / 01/03/2013
Background / MSCG and WG DIKE initiated a review of the 2012 MSFD reporting process, based on experiences to date and feedback from Member States. Based on the initial conclusions, a timetable for future rounds of reporting was proposed, together with a modified process for development and testing of reporting requirements on monitoring programmes.
The attached paper was presented to the Marine Directors' meeting on 28-29 November 2012. Their conclusions on the issue are given in DIKE 7/2013/02.

WG DIKE is invited to:

  1. Review the conclusions reached and, on the basis of further considerations and experiences on the 2012 reporting process, agree a set of conclusions for presentation to MSCG and Marine Directors in May 2013.

Lessons learned from 2012 MSFD reporting process

Initial lessoned learned from 2012 reporting process

WG DIKE in October 2012 had an initial discussion on lessons learned from the 2012 reporting process for Art. 8, 9 and 10, on the basis of presentations by the Commission and Germany. The initial conclusions are reflected in Annex 1. It is recognised that some Member States are still in the process of reporting and that further experiences may emerge in the coming months. WG DIKE consequently agreed to discuss the topic again at its next meeting (March 2013).

Proposed timelines for future reporting

On the basis of initial lessons learned from the 2012 reporting process, a forward plan for agreeing reporting sheets for future requirements is proposed. In particular, the aim is to develop and agree upon reporting sheets in good time for Member State's implementation processes so that it is clear, as early as possible, what the reporting requirement will be. This should help Member States to adapt their internal processes and streamline aspects of reporting.

The following timelines are proposed:

  1. Art. 11 Monitoring – aim to prepare Reporting Sheets by spring 2013 (reports due October 2014) and present, if possible, main content of reporting sheets for endorsement by Marine Directors at the end of May 2013. Further detailed technical work is expected thereafter.
  2. Art. 13 Measures – aim to agree Reporting Sheets by mid 2014 (reports due March 2016)
  3. Art. 8, 9 and 10 reporting in 2018 – aim to agree revised Reporting Sheets by 2016

In view of the short timeline for development and agreement on reporting sheets for monitoring programmes, the following schedule of work is proposed:

  1. First discussion on reporting of monitoring programmes took place at WG DIKE (30-31 October 2012; paper DIKE 6/2012/12)
  2. First draft reporting sheets by end December 2012
  3. Ad-hoc group meeting with selected members of WG DIKE and WG GES 22-23 January 2013
  4. Report to WG GES 19-20 February 2013 (date to be confirmed)
  5. Second draft reporting sheets to WG DIKE 18-19 March 2013, with a view to finalisation of the main content
  6. Approval by MSCG 6-7 May 2013
  7. Endorsement by Marine Directors on 30-31 May 2013

There is some room for further drafting between WG DIKE and Marine Directors' meetings, if needed. Also further technical work, including detailed specifications, schemas and IT tools, will be undertaken after May 2013 with a view to their finalisation by December 2013.

Annex 1: Initial reflections on 2012 reporting process

Based on informal feedback received by the Commission from Member States on their reporting of Articles 8, 9 and 10, especially related to their electronic reporting, on feedback from the 'MSFD helpdesk' for reporting and on discussions at WG DIKE (October) and MSCG (November), including a presentation by Germany, the following is an initial summary of key issues arising:

  1. Relationship: ‘paper reports’ to reporting sheets (RS)

Those MS who started the preparation of their reports ‘early’, before the structure and content of the RS were finalised, had particular difficulty in transcribing the content of the 'paper' reports into the RS structure/format.This was particularly the case where MS had effectively completed their paper reports before the RS were finalised using a different structure and sometimes not addressing the specific reporting agreed in the RS.

This situation was likely to lead to a mismatch of reporting categories (e.g. predominant habitat types, functional groups of birds, mammals, fish, etc) and to gaps in priority fields (where assessments have not been undertaken).

  1. Reporting sheet content

Some MS consider there are too many RS, even though the many topics to be covered are actually a reflection of the broad scope of Art. 8 and Annex III. Additionally some MS consider the RS to be complex with challenging questions, despite the ‘simple’ set of high-level questions to be addressed (as agreed within the reporting concept paper). This may in part be due to issues about the database interface, rather than the RS themselves.

  1. Assessment methods

In some cases the methodology are ‘whole area’ assessments is poorly developed, with current approach focused more on small areas (not whole seas) or single sampling sites. Use of aggregation rules or integration of spatial data sets with point samples is not well established.

The high-level approach adopted in the RS (e.g. on functional groups, predominant habitats, hazardous substances) aims to provide an overview of the status of biodiversity and pressures but data and assessment information are often held at more detailed (biotope/species/substance) levels.

There is a need to develop aggregation rules both from local scales to wider areas and from individual components to broader components (for biodiversity, pressures).

  1. Geographic scales, regions/subregions

The relationship between the MS waters and the subregion/region scale are not yet fully elaborated. There remain complex issues about the most appropriate scale to report at, including between different biodiversity components and between different descriptors.The need to report on all marine waters of each MS and how best to reflect these in 'assessment areas' appeared to be challenging concept for some MS. It seems likely that a number of approaches will have been used, with a consequent need to reflect upon the consequences for regional coherence.

  1. Reporting tools

The conversion of the RS into a database required some restructuring of the fields to fully accommodate the requirements of the RS and enable, in particular one-to-many entries of information. Some MS referred to difficulties transcribing from the original RS to the database structure. This was overcome, to some extent by preparation of a revised guidance document which helped in this process.

The final version of the MSFD database was much improved compared with the initial test version; nevertheless, there was insufficient time to build a more user-friendly interface.

The XML schemas when initially used generated a number or errors due to certain fields being supplementary (dependent) on completion of other fields. This necessitated modification of the schema tool to reduce the number of error messages.

  1. Timing: reporting sheets and tools

The entire reporting system was developed and built in 15 months, with initial conceptual discussions started at WG DIKE in May 2011. Whilst this short development period (compared with other Directives) reflected a significant commitment by Member States and the Commission to ensure the RS were available in time for reporting in July 2012, their finalisation was towards the end of the processes that MS were going through internally to prepare their reports. This meant in some cases that the RS were agreed well after MS had completed their reports, causing a mismatch in timing with their internal processes.

Partly as a consequence of this, certain MS needed to build with internal data systems based on ‘trial versions’ of schemas rather than the final versions.

Due to some MS having often long and/or complex internal processes, there is a need to have finalised RS and schemas available well before the reporting is due, to allow sufficient time for preparation of the reporting information and internal consultation processes.

  1. Article 12 assessment

It is anticipated that the Commissions Article 12 assessment of MS reports will identify further issues in relation to the structure and content of the RS. Initial topics include geographic scale issues, consistency in use of reporting categories, the relationship between the determination of GES and the environmental targets and the value of reporting for Art. 12 assessments and for the EEA baseline assessment.

  1. Initial conclusions: timing and reporting tools

A key conclusion is the need to develop and agreereporting requirements in good time for future reporting rounds. A proposal on timing for reporting on Art. 11, 13 and future updates of Art. 8, 9 and 10 has already been presented to WG DIKE and MSCG.

Reporting tools need to be developed and tested in good time, including where possible improved more user-friendly interfaces.

1