AdHocMonitoring 2013/3

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
Common Implementation Strategy
Ad hoc group on monitoring and reporting
22-23 January 2013
Venue: Avenue de Beaulieu 5, room 0/C, Brussels
Agenda item: / 4
Document: / AdHocMonitoring 2013/3
Title: / Reporting on MSFD monitoring programmes
Prepared by: / ENV D2 and MRAG
Date prepared: / 14/01/2013
Background / Art. 11 provides legally binding requirements for Member States to establish and implement coordinated monitoring programmes for the on-going assessment of the environmental status of EU waters. Member States are to notify the Commission of their monitoring programmes by 15 October 2014.
WG DIKE had an initial discussion on 31 October 2012 on possible approaches to reporting on monitoring programmes. Subsequently MSCG and the Marine Directors discussed monitoring issues, leading to the proposal to hold a joint drafting group meeting in January 2013 of representatives of WG GES and WG DIKE to discuss and further develop monitoring issues.
This paper presents an analysis of the requirements relating to monitoring of the MSFD and of the Commission's needs for assessment of Member State programmes as required by Art. 12. On this basis, initial proposals for a reporting sheet have been developed. The approach used has benefitted from initial reflections on the 2012 reporting process for Art. 8, 9 and 10, including how the Commission is likely to use the reported information in its Art. 12 assessment.
The Ad-hoc monitoring meeting is asked to discuss and further develop the proposals with a view to bringing more refined proposals to WG DIKE in 18-19 March 2013.

The ad-hoc group on monitoring and reporting is invited to:

  1. Review and agree on the main questions to be addressed through reporting (based on Annex 1);
  2. Discuss and agree on the overall approach and organisation of reporting (e.g. use of general and programme sections), including outlining what might constitute a 'programme';
  3. Discuss and agree on the format/level of detail to use for these questions (e.g. use of text, categorical information, values);
  4. Identify the relevant questions that should be further discussed by WG DIKE, and if needed by WG GES;
  5. Agree on a timeline to further develop the proposals for reporting on monitoring for discussion at WG DIKE on 18-19 March, MSCG and ultimate endorsement by the Marine Directors in May 2013.

Approach to Reporting on Monitoring Programmes (Art. 11) under MSFD

Introduction

Following the finalisation of the first stage of implementation, i.e. the Articles 8, 9 and 10, the focus of work under the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy is now shifting towards the preparation of monitoring programmes. Learning from the lessons in the earlier process, it was agreed to follow a slightly different approach to addressing reporting of this subject. After some preparatory work and the JRC workshops which already looked into some monitoring aspects, the MSCG agreed to organise an ad hoc workshop inviting experts from WG GES and WG DIKE to discuss principles, concepts and reporting aspects at the same time.

A draft concept paper for monitoring was prepared (see AdHocMonitoring 2013/2) to initiate discussions. In addition, and complementary to the draft concept paper, this draft document looks at the approach to reporting. It introduces some general points and issues for discussion at the workshop meeting. In addition, it includes a list of questions which should be answered in the assessment of MS reports when the Commission is undertaking its Article 12 assessment and a first draft document on the content of reporting (annexes 1, 2). It is self-evident that all these documents will need to be coherent and build upon one another, such that changes to general approaches may necessitate changes to specific proposals on reporting sheets. Therefore the annexes presented here are likely to need further development in the light of discussions on the concept paper and on the annexes themselves. A comprehensive draft package will be presented to WG DIKE taking into account the recommendations of this workshop.

Purpose of reporting

Before discussing the details of reporting on the monitoring programmes, it is important to recall the principle purpose of reporting and the joint objective and interest that the European Commission and the Member States (and also the RSC) should have in making reporting a success and an important exercise which is worthwhile investing in.

The requirement in EU legislation to report is a result of the legal system of the EU and the special role of the European Commission in this system, namely its role as "Guardian of the Treaty". However, this role has to be seen increasingly in the wider context of accountability and good governance of EU action and the responsibility for the European Commission and the Member States together to demonstrate that:

  • EU legislation achieves its results in an effective and efficient manner;
  • Level of ambition, efforts and level playing field for the internal market are comparable, if not harmonised, between the Member States.
  • Member States respect the letter and the spirit of the law;
  • The effective implementation leads to the envisaged policy objective, namely the improvement of the marine environment in this case.

For these purposes, comparable, if not harmonised, information is a prerequisite. Any flexibility that is introduced in the reporting system (text fields, options, etc) is counterproductive for achieving these purposes.

The main dilemma arises when the agreed information needs amongst the 27 EU Member States and the Commission differ from the information collected in other fora or at national level. Also it is often possible to agree the purposes in principle but then there is an assumption made that asking for certain type of information (under compliance reporting) that this prejudges the legal interpretation of the Directive (where often it is difficult to achieve a consensual common understanding on this interpretation). It is therefore of increasing importance to understand that the data needs should be primarily defined for the purpose of having a comparable assessment and not for another basis, e.g. for launching an infringement procedure.

Ref to N2000 Directive reporting (work already been done by Dike)

Approach

Following the experience during the first round of MSFD reporting, DG Environment proposes to change the approach in developing the reporting sheets both as regards timelines and process. The Marine Directors supported the idea that, as much as possible, the content of the reporting sheets should be largely finalised by May 2013 so that the technical detailed work including developing of schemas can take place after that with enough time for completion well before the reporting deadline. In this context, it is important to recognise the different steps in the development of reporting requirements and their timelines:

Concept paper on MSFD monitoring / Refine at WG GES, March 2013
Questions and structure/content for reporting sheet / Refine at WG DIKE, March 2013
Concept paper and structure/content of reporting sheet / Agree at MSCG & endorse by Marine Directors, May 2013
Translate Reporting Sheet into spreadsheet tables / By summer 2013
Preparation of database module and xml schemas / By end 2013

+ test

Another important change is that the process should start with the discussion of the assessment purpose and questions to be answered. The questions, related to the provisions of the Directive, are an essential starting point for such a debate (see Annex 1). This should be in the centre of the discussion at the workshop and then further developed by DIKE.

In summary, when setting up Article 11 monitoring programmes, it is most important that the Member States demonstrate to the Commission and the public that their monitoring programmes are "complete, adequate, consistent, coherent and coordinated" in terms of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

This is the headline assessment criterion which needs to be the assessed and the results presented as key part of the Article 12 report. In order to carry out this assessment, the headline criterion needs to be broken down into more detailed "compliance indicators" and "sub-indicators". Finally, this can be structured in a meaningful way in themes, such as:

  • General and wider effects
  • Links to Article 8, 9, 10 and 13
  • Coordination consultation and coherence with existing programmes
  • Programmes, assessment and methodology
  • Data access and public consultation

These themes are used to structure Annex 1.

Amongst the many "compliance indicators" (which are formulated as questions in the annex 1), the most relevant one is:

  • Are the monitoring programmes ensuring that the "ongoing assessment of environmental status" is adequately monitored and the related targets? (see also key message 1 in the concept paper).

Other important compliance indicators could be:

  • How have you made sure that the monitoring programmes are coordinated and coherent within the region and sub-region? (see key message 2)
  • How have existing monitoring programmes been used? (see key message 3) In particular:
  • WFD
  • Habitats and Birds Directives
  • RSC programmes

Finally, all these assessment questions can be complemented with a fall-back situation: "if not, what is the Member State doing to implement this and by when?"

All this is elaborated in more detail in annex 1 also giving reference to the criteria for use in the Art 12 assessment that the questions relate to (completeness, adequacy, consistency and coherence). However, this would need to be developed further and would be agreed as part of the reporting guidance. In particular, the elements in the concept paper such as introducing a typology for monitoring, identifying different areas of monitoring etc. need to be integrated to fully reflect these issues.

Questions for discussion

Process

  • What would be the main outline / format of the reporting documents?
  • What are the relevant points to be addressed by the WG DIKE?
  • Which timeline to develop the reporting documents?

Content

  • Do we agree on the main elements of the approach?
  • Could we define some key assessment questions / criteria?

1

AdHocMonitoring2013-3-ReportingofMonitoringProgrammes_15-01-13.doc

AdHocMonitoring 2013/3

Annex 1: Analysis of needs from reporting on MSFD monitoring programmes

The following tables provide an analysis of the relevant articles and annexes of the MSFD. This has been used to develop a proposed set of questions that the Member State reporting should address, addressing in particular the text of the Directive highlighted in yellow. The questions are organised into a logical sequence, starting with some broad generalised questions relating to the monitoring programmes as a whole and then a set relevant to each programme (i.e. likely to differ per programme). The final column in the tables gives an indication of how the questions relate to the criteria used in the Commission's Article 12 assessment, thus providing a direct link to how the information reported by Member States could be used by the Commission.

Headline questions:

Directive / Directive text / Questions for reporting
Links to Art. 8, 9 and 10 / Art. 5.2a / (a) preparation:
(iv) establishment and implementation, by 15 July 2014 except where otherwise specified in the relevant Community legislation, of a monitoring programme for ongoing assessment and regular updating of targets, in accordance with Article 11(1); / Will the programme enable the periodic assessment of environmental status, and distance from and progress towards GES (Art. 8 with regard to Art 9)?
Will the programme provide suitable and sufficient data (information) to enable assessment of progress with the targets (using specified indicators with reference points) established under Art. 10 and enable their regular updating?
Article 11.1 / 1. On the basis of the initial assessment made pursuant to Article 8(1), Member States shall establish and implement coordinated monitoring programmes for the ongoing assessment of the environmental status of their marine waters on the basis of the indicative lists of elements set out in Annex III and the list set out in Annex V, and by reference to the environmental targets established pursuant to Article 10.
Monitoring programmes shall be compatible within marine regions or subregions and shall build upon, and be compatible with, relevant provisions for assessment and monitoring laid down by Community legislation, including the Habitats and Birds Directives, or under international agreements.
Annex V.1 / (1) Need to provide information for an assessment of the environmental status and for an estimate of the distance from, and progress towards, good environmental status in accordance with Annex III and with the criteria and methodological standards to be defined pursuant to Article 9(3).
Annex V.2 / (2) Need to ensure the generation of information enabling the identification of suitable indicators for the environmental targets provided for in Article 10.
Annex V.12 / (12) Need to address, as part of the initial assessment provided for in Article 8, the relevant elements listed in Annex III including their natural variability and to evaluate the trends towards the achievement of the environmental targets laid down pursuant to Article 10(1), using, as appropriate, the indicators established and their limit or target reference points.

General questions:

Directive / Directive text / Questions for reporting / Art. 12 criterion
General / Article 11.1 / 1. On the basis of the initial assessment made pursuant to Article 8(1), Member States shall establish and implement coordinated monitoring programmes for the ongoing assessment of the environmental status of their marine waters on the basis of the indicative lists of elements set out in Annex III and the list set out in Annex V, and by reference to the environmental targets established pursuant to Article 10.
Monitoring programmes shall be compatible within marine regions or subregions and shall build upon, and be compatible with, relevant provisions for assessment and monitoring laid down by Community legislation, including the Habitats and Birds Directives, or under international agreements. / What is the overall approach to the monitoring programmes, including:
  • What is the balance between state, impact, pressure, activity and measures monitoring? (move to programme level – more specific issue)
  • How has risk (of not achieving GES) been addressed (e.g. focus on pressures and areas where GES is at most risk)? (also more specific)
Do the monitoring programmes as a whole constitute an appropriate framework to meet the requirements of MSFD?
If not, what further development is needed:
  • Are there any significant gaps in Annex III coverage? What are the gaps? (per descriptor?) If yes, what plans are there to fill the gaps and by when?
  • Are there any significant gaps in GES Descriptor and criteria coverage? If yes, what plans are there to fill the gaps and by when?
  • Which targets are not addressed? What plans are there to fill the gaps and by when?
/ Completeness
Adequacy
Consistency
Coherence
Assessment / Article 12 / On the basis of all the notifications made pursuant to Articles 9(2), 10(2) and 11(3) in respect of each marine region or subregion, the Commission shall assess whether, in the case of each Member State, the elements notified constitute an appropriate framework to meet the requirements of this Directive and may ask the Member State concerned to provide any additional information that is available and necessary.
In drawing up those assessments, the Commission shall consider the coherence of frameworks within the different marine regions or subregions and across the Community.
Regional cooperation / Article 6 / 1. In order to achieve the coordination referred to in Article 5(2), Member States shall, where practical and appropriate, use existing regional institutional cooperation structures, including those under Regional Sea Conventions, covering that marine region or subregion.
2. For the purpose of establishing and implementing marine strategies, Member States shall, within each marine region or subregion, make every effort, using relevant international forums, including mechanisms and structures of Regional Sea Conventions, to coordinate their actions with third countries having sovereignty or jurisdiction over waters in the same marine region or subregion.
In that context, Member States shall, as far as possible, build upon relevant existing programmes and activities developed in the framework of structures stemming from international agreements such as Regional Sea Conventions.
Coordination and cooperation shall be extended, where appropriate, to all Member States in the catchment area of a marine region or subregion, including land-locked countries, in order to allow Member States within that marine region or subregion to meet their obligations under this Directive, using established cooperation structures prescribed in this Directive or in Directive 2000/60/EC. / The mechanisms and details of Member States' regional cooperation and coordination have already been reported under:
  • Art. 7 on Competent Authorities
  • Art. 8, 9, 10 on the Initial assessment, determination of GES and setting of environmental targets.
Only additional aspects relating specifically to monitoring programmes should be reported here, addressing:
  • Which regional institutional cooperation structures, including those in Directive 2000/60/EC, have been used to achieve coordination?
  • Which countries, including third countries and land-locked MS, have been involved?
To what extent are existing programmes and activities in regional structures used?
To what extent is the monitoring programme coherent and coordinated across the marine region or subregion, following a common approach?
What additional coordination is needed? How and by when will this be achieved? / Adequacy
Coherence
Wider effects / Article 11.2b / (b) relevant transboundary impacts and transboundary features are taken into account. / What relevant transboundary impacts and features occur (see art 8)? How are they taken into account? / Adequacy
Annex V.11 / (11) Need to include, as part of the initial assessment provided for in Article 8, an assessment of major changes in the environmental conditions as well as, where necessary, new and emerging issues. / Will the programme enable the identification of major changes in the environment? (JRC guidance?)
Will the programme enable the identification of new and emerging issues (pressures)? / Adequacy
Public Consultation / Article 19.2 / 2. Member States shall publish, and make available to the public for comment, summaries of the following elements of their marine strategies, or the related updates, as follows:
(c) the monitoring programmes established pursuant to Article 11(1); / When (dates) and how (web link) has a public consultation been undertaken? / Completeness

Programme-level questions:

Directive / Directive text / Questions for reporting / Art. 12 criterion