DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D - Water, Chemicals & Cohesion
ENV.D.2 - Water and Marine /
Working Group on Good Environmental Status
of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Common Implementation Strategy
14 May 2009 from 09:00 to 12:30
in CCAB(Borschette) Brussels, Room AB/2.B
Minutes
Following the establishment of the EU-level working structure in relation to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Commission, DG Environment D.2. (hereafter referred to as COM) invited Member States nominees and stakeholder representatives to the first meeting of the Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES) in Brussels on 14 May 2009 (morning session only).
The following Member States (MS) participated in the meeting:BE, CY, DE, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, MT, NL, PL,RO, SI, SE and UK.
The following EEA country participated: NO.
The following stakeholder organisations / structures: were represented: ASCOBANS, BirdLife International, ECBD, EUCC, EUREAU, EURELECTRIC, Greenpeace, HELCOM, IFAW, KIMO, OGP, Seas At Risk, UEPG, Venice Platform, WWF.
In addition, a representative of the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the Commission (DGs ENV, MARE, JRC and SANCO) and a representative of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) as contractor to the Commission were present. A full list of meeting participants is provided in Annex1.
1.Opening of the meeting and adoption of the Agenda
The Chairman (Carlos Berrozpe, COM) welcomed participants to the meeting.
The participants briefly introduced themselves.
A draft agenda (Document WG GES May 09 1/1; see Annex 2) was distributed before the meeting, which the meeting agreed as a basis for its discussions.
2.Review of the draft Terms of Reference for the Group
COM had prepared draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for this Working Group on Good Environmental Status taking account of similar ToR for working groups under the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy and reflecting the discussions held earlier with Member States' representatives (Document WG GES May 09 2/1).
The following issues were addressed:
-Stakeholder organisations were interested to know whether they could make document submissions to the working group meetings and whether they were allowed to distribute further the WG documents, e.g. in order to undertake internal consultations of their networks. Also, whether a meeting report would be produced. In reply to this question, the chairman stated that participating organisations could submit documents to the meetings, and that COM would ensure document organisation on the 'Marine Strategy' CIRCA Interest Group for this purpose (see Participating organisations were allowed to further distribute internally working group meeting documents to facilitate and prepare their participation. [However, in cases of further document distribution, it may be helpful if participants can provide sufficient context to the information distributed so that any feedback can be sufficiently targeted.] Each meeting would be minuted with an opportunity for participants to comment before the next meeting finalised the minutes of the previous meeting.
-The SE representative brought up the question of possible regionalisation of criteria and standards. The Chair replied that the purpose of the EU-wide criteria and methodological standards is to fulfil the obligations under MSFD Art. 9(3), and that in the context of their application the question of regional differentiation could be addressed. This was taken up in Activity 3.
-The UK representation welcomed the strong role given to the Working Group in the draft ToR prepared and indicated that cost considerations would be important for the viability of the criteria and methodologies proposed, e.g. with regard to the types of monitoring necessary. This was now made more explicit in the issues to be addressed under Activity 1.
-The NL representation supported the UK with regard to the need for proportionality and practicability in the criteria and methodological standards.
-COM indicated that the process of adoption of the criteria and methodological standards would involve the European Parliament according to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, and that this process required a specific timeslot within the overall timeframe for their delivery, implying more time pressure to meet the specified deadline.
-In response to the consideration of the overall timeframe of the work commissioned by COM to DG Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), COM indicated that an additional meeting in early 2010 (January 2010?) would probably be useful and this was subsequently included.
After the discussion, COM prepared amendments to the draft ToR accordingly for the consideration of the Marine Strategy Coordination Group on 15 May 2009 and onward transmission to the meeting of the Marine Directors on 29 May 2009.
3.Assisting the Development of 'Criteria and Methodological Standards'
The Chairman recalled briefly the set-up of a supporting work arrangement wherein the DG Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) had been commissioned to prepare the scientific and technical basis for the criteria and methodological standards for good environmental status (GES), with a joint working arrangement across both organisations. This would cover eight of the eleven GES descriptors, a ninth was covered by work lead by the Health and Consumers DG (DG SANCO) and for two descriptors (concerning litter and concerning hydrographical conditions) no equivalent supporting work arrangement was yet in place.
On behalf of JRC and ICES, Ana Cristina Cardoso (JRC) presented the progress report covering January 2009-April 2009 of their work (see Document WG GES May 09 3/1). She addressed:
-The context of the work and the purpose: to set out 'how' Member States can determine whether the environmental status is 'good' with respect to the different descriptors, i.e. to get from very general definitions of the descriptors (Article 3 and Annex I of the Directive) to a common understanding of what GES is, and how status of ecosystems relative to it should be quantified. The task was not to prescribe specific boundaries between good and bad, as it will be the Member States which define these for their own waters taking account of specific characteristics.
-The constitution of specialist 'Task Groups' composed each of twelve expert scientists which spanned the necessary scientific disciplines and who were sufficiently familiar with the spread in regional conditions of marine waters around Europe;
-That these Task Groups would organise their work on the basis of a common guidance document (or ToR) addressing the background of the work, definition of key terms and concepts, organisational issues, the terms of reference for the TGs, and the timetable;
-The JRC/ICES internal coordination mechanisms, to ensure neat coverage and consistency across the work of related descriptors;
-The situation with regard to observers from the Regional Sea Conventions at present: not all Regional Sea Conventions had yet nominated an observer that could liaise with their respective structure.
In discussion, the following points were examined more closely:
-The regional and national balance of the experts selected by JRC and ICES. The Chairman recalled that the Task Groups are constituted by JRC and ICES with independent experts who do not represent a country or region. Under their contractual arrangements, JRC and ICES had full responsibility for their selection, and issues of national applicability of their proposals were in the remit of the WG GES itself, which would have all opportunity to scrutinise the outcome of JRC's and ICES's work.
-The Romanian participant indicated that the Task Group on Eutrophication did not include an expert from a country bordering the Black Seanoting there had been an expression of interest from a Romanian expert. The composition of the Task Group on the eutrophication descriptor had not been reviewed by the JRC and ICES Management Group and its composition might possibly be reviewed still.
-The European Environment Agency offered assistance to JRC and ICES if additional experts needed to be mobilised, its EIONET network might facilitate this.
-The question of defining the boundary of 'good': it was repeated that the work on criteria and methodological standards would provide information on the way to do it, not on the specific boundaries themselves, where MS had duties under MSFD Art. 5, 6 and 9.
-The need to select evidence-based and practicable methodologies whose merits had already been demonstrated, or –where these did not yet exist or only partially– based on thorough consideration that a newly proposed method would be viable.
-The need for a dynamic and active intervention by the coordinating Management Group to ensure full mutual compatibility and coherence of the outcomes of the Task Groups.
-The access, by observers, to work in progress by the Task Groups, their freedom to report on progress under the Chatham House Rule, and that they should communicate mainly with the Task Group chairs in respect of the modalities of their observership.
-Confirmation that the main feedback with all the Member States and with stakeholders will take place in this Working Group on Good Environmental Status where a transparent and balanced debate can be organised.
The WG noted the JRC and ICES progress report.
The WG noted the report submitted by DG SANCO (WG GES May 09 3/2).
COM stated that the arrangement with DG Joint Research Centre, the DG Health and Consumers and ICES did not cover the descriptors on 'litter' (MSFD Annex I, item 10) and on 'hydrographical conditions' (MSFD Annex I, item 7):
-For the latter (hydrography), specific scoping of what might be useful needed to be undertaken still as there was a potential range of issues, from a small to a very large scale, that could potentially be considered. The December 2008 French Presidency conference '2012 Marine Targets' had indicated that a normative approach to hydrographical conditions had not yet advanced much, although the significance of 'normal' hydrographical conditions for marine environmental quality was generally acknowledged and that there was also possibly some overlap with work ongoing in the Task Group on sea floor integrity. The WG will need to revert to this issue.
-For the former (litter), COM presented a document, including a proposal, at the meeting (WG GES May 09 3/3).
COM explained its proposal on a way forward on the litter descriptor, which was based on discussions with marine litter experts at the 10-11 May meeting of the OSPAR group on marine litter (OSPAR 'ICG ML'). The next step would be a scoping workshop, followed by the setting up of a Task Group along the methodological lines of the work already ongoing on the other GES descriptors. An issue of additional resources would arise (although COM would investigate funding the costs associated with the scoping workshop).
In discussion:
-The representative of Greenpeace stated that the hydrography descriptor should be given due consideration.
-There was general support from the MS who intervened for the COM proposal on a way forward on the litter question, bearing in mind however the need to avoid duplication of work and the efficient use of scarce resources.
WG GES endorsed that COM should proceed on the litter descriptor along the lines set out in Document WG GES May 09 3/3.
4.Conclusions
The Chair thanked all the participants for their contributions. The results would be briefly reported to the MSCG on 15 May and MD on 29 May. Participants from ICES and JRC were invited to take the results relevant for them back to their organisations. COM intended to progress on litter and would communicate further with the group on the outstanding issue of the descriptor on contaminants vs. health standards after further internal consultation with DG SANCO.
The Chair closed the meeting at 12.30'.
1
Annex 1
List of participants
Belgium / BMM-UGMM-MUMMFOD Volksgezondheid, Veiligheid van de Voedselketen en Leefmilieu
Cyprus / Marine Environment Division, Department of Fisheries and Marine Research (DFMR), Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment
Denmark / Danish Ministry of the Environment, Agency for Spatial and Environmental Planning
Danish Ministry of the Environment, Agency for Spatial and Environmental Planning
Finland / Marine Research Centre, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)
France / Ministère de l'Ecologie, de l'Energie, du Développement Durable et de l'Aménagement du Territoire/Direction de l'Eau et de la Biodiversité
France / IFREMER
Germany / Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit
Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein
Greece / Hellenic Centre for Marine Research
Ireland / Marine Institute
Department for Environment Northern Ireland
Italy / Institute for Environmental Protection and research
Lithuania / Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania
Malta / Malta Environment and Planning Authority
Netherlands / Ministry of Transport, Public Works & Water Management
Ministry of Transport, Public Works & Water Management
Ministry of Transport, Public Works & Water Management
Ministry of Transport, Public Works & Water Management
Poland / Polish Environmental Protection
Spain / Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino
Slovenia / Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia
Sweden / Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
United Kingdom / Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Marine Scotland
European Environment Agency (EEA) / Project Manager Marine Assessments
European Commission / Environment DG
Maritime Affairs and Fisheries DG
Health and Consumers DG
Joint Research Centre DG
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
Norway / Directorate for Nature Management
Norwegian Pollution Control Authority
Regional Sea Convention / HELCOM
HELCOM
Organisations / Oceana
Venice Platform and Corila
Seas At Risk
UEPG (company Lafarge)
UEPG
IFAW
UEPG (company OAM-DEME Mineralien GmbH)
OGP
EBCD
Eurelectric
WWF North-East Atlantic Programme
KIMO
Birdlife
EU Oceans
EUCC Marine Team
BirdLife International
Eureau
1
Annex 2
Draft Agenda
Opening of the meeting (09:00 am)
Welcome statement by the Commission.
Participants, in particular the stakeholders, will be invited to briefly present themselves and their particular interest in contributing to this group.
- Adoption of the Agenda
Participants will be invited to adopt this draft agenda.
- Review of the draft Terms of Reference of the Working Group
The meeting will be invited to review and comment its draft Terms of Reference which will be considered also by the parent body 'Marine Strategy Coordination Group' on 15 May with a view to their adoption by the Marine Directors on 29 May.
- Assisting the development of 'criteria and methodological standards'
After an introduction by DG ENV, JRC and ICES will present a comprehensive progress report of their work commissioned to prepare the scientific and technical basis for the criteria and methodological standards for good environmental status.
DG SANCO is invited to present a progress report on the work it is doing with regard to descriptor (9) (contaminants vs. food standards)
The meeting will be invited to discuss and comment this progress report.
11:00 – 11:15 Coffee break
(continuation of Agenda Item 4 if necessary)
- Conclusions
The meeting will draw conclusions on the discussions ahead of the meeting of the Marine Strategy Coordination Group on 15 May (and Marine Directors to be held on 29 May 2009 at Brno (CzechRepublic)).
- Any other business
Meeting closes (12:15 pm)
------
1