DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D - Water, Chemicals & Biotechnology
ENV.D.2 - Marine /
Brussels, 06 April 2010
Working Group on Good Environmental Statusof the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Common Implementation Strategy
29 March 2010
Conference Centre Albert Borschette (CCAB), Rue Froissart 37, Brussels
Final minutes
Welcome by the Commission
The Commisison opened the meeting by outlining the agenda of the next days and explained the reasons for convening the meeting. He outlined that the primary focus of this meeting is the discussion on the Commission decision on GES criteria under Article 9(3) MSFD. The commission thanked Germany for co-chairing the WG GES and pointed out that next to the Member States other stakeholders and DG MARE were present.
1. Adoption of the Agenda
The meeting adopted the draft agenda.
2. Approval of the draft minutes of the WG GES meeting of 1-2 February (Doc 2)
The draft minutes were approved.
3. Update on work carried out on criteria and methodological standards for Good Environmental (GES) within the WG GES
The Commission outlined that it had received a wide array of comments by Member States and other stakeholders which are available on circa. The Commission sent these to the scientific experts in the framework of ICES. In mid-February, staff of DG ENV and DG MARE participated in the management group in ISPRA. The management report will be uploaded and it includes a summary of all TG reports. Referring to this, the Commission presented a table with descriptors which are in need to be updated.
Furthermore, the internal procedures and the future timeline were presented. The Commission outlined that the time should be used to improve the overall quality of the document. The initial intention of the Commission was to have the document ready after the inter- service consultation, but now the finalisation is planned in mid-April, consequently it is still possible to submit changes. The timeframe of the submission of the document for the Regulatory Committee is mid-May. The final document will be then sent on the 12 May 2010 to the EP and the Council. The Commission agreed on a meeting on 21 June 2010 with the Council in order to further the development of the decision with the integration of comments of the Council. It was outlined that this was a very key situation to use the momentum on the marine strategy as the marine directors meeting will take place on 27 and 28 May 2010 in Spain.
Regarding the European Parliament, the document will be presented on the 8 July 2010 as this is the last plenary meeting before September. Thus the decision will take different hurdles and one can expect to have a clear picture of the final outcome by 9 July 2010.
4. Discussion on the document “Elements for the Commission decision on GES criteria under Article 9(3) MSFD” (Doc 3)
Irrespective of language issues, the Commission invited everyone to make substantial comments as the document will be about the final decision and will look closely to the final version.
In the framework of the general consideration the following points were raised. The strengthening and definition of the GES was seen as necessary before an assessment can be conducted. In regard to the review clause, different time frames were proposed and discussed.
In general, in regard to the work done between the interlinkages, the Commission explained that there should be flexibility in the work which is linked to practicability. The Member States seemed to be content with the flexibility as several terms are quite open.
In regard to the issue of mandatory or voluntary measures, the Member States presented differing opinions and approaches. Some Member States outlined that instead of mandatory obligations, they would stress cooperation between Member States.
On this point, it was added that there are three types of levels: Pan-European, Regional and Member State level and there should be a set of core obligations at the Pan-European level. In regard to the Regional level, there are different conditions that would require coordination and various instruments and several directives are available for this matter. Moreover, it was stated that some indicators are in different levels of maturity and others needed to be defined and further clarified in order to facilitate implementation. The introduction of flexibility in the choice of indicators and regions was proposed and it was outlined that the amount of indicator could cause confusion. Moreover, it was put forward that pressure indicator are important, but that these were missing in the current draft.
A risk-based approach was outlined to be suitable to cover a large area with a good cost efficiency. It was outlined that a wide set of criteria could be used for the overall assessment and specific criteria for the
The Regional Seas Conventions should be integrated and the methodologies applied and used therein, should be taken into consideration in order to facilitate harmonisation in each sea.
It was outlined that a reference to the climate change should be included in the text.
Descriptor 1
The Commission introduced the descriptor by outlining the work which had been done in the framework of TG 1. Furthermore, it outlined that numerous comments were made about the landscape level and the Commission welcomed any comments in this regard.
It was emphasised that the indicator constituted an overlap with other indicators. Moreover, concerns were expressed that there is a huge gap in the indicators and that many of them are too ambitious.
The wording "at risk" was seen as being problematic as the concept is derived from the Water Framework Directive.
In regard to the risk assessment, some Member States disagreed that it should be moved to a later stage; other Member States stated that there is a need for guidance on the risk-assessment.
In relation to pressure indicator, it was proposed to recourse to the TG as it provided useful language on how to select pressure indicators.
The Commission outlined that assessment of the status of species is not feasible, if no further information about the status of habitat are available.
Descriptor 6
The Commission introduced this descriptor and outlined that it is rather innovative.
The question whether certain indicators are indirect or direct was discussed and several proposition were made. Moreover, it was discussed whether 6.2 as a pressure indicator should be indicated here and Member States had differing opinion. It was expressed that state indicators were often defined as pressure indicators.
A new indicator on "physical loss" linked to pressure was proposed. In this line, the reference to Annex III was seen to provide a link for pressure and so there was no more need to include more indicators.
It was outlined that the risk-based approach is particularly important for this descriptor as the sea-bed is of a patchy nature.
Concerns were raised about the ration between oxygen/hydrogen sulphides.
Descriptor 4
It was proposed to add more indicators, which was not welcomed by some Member States which pointed out that the current status of 85 indicators already poses a problem for the management. Proposition to delete 6.9. Moreover, it was proposed to move the last indicators of descriptor 1 to descriptor 4.
In regard to a climate change reference, it was not clear whether it was a general reference or specific linkages to issues such as biodiversity.
The Commission pointed out that they would look at a general reference. It moreover added that they need to link the primary production at this point.
Descriptor 3
The Commission introduced descriptor 3 and asked the Member States to contribute to the discussion with comments.
The MSY was differently seen by Member States and some wanted it lower or at least at this level. It was outlined that it was not possible to maintain all stocks at a MSFY level.
The MSY does not take have mixed fisheries into consideration.
It was proposed that a set of representative species would be taken to assess the GES. Concerns were raised about the sites indicators and the 100% female fishes which were regarded as unsuitable proxies. It was pointed out that no indicator is established to cover shellfish. The removal of indicator 3.8 was proposed.
The list of descriptors was proposed to be extended by adding by-catch in order to create linkages.
The lack of scientific data was stressed and it was proposed that ICES could be invited to further the research. In this line, it was put forward that ICS should provide advice on MSY and proxy MSY. It was outlined that most commercially exploited fish stocks are in the national borders.
It was outlined that the need exists to develop a multi-species and multi-gear approach.
The linkages with descriptor 1 could be made in relation to the modelling and mapping of fish habitat. Moreover, the importance of linkages and compatibility of the MSFD and the CFP are important.
Some clarification was asked in regard to the definition of a commercial species and a stock.
The Commission explained that the future of the MSY had been already been picked up by ICES and MARE. The Commission agreed that the integration of the concept of mixed fisheries is difficult in the assessment of MSY. Additionally, a new concept has emerged in the scientific community: the Maximum Ecological Yield.
In regard to the data of national stocks, here all stocks from the different national areas would be included. In the newly reformed data collection framework, the data collection is pursued in the regional framework.
It will be considered if the issue of by-catch will be integrated in the framework of GES.
Descriptor 2
The Commission outlined that this descriptor is relevant for Art.10 and consequently it is not an indicator or associated indicator on the achievement of GES.
This descriptor was seen as vital and indispensable as once the invasive alien species have settled it would be difficult to remove these. Out of this reason, the importance of this indicator is to hinder the introduction by focusing on the pathways and vectors of introduction. To hinder the introduction, the pressure indicator is important, as the monitoring of already present invasive species would be disproportionate.
It was proposed to remove 4.4. and 4.5 as these are too ambitious.
It was outlined that the bio-pollution index is not feasible for some seas.
The Commission outlined that there have been differing views on this issue and invited the Member States to continue this discussion on the next day.
Descriptor 5
There was disagreement on the shift or removal to the secondary or respectively first indicator of the following indicators: 5.3.,5.5,5.6,5.7 and 5.8. For the purpose of clarification, it was asked whether the Commission could specify and define certain concepts in these indicators.
Moreover, concerns were raised about the frequency of monitoring. Monitoring tools of modelling and remote sensing were proposed to be included in the text. Other Member States did find it suitable to include specific references to sampling methodologies.
The activities in the regional framework of OSPAR were presented to be of a possible guidance on this issue. It was moreover noted that the criteria as developed by OSPAR were sufficient in meeting the aim of the directive. To make a referral to the existing methodologies in the framework of OSPAR, it was proposed to issue a collective declaration of the OSPAR countries. It was proposed to include an indicator which clearly states the regional differences depending on the sea.
In relation to the sampling frequency, the Member States had differing opinion on whether these should be amended or removed.
The Commission agreed to remove indicators 5.6 and 5.7.
Descriptor 7
The Commission introduce this descriptor and outlined that it focused on effects rather than on permanent alterations, out of these reasons strong linkages with sea-floor integrity and strategic environmental assessment exist.
Concerns were raised that the descriptor is in need of further work.
The focus of this descriptor should be on accumulative effects and should provide linkages to descriptor 1 and 6. Other Member States proposed that the descriptor should focus on alterations at a large scale rather than on individual projects.
Concerns were raised that the descriptor does not integrate the water column and that the criteria on changes in the sedimentation was not kept.
In relation to the assessment, it was outlined that the risk-based approach would be the right way forward which would be applied on a case by case analysis.
The Commission outlined that the scale is at stake and that it is focus on an ecosystem-approach.
Descriptor 10
The Commission outlined that in drafting this descriptor, the management report on marine litter was taken into consideration.
It was outlined that the inclusion of the following indicators would be welcomed: on the different vectors, on the trends, on the introduction of litter and on floating litter. The criterion "impact of litter on marine life" was seen as central. Due to the diverse range of indicators, the need for prioritisation and the selection of mandatory or voluntary indicators was underlined. Concerns were raised in regard to indicator 10.2 and 10.3.
The monitoring should be conducted on the surface rather than on the water column. It was proposed that the sampling could not only take place on the plankton but also on other organism such as lobster. A referral to the experience within the framework of OSPAR on beach litter and on the methodology to assess litter by airplanes was done. It was put forward that Member States could cooperate on a regional scale.
Some Member States did not feel that a specific sampling method and frequency should be included in the indicator as it is difficult to determine the source of the litter.
The amount of micro-particles should be pointed out in the sediments.
Concerns were raised about the numerical reference in 10.2 and it was expressed that its removal would be welcomed.
Descriptor 8
The Commission outlined that this descriptor has close linkages with the Water Framework Directive.
The wording of indicator 8.1 and 8.3 was addressed and it was outlined that the wording was not clear.
It was stated that the chapeau should express the need of a seamless transition between the Water Framework Directive and the MSFD. It was moreover presented that it is important to ensure the comparability among the regions and that common techniques must be included.
The suitability of a risk—based approach was outlined which is complemented with a screening procedure.
In regard to the oil-slicks, concerns were raised that these are already monitored by other organisations and that a risk-based approach has to be applied in monitoring these. It was expressed that the polluter-pays principle has to be respected.
The inclusion of other techniques such as passive sampling was seen as necessary to be included.
The missing common and sampling criteria in the matrix were seen with concern.
Descriptor 9
In regard to Descriptor 9, the Commission outlined that it applied legislation in the field of human health and took the compatibility with European legislation and the Regional Seas Conventions into consideration
Strong linkages had to be drawn with the Water Framework Directive, as several substances are under scrutiny in regard to the chemical status of the water body.
In regard to the biological effects, concerns were raised as unspecific effects may occur and no clear cause and effects relationship can be established.
In regard to the monitoring of crustaceans, it was proposed to exactly state the species concerned
It was pointed out that rivers are important pathways of nutrients to the marine environment and that it was difficult to determine the decrease of these contaminant as a target for GES.
Descriptor 11
The Commission introduced the descriptor and pointed out that even though noise is a priority, the need existed to conduct further work on energy. The Commission changed the surface area following proposals to change the spatial level. The proposals on ambient noise and sonar were not included.
Concerns were raised about the specific numerical references, it was argued that the level of research is not sufficient to qualify the inclusion of actual reference levels and thus the removal of these numbers was welcomed. Other propositions were in favour of retaining these or to change the reference levels.
It was pointed out that in regard to the first indicator; the accumulative effects are to be taken into account.
The Commission reflected on the report conducted by Germany and the Netherlands and inquired whether this would be continued.
5. Conclusion:
The Commission summarizes the meeting and referred to the need of having a review clause. Furthermore, a debate on mandatory or voluntary measures had been central which had to be seen in conjunction with the initial assessment and more cooperation and conversion in several areas. Additionally, a clearer link to regional cooperation and linkages to EU instruments and Regional Seas Conventions will be considered. The overall tendency seems to be towards shortening which is highly depending on the descriptor in question. The work on flexibility needs to be highlighted.