Common Implementation Strategy
Minutes of 14thmeeting of the Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES) / GES
Brussels
05-06 October 2015
Document: / GES_14-2015-Minutes_Draft
Title / Minutes of the 14th WG GES meeting (draft)
Date prepared: / 13-10-2015
Prepared by: / DG Environment and Milieu
DRAFT SUMMARY MINUTES
1Welcome and introduction
The meeting was chaired by Matjaž Malgaj and Anna Cheilari from DG Environment's Marine Environment and Water Industries Unit, and co-chaired by Andrea Weiss from Germany. A list of participants is given in Annex 1. The documentsand presentations for the meeting are listed in Annex 2, and are all available on CIRCABC. The Commission opened the meeting, thanking all participants for coming to Brussels and apologising for the change in the dates of the meeting.
2Approval of minutes of 13th meeting of WG GES
No additional comments were raised from participants and the minutes were approved.
3Update on CIS activities of relevance to WG GES
3.1Follow-upreport on the Marine Directors' meeting (26-27 May 2015)
The meeting held in Riga, highlighted the thematic work areas to be potentially included in the upcoming 2016-2018 CIS Work Programme. A shared view emerged from the meeting, which relates to the need for prioritisation of issues. Furthermore, the Directors called for a closer harmonisation and collaboration with the Regional Sea Conventions (RSC’s) – which had been very valuable so far. It was also recognised that there is the need to link CIS activities with global policy developments, such as for example the UN General Assembly “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and its link with healthy oceans.
All Working Groups are currently being asked to highlight priority areas and topics to be included in the next CIS Work Programme. The Commission stressed that it is aware of resource constraints and the need for efficiency in the work programme. For more details, check the final synthesisof the Marine Directors' meeting on CIRCABC.
3.2Report on the MSCG meeting (04-05 May 2015)
Participants wereasked to check the minutes of the MSCG meeting to get an overview.
3.3Report on WG DIKE meeting (19 June 2015)
The last WG DIKE meeting was held jointly with WG GES. The meeting included a discussion on the 2018 MSFD assessments. Additional points discussed in detail included the reporting on Programmes of Measures and exceptions, for which a guidance document on how to conduct the reporting had been prepared. Furthermore, the web-formsof the reporting system were launched and tested over the summer. The conclusions of the test exercisewill be presented at the next WG DIKE meeting on 12 October 2015.For more details, check the minutes on CIRCABC.
3.4Report on TG Litter meeting (29 June- 01 July 2015)
The last TG Litter meeting was held in Dublin. It was an organisational and drafting meeting, where feedback on activities from the four RSC’s was received. Progress on the four thematic reports under preparation by TG Litter was presented.The meeting concluded that there is a need for regional coordination, as well as to pay attention to developments at the UN level.
Participants welcomed the TG Litter work and praised the fact that harmonisation was soughtfrom the beginning of the process. It was also stated that budget cuts for monitoring are being discussed at the Member State level, and it is an important topic to consider in future work. It was clarified that the topic of budgetary constraints is indeed being considered by TG Litter; for example,for beach litter monitoring the possibility ofcombining it with monitoring activities undertaken by NGO’s is being considered.
The Commission will recommend to the MSCG that the work of TG Litter should receive continued support.
To consult the presentation, check CIRCABC.
3.5Report on TG Noise meeting (28-29 September 2015)
Participants welcomed the TG Noise work and commented that it has come a long way. It was clarified that OSPAR is implementing a noise register, with the support of ICES and other RSC’s are considering it too. Furthermore, coordination at RSC and EU level is increasing but remains an important issue for further steps.Furthermore, UNEP/MAP clarified that the work of HELCOM and OSPAR would be interesting in the context of other marine regions (e.g. the Mediterranean), in terms of knowledge exchange. A workshop on the next MSFD Article 8 assessment of underwater noisewill take place in Spring 2016.
To consult the presentation, check CIRCABC.
4Article 12 assessments
4.1For Articles 8, 9 and 10, Commission recommendations - follow-up
The follow-up to the Article 12 Recommendations was presented by the Commission, highlighting which Member States had replied so far to the Commission's recommendations. All replies are being made available on CIRCABC as they are received.
If additional replies to those noted in the presentation have been sent, WG GES members are asked to inform the Commission ASAP.
To consult the presentation, check CIRCABC.
4.2For Article 11 monitoring programmes
The state of play and follow-up of the assessments was presented by the consultants. So far, Article 11 assessments have been conducted for 20 out of 23 Member States. Three Member States (Poland, Greece and Malta) have not yet submitted their Article 11 reports.
Consultation with Member States on the national assessment reports has started and is to last until 20 October 2015.
To consult the presentation, check CIRCABC.
5Improving determination and assessment of GES
5.1Results of consultation process
After the consultation process on the technical review documents for the GES Decision and MSFD Annex III, the consultants compiled all answers received. In addition, they prepared a consolidated report covering horizontal and descriptor-specific issues.Regarding the consolidated report, a quantitative analysis of the answers was not made as the data received is highly qualitative. The consolidated report tries to bring the information together bypresenting common themes which have emerged and should be read in conjunction with the detailedcomments received.
The Commission thanked Member States and stakeholders for their valuable input which will be used to help prepare a new draft text of the Commission Decision. The Commission clarified that all feedback from the consultation process and from the additional JRC workshops,as well as the technical documents themselves and internal discussions regarding linkages to other policies, are being taken into account and reviewed in detail.
To consult the presentation, check CIRCABC.
5.2Draft examples of possible GES Decision descriptors
The Commission presented draft example text and main approaches for a revised Commission Decision for descriptors D8 and D9 and asked for initial feedback from WG GES participants.
For D8: One participant highlighted that the proposal is to follow the WFD sampling requirements until 12 nautical miles, but beyond that, the Member State should be able to choose the matrix to sample, as sediment and biota are more appropriate. There was a need for consistency between the RSC lists and the River Basin Specific Pollutants of WFD.
The Commission clarified that Member States could add additional substances beyond the WFD list of Priority Substances. Overall, it was most important to ensure no gaps in spatial coverage and in substances which are a risk. The Commission also clarified that bioeffects should continue to be part of D8 (but had not been presented in the slides).
For D9: One participant stressed the point that integrating microbiological contamination under D9 was animportant conclusion of the consultation. It was clarified that D9 needs to ensure traceability of the seafood, but no other requirements are proposed beyond regulation 1881/2006. Traceability is already assured through information to consumers, and the location where fish are caught is used for fish stock assessments undertaken by Member States; so the proposal does not entail additional obligations, but linking of data and ensuring that it is fed into the MSFD.
Therevised Commission Decision is planned to be adopted by the second quarter of 2016. As such, the Commission stressed that the future Commission Decision text should be commented on and refined as soon as possible.
To consult the presentations, check CIRCABC.
Action point:WG GES participants are asked to send in written comments on the proposed Commission Decision examples for D8 and D9 by 13.10.2015.
5.3Review of GES Decision per descriptor - state of play (JRC/ICES)
5.3.1Biodiversity and cross-cutting issues workshop (D1)
After a brief introduction of the D1 consultation answers received, the JRC presented the results of the D1 Biodiversity workshop held in Ispra, 7-9 September 2015. The document with the results can be found on CIRCABC.
One Member State and ICES commented that there is a need to ensure that the selection of species monitored is assured in the context of D1; itwas mentioned for example that the use of a specified list of species cannot characterise shifts from pelagic to benthichabitats or if a species is going extinct. The Commission clarified that criterion 1.4 should in principle address this pelagic-benthic shift aspect. One Member State added that species shifts would be better covered under D4 instead of D1.
The direct link of the predominant habitat typesto the EUNIS habitat classification was considered a positive step; however one Member State considered that special habitats might not be covered with the proposed text. The Commission clarified that the proposal is to use the special habitats to assess the broader (predominant) habitat types.
One Member State added that in the mixed zone between Baltic and North Sea, they sometimes have issues using the EUNIS classification, since the classification at level 4 and 5 doesnot necessarily fit some habitats. The Commission clarified that the workshop proposed D1 to be assessed at broad habitat level (equates toEUNISlevel 2). Only assessment of impact via ground-truth sampling would need to be at a finer habitat resolution (EUNIS level 4 or 5 or a special habitat type), using habitats suitable to the area being assessed. This validation of impact should be done in support of the broader assessment which uses spatial data sets, as being developed by the OSPAR and HELCOM indicators. Another Member State added adaptations of existing habitat typology systems to the EUNIS system are possible. Overall, it was requested to hold additional discussions on habitat types.
Regarding indicators at the species level, one Member State stated that these need to be adaptive because they would be applied differently for different species groups. It was also added that criterion 1.1 does not need all three associated indicators. Furthermore the wording “where relevant” was not considered appropriate. Objections were raised regarding the proposed new criterion 1.4, because it is not currently being used at the RSC level. The Commission clarified that it is aware that the indicators developed in OSPARand HELCOM do not cover all existing Decision indicators; in the cross-cutting paper the application of primary and secondary criteria had beenproposed to enable a more risk-based approach to be used.
One Member State highlighted that the final part of the assessment on aggregation remains unsolved. The Commission stated that the document presents details on how the assessment could be done. How aggregation will be done in practice needs to be developed further and ICES has been tasked to work on this. HELCOM highlighted the need to reflect on the timeline of implementation. Ifthis technical review leads to guidelines then these could be difficult to take up in the HELCOM context for the next round of assessments in the coming year, as work has already progressed at the regional level. A Member State supported this comment. The Commission stated that it isconscious of the timeline of the assessments at the regional level and so an agreement on aggregation rulesis needed soon.
5.3.2NIS workshop (D2)
After a brief introduction of the D2 consultation answers received, the JRC presented the results of the D2 non-indigenous species (NIS) workshop held in Ispra, 10-11 September 2015. The document with the results can be found on CIRCABC.
Overall, there are still conceptual discussions taking place regarding descriptor 2 indicating that further research is needed.
The JRC clarified that links between D2 and D3 are being considered and that streamlining of the work across all descriptors is needed.
HELCOM clarified that in the context of D2, the bio-pollution index is not a HELCOM core indicator but it is used by some of its contracting parties.
One Member State commented that the D2 manual complicates issues instead of making the Commission Decision clearer. In its opinion, the main indicator under D2 should be the trend indicator, with all others being optional. The argumentation provided is that impact indicators are difficult to apply because they need specialised and targeted studies. Nevertheless, the impact aspect is not lost, as it is covered in the Annex III under pressures. Two additional Member States supported this position, while another Member State commented that while the trend indicator is a major one, the other ones are also needed to get a more complete view of NIS in marine waters. The Commission replied that this is the report by the expert group, but that the commentsare noted and will be considered.
Several Member States stated that they have not received a briefing from their national experts on the outcomesof the workshop; as such they will send in written comments.
5.3.3Eutrophication workshop (D5)
After a brief introduction of the D5 consultation answers sent in, the JRC presented the results of the D5 eutrophication workshopheld in Ispra, 29-30 September 2015.
OSPAR commented that GES boundaries in the RSC are defined at the descriptor level and thus not fully in line with the proposal to be defined at the criterion or indicator level.
One Member State highlighted that there is an aggregation problem in the use of the WFD methodology and assessment results directly for MSFD. The Commission added that the idea is to apply different aggregation rules for the MSFD.
One Member State welcomed the approach of having core indicators, with additional optional indicators. It was clarified that the optional indicators are there to allow for regional adaptations. One Member State asked for terminology consistency check (primary and secondary indicators vs. core and additional indicators).
One Member State added that it is important to make sure that harmonisation does not hamper the use of innovative techniques and different systems of monitoring (example of chlorophyll monitoringthrough remote sensing).
Action point: WG GES to send in comments on the presentations of the workshops for D1, D2 and D5 results by 13.10.2015
5.3.4Other descriptors
A brief overview of the D3, D4, D10 and D11 consultation comments were presented. The following comments were raised:
- A Member State stated that climate change should be considered in all descriptors and not just D11. Perhaps it can be introduced as an overarching principle. The Commission added that the cross-cutting document included climate change issues.
- Oceancare objected to the current wording of the precautionary principle in the document. The stakeholder will submit written comments on this.
5.4Draft outline of MSFD Annex III
The Commission presented the draft outline of the MSFD Annex III. There were a number of comments in support of the overall proposal, which had provided greater clarity compared with the current Annex III. The following comments were made:
- One Member State indicated that the list of species groups for mobile species from the D1 workshop should also be included. Furthermore, guidance is needed on how to accommodate additional pressures that are not covered in the descriptors, as well as on how to include human activities in the Article 8 assessments.
- A Member State commented that “special habitats” should not be removed, as there is substantial RSC knowledge on these which should be utilised. Contrarily, one member state supported the incorporation of listed species and habitats within the broader species groups and habitat groups.
- One Member State clarified that Table 2.b on human activities is good as it allows to link with economic activities, but needs to be completed.
- Several meeting participantswelcomed the separation of the pressures and human activities into tables 2a and 2b, although one Member State added that links with the MSP Directive should be clarified in the tables.
- An issue with the term “highly mobile species” was raised by one Member State and it was suggested to change it to 'mobile species' given legal implications based on how they are defined under the Habitats Directive.
- The Commission clarifiedthat Annex III can be amended through a Comitology procedure, which did not open the rest of the directive.
- Several Member States added that they will send written comments on the Annex III document.
Action point: WG GES to send in comments on Annex III document found on CIRCABCby 13.10.2015
5.5Cross-cutting issues
A presentation of the cross-cutting issues document was made. The following comments were raised: