ICG MSFD(1) 15/09/01
English only
OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic
Meeting of the Intersessional Correspondence Group for the Implementation of the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive (ICG MSFD)
Brussels (Belgium): 20–21 April 2015
Contents of the Report of the meeting
Opening of the meeting...................................................................................................................................... 2
Agenda Item 1 – Adoption of the Agenda and check on earlier agreed actions................................................ 2
Agenda Item 2 – Programmes of measures ....................................................................................................... 3
Joint Documentation on Coordination of Measures for MSFD ..................................................................... 3
Draft Development of Measures Programme (DoMP) ................................................................................. 6
Exceptions (Art.14 MSFD).............................................................................................................................. 7
Agenda Item 3 – Common Indicators, Monitoring, Assessment and Data management .................................. 8
Progress on common indicators .................................................................................................................... 8
Intermediate assessment 2017 (IA2017) ....................................................................................................10
Agenda Item 4 – Preparing the second MSFD cycle: coordination on GES and targets ..................................11
Portugal position paper on the second cycle of the implementation of the MSFD....................................11
Coordinated targets and GES ......................................................................................................................12
Agenda Item 5 – Addressing knowledge gaps ..................................................................................................13
OSPAR Science (needs) Agenda (OSA).........................................................................................................13
Agenda Item 6 – Cross-cutting issues ...............................................................................................................13
Agenda Item 7 – Regular update of coherent MSFD implementation .............................................................14
ICG MSFD Work Plan ...................................................................................................................................14
Agenda Item 8 – Any other business ................................................................................................................14
Agenda Item 9 – Conclusions of meeting .........................................................................................................14
Annexes
List of Participants ...................................................................................................................................Annex 1
Agenda and list of documents .................................................................................................................Annex 2
List of actions arising from the meeting ..................................................................................................Annex 3
Overview of possible HELCOM measures................................................................................................Annex 4
Proposed structure for the joint documentation report.........................................................................Annex 5
1 of 14
OSPAR Commission
Report – ICG-MSFD(1) 2015
ICG-MSFD(1) 15/09/01
ICG MSFD(1) 15/09/01
English only
OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic
Meeting of the Intersessional Correspondence Group for the Implementation of the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive (ICG MSFD)
Brussels (Belgium): 20–21 April 2015
Summary Record
Opening of the meeting
0.1 The meeting of the Intersessional Correspondence Group on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
(ICG MSFD) took place on 20-21 April 2015, kindly hosted by Belgium in Brussels. On behalf of ICG MSFD
the Chair thanked Belgium for hosting the meeting.
0.2 The meeting was chaired by Mr Wim van Urk (the Netherlands) and was attended by representatives
from the following Contracting Parties: Belgium, Denmark, European Union (represented by the European
Commission), France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
The following observer organisation attended the meeting: Seas at Risk. The list of participants is at
Annex 1.
Agenda Item 1 – Adoption of the Agenda and check on earlier agreed actions
ICG MSFD(1) 15/1/1, ICG MSFD(1) 15/1/1-Add.1 Rev.1, ICG MSFD(1) 15/1/info.1, ICG MSFD(1) 15/1/info.2,
ICG MSFD(1) 15/1/info.3
1.1
The adopted Agenda and list of documents are at Annex 2.
1.2 The Chair (the Netherlands) reminded the meeting that this was an important year because
Contracting Parties that were EU Member States (MS) were finishing their last products for the 1st cycle of
the MSFD, namely Programmes of Measures for Art.13. Joint documentation on coordination of measures
was an important final step in this cycle of the MSFD. The 2nd cycle would begin with common indicators.
Contracting Parties needed to begin coordination of GES and targets to be on schedule for 2nd cycle of
MSFD implementation and the Chair expressed the hope that a group would volunteer to lead and find a
way forward on this. It was important to establish at this meeting what Contracting Parties intended to
commit to and where opt outs might be used.
1.3 In response one Contracting Party indicated that in its view the discussion should focus on how to
use the common indicators to identify problem areas and their extent, that would in turn lead to measures.
1.4 The Secretariat updated the meeting on the state of play of agreed MSFD-related actions from earlier
meetings (ICG MSFD(1) 15/1/Info.1). The key actions that had taken place intersessionally since ICG
MSFD(2) 2014 were: (a) submission of a proposal for the EMFF call ‘DG ENV/MSFD Action Plans/2014’; (b)
the regional plan of action addressing Art.12 had been sent to Marine Directors in November 2015
(15/1/info.03); other products would be discussed within the meeting. A list of actions arising from the
current meeting and associated deadlines, together with an overview of still relevant actions agreed at
earlier meetings are provided in Annex 3.
1.5 The Secretariat drew the meeting’s attention to those Products/Deliverables in the ICG Forward
Work Plan (ICG MSFD(1) 15/1/Info.2) that still did not have Task Managers: 1.4, 2.1, 3.1 and 6.1. The
Netherlands had taken the lead on Product/deliverable 4.2, working with France and UK. In regard to
Product/Deliverable 2.2 the Chair explained that the common indicator experts had been involved in the
2 of 14
OSPAR Commission
Report – ICG-MSFD(1) 2015
ICG-MSFD(1) 15/09/01
review of the Commission Decision 2010/477 EU1 and that relevant conclusions from ICG MSFD(1) 2015
could be fed into the EU Common Implementation Strategy (CIS). Furthermore the Secretariat had taken
part in the Expert workshop review of D8 and D9 to ensure the work of OSPAR was considered in the
experts’ advice to the Commission. There were also experts from OSPAR Contracting Parties participating in
the review processes of other Descriptors. The Secretariat reminded the meeting that two letters had been
sent to the Commission by the Secretariat on behalf of a Committee and an ICG on particular concerns in
the review of the Commission Decision. ICG MSFD was invited to follow the same process if it had concerns
that should be brought to the attention of the European Commission.
1.6 The European Commission informed the meeting that the timetable for the review of the
Commission Decision was due to be discussed at WG GES (22-23 April). The European Commission was
aiming at a mid-2016 (July) target date for a revised Commission Decision with a draft available in February
2016. OSPAR’s input to this review was welcomed. The European Commission, also described a recent
meeting of the EEA, the European Commission and RSCs OSPAR and HELCOM (15-16 April). At the meeting
these bodies had exchanged information on the joint regional assessment reports and discussed how the
reports might contribute to MSFD reporting for 2018. The European Commission explained that two drivers
for the meeting were, (a) to look at the Art.8 (2018) requirements of reporting by EU MSs and (b) 2019
report on state of European seas. The European Commission explained it did not want to delay production
of the IA2017 and therefore there was a proposal for a joint meeting with WG DIKE (June 2015) to develop
the Art.8 2018 reporting process bottom-up from what was already being developed by the RSC. The
European Commission confirmed that at that meeting the reporting process of Art.13 would also be
discussed.
Agenda Item 2 – Programmes of measures
ICG MSFD(1) 15/2/1, ICG MSFD(1) 15/2/2, ICG MSFD(1) 15/2/3, ICG MSFD(1) 15/2/info.1
Joint Documentation on Coordination of Measures for MSFD
OSPAR Acquis of Measures
2.1
The Chair introduced the concept and purpose of joint documentation on coordination of measures.
The OSPAR ‘acquis’ of measures was the first step, providing an overview of existing measures. The
Netherlands provided the background to the acquis and presented an overview of responses received from
thematic Committees (ICG MSFD(1) 15/1/1). The Netherlands explained that although many OSPAR
measures had been overtaken by European legislation, the document was not limited to only MSFDrelevant measures. The Netherlands highlighted the few updates to the acquis that had been made in
response to Committees’ comments, which would be forwarded to the CoG(1) 2015. The Netherlands gave
an oral update from EIHA on hydrographic conditions and the corresponding new text in §41 of ICG MSFD
15/1/1. §14 of the acquis would have more information on assessment and reporting procedures.
2.2
In discussion the following points were made:
a.
ICG MSFD thanked the Netherlands, in particular Reinier Goud, for his considerable efforts on
drafting an excellent text,
b.
in §2 implementation reporting on Articles 22 and 23 of the OSPAR Convention could also refer
to OSPAR’s 2003 reporting procedures, which would also be of relevance for the DoMP,
c.
EIHA had underlined the need for a stronger emphasis on the North East Atlantic Environment
Strategy in the acquis. That Committee had also requested inclusion of OSPAR
Recommendation 2010/52, noting it was not fully implemented by Contracting Parties,
1
Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine
waters (2010/477/EU)
2 OSPAR 10/23/1-E, Annex 27
OSPAR Recommendation 2010/5 on assessments of environmental impact in relation to threatened and/or declining species and
habitats
3 of 14
OSPAR Commission
Report – ICG-MSFD(1) 2015
ICG-MSFD(1) 15/09/01
d.
one Contracting Party considered a thorough analysis of acquis had not been undertaken by all
Committees,
e.
several Contracting Parties thought the acquis should be regularly updated in the future as
additional measures were proposed at Committee meetings,
f.
Sweden proposed that assessment of implementation of measures should be undertaken using
the acquis document as a basis and indeed it was already doing this nationally,
g.
the Secretariat explained that the renewed OSPAR website would include the acquis in its
MSFD section. Some Contracting Parties supported an online version of the acquis that could
be easily updated,
h.
the Netherlands noted that the acquis would need to be updated after OSPAR 2015, e.g. with
any new Recommendations, MPA information etc. A regular updating process was needed so
that Contracting Parties could refer to an up-to-date version, e.g. in their national reporting for
MSFD,
i.
several Contracting Parties supported the suggestion for aligning the structure of the acquis to
WFD and MSFD Key Types of Measures3 (KTMs),
j.
Portugal reminded the meeting that it had completed its Programmes of Measures under the
MSFD. Portugal said it would like to see a focus in the acquis at a (sub)regional scale because
this was where OSPAR could add value (as opposed to EU level activity). For example, it
suggested distinguishing between measures that were covered by EU policies and those where
OSPAR could add value, e.g. seamounts. Germany, explained that the DoMP would categorise
measures into three levels of actions within: (i) purely national activities, where exchange and
coordination of information would be needed, (ii) regional Decisions and Recommendations by
OSPAR, and (iii) actions required by 3rd parties, such as by the EU or IMO, where OSPAR could
provide support,
k.
one Contracting Party pointed out that the acquis could be seen as a gap analysis, identifying
where regionally coordinated measures could be needed. The Chair reminded the meeting of
the background to the acquis, i.e. that regional problems were always the driver for OSPAR
measures.
Joint Documentation
2.3 The Chair introduced a proposal for Joint Documentation on Coordination of Measures (Joint
Documentation), which had been agreed by OSPAR 2014. It would take stock of where coherence had been
achieved (acquis), best practice exchanged and where further coordination could be undertaken. The
Netherlands presented ICG MSFD(1) 15/2/3, which included a draft outline, table of contents, roadmap for
the Joint Documentation and an overview of two recent multilateral meetings; southern North Sea
Contracting Parties and Celtic Sea Contracting Parties (Dublin, March 2015). The meeting thanked the
drafting group for producing this paper.
2.4
In discussion the following points were made, referring to Annexes of the proposal:
Annex 1 draft outline
3
a.
the European Commission noted MSFD KTMs were directly linked to pressures and suggested
Chapter 3 might be better structured by pressure. Some Contracting Parties supported this
approach and suggested HELCOM’s “Overview of possible measures under consideration in
HELCOM Contracting Parties” was a useful example (Annex 4). Other Contracting Parties
preferred a Descriptor-based approach which would make reporting easier and more
understandable to stakeholders. The European Commission informed the meeting that the
final list of KTMs would not be agreed before September 2015,
b.
several Contracting Parties requested elaboration of what each Chapter would contain,
WG DIKE ‘Reporting on MSFD Programme of Measures (Art.13) (DIKE_10-2014-03)
4 of 14
OSPAR Commission
Report – ICG-MSFD(1) 2015
ICG-MSFD(1) 15/09/01
c.
the Netherlands and Germany clarified the relationship between the DoMP and the Joint
Documentation; the Joint Documentation was to help Contracting Parties that are EU MSs in
their national reports for MSFD Art.13. It formed a first step of the DoMP, which would not be
ready before 2017. The DoMP was a more generic programming document on measures for all
OSPAR Contracting Parties and a future source for joint reporting for Art.13 MSFD,
d.
Seas at Risk requested that the joint document be made clearer for national NGOs as to how
coordination on a regional level was occurring,
e.
one Contracting Party pointed out that there were two sorts of products, (i) OSPAR’s
contribution to MSFD (including that which has been overtaken by EU legislation), and (ii)
other products. The purpose of each should be explained,
f.
it was suggested three categories of measures (existing, in process of implementation, and
new) should be addressed under the headings of national, regional and those undertaken by
3rd parties. OSPAR’s work could focus on gaps,
g.
experience from the recent multi-national meetings was that measures could be identified in
each national programme that were in common for each Descriptor in order to highlight where
there was coherence and coordination. The exchange of ideas at these meetings was found to
be valuable. The multilateral meetings also identified those issues that were better addressed
at sub-regional level, such as indicators and measures on hydrographic conditions. An analysis
of coherence of national measures would assist in understanding the scope for further
coordination in the next cycle of MSFD,
h.
some Contracting Parties also recommended the outline be revised taking into consideration
the HELCOM approach (Annex 4). A similar process was ongoing on marine litter under the
Barcelona Convention,
i.
the European Commission supported the discussions held in multi-lateral meetings, e.g. for
identifying those national measures that were of similar nature in neighbouring countries. The
meetings would help identify the issues that two or more countries share that could not be
addressed by only national measures,
Annex 3 roadmap
j.
clarification was requested on how Contracting Parties would provide information on national
measures and any sub-regional coordination. The Secretariat suggested a pragmatic approach
would be for those Contracting Parties that have bi/tri/multi-lateral coordination to report
outcomes for inclusion in the Joint Documentation,
k.
the Secretariat offered to draft a table that could be populated by Contracting Parties with
their new national measures, organised by groupings of neighbouring countries. It would take
the HELCOM approach (Annex 4) as its starting point.
2.5 In reviewing a revised outline of the Joint Documentation ICG MSFD further refined the structure of
Chapter 4 “Analysis by pressure related to Descriptor (KTMs relevant to OSPAR measures)”. Most
Contracting Parties preferred the Joint Documentation to be structured by Descriptor, and then KTM and
pressure, aligned to MSFD reporting. If the Joint Documentation were web-based it was proposed that it
would be possible to sort by KTM or Descriptor. The Roadmap was also further updated.
2.6 In conclusion ICG MSFD agreed that based on the discussion, the Netherlands would lead on the
further revision and elaboration of the outline and roadmap of the Joint Documentation on Coordination
of Measures in time for CoG(1) 2015 (§§2.3-2.5). Taking into consideration the HELCOM approach the
Secretariat would draft a framework table for listing new national measures, to be populated with
information by Contracting Parties during June 2015. The proposed structure for the joint documentation
report, as amended during the meeting is at Annex 5.
5 of 14
OSPAR Commission
Report – ICG-MSFD(1) 2015
ICG-MSFD(1) 15/09/01
Draft Development of Measures Programme (DoMP)
2.7
On behalf of the CoG Drafting Group on DoMP4 Germany presented a proposal for an OSPAR
measures and actions programme (ICG MSFD 15/2/2). It followed from a proposal to OSPAR 2014 and was
discussed at CoG(2) 2014 where a drafting group was formed. The aim was to have an over-arching
planning instrument to guide development of measures, to identify further needs, to provide a framework
for implementation assessment and to provide coordination on MSFD measures for Contracting Parties that
are EU MSs. A further element on how to assess the implementation of measures was explained by
Sweden. The Secretariat explained that although the DoMP would be an OSPAR process managed by CoG,
comments on the ICG MSFD perspective would be especially welcomed. In discussion the following points
were made:
a.
most Contracting Parties supported the DoMP, recognising there were advantages to
coordinating efforts regionally and at a variety of scales. One Contracting Party reminded the
meeting of OSPAR’s long history of regional work and coordination. Much of the OSPAR acquis
had been based on thorough processes, before the advent of the MSFD, to identify what the
problems were at the regional and sub-regional scale. The IA2017 would be likely to show
(sub)regional problems, e.g. from underwater noise,
b.
Contracting Parties were reminded that assessment and reporting of the effectiveness of
measures was already part of the JAMP and were a requirement of the OSPAR Convention5 in
Articles 21-22. The meeting recommended that the DoMP should reference existing relevant
OSPAR documents and agreed methodologies; e.g. OSPAR had guidance on drafting
background documentation for measures, with lead countries to draft and update background
documents,
c.
a proposal to include a KTM structure to make the DoMP more useful for reporting purposes
was welcomed by several Contracting Parties. The proposed web-based format for the DoMP
would make it easy to update and simple to reorganise as needed, e.g. against KTMs or
Descriptors,
d.
the European Commission reflected that the DoMP could be a complementary process to the
OSPAR JAMP and it would highlight the success of the measures. The meeting agreed it would
raise the profile of OSPAR’s work on measures,
e.
the lead of the DoMP drafting group (Germany) clarified the DoMP would not result in a
change in the legal status of measures,
f.
one Contracting Party argued that the first exercise should be an identification of what were
the (sub)regional problems,
g.
the European Commission noted that although there was a distinction between national and
(sub)regional levels of measures, the issue of moving towards GES could still come down to
what Contracting Parties would actually implement in their own waters,
h.
Sweden explained it was developing a proposal for assessment of implementation of measures
(in line with Art.22 of the OSPAR convention). This had not been a formal document for the
meeting but was being developed to help with assessment of implementation, including
highlighting where measures were not needed in certain Contracting Parties’ waters. Sweden
was considering how its initial approach could be streamlined, also in light of developments.
The outcomes of the CIS process for GES decisions would help guide revision of the document.
In this context discussion included consideration of different approaches such as assessment of
implementation of groups of measures, and also the need to take into account the time lags
between action and measurable response in the marine environment.
4
France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Secretariat
Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. Text as amended on 24 July 1998, updated 9
May 2002, 7 February 2005 and 18 May 2006. Amendments to Annexes II and III adopted at OSPAR 2007
5
6 of 14
OSPAR Commission
Report – ICG-MSFD(1) 2015
ICG-MSFD(1) 15/09/01
i.
the European Commission informed the meeting that it had not yet considered how MSFD
Art.18 on interim reports on progress of measures would be carried out, but OSPAR’s work
could help lead the way.
2.8 In conclusion the lead of the DoMP drafting group (Germany) informed the meeting that CoG(1) 2015
would discuss alternative names for the DoMP and that after CoG(1) 2015 had commented and provided
guidance, the drafting group6 would edit and further elaborate the DoMP for OSPAR 2015, taking into
consideration the comments provided in the ICG MSFD discussion.
Exceptions (Art.14 MSFD)
2.9 The United Kingdom briefly presented its experiences of using Art.14, exceptions, in its public
consultation document on Art.13, Programmes of Measures. The United Kingdom had consulted on where
exceptions might apply, for instance on natural conditions delaying a response in the status of fish stocks to
new measures. The United Kingdom also considered there was potential scope for exceptions in D5 and D8
where at the MSFD sub-region scale GES was probably being achieved, despite more local issues. The
meeting was invited to exchange information on national positions regarding Art.14. In discussion the
following points were made:
a.
six Contracting Parties reported they had not/would not use Art.14 in the 1st cycle of the MSFD,
for reasons such as: (i) there were no aggregation rules for GES at the moment and therefore it
was difficult to know if a WFD exception would lead to an MSFD exception; (ii) if GES was not
quantitative it would be difficult to determine if measures were sufficient; (iii) uncertainty as
to how to apply Art.14; (iv) the Art.14 could be interpreted as applying (sub)regionally rather
than nationally, and; (v) climate change could make GES difficult to reach for single species
abundance under D1 and D4,
b.
the meeting was informed that Marine Directors had discussed exceptions under WFD River
Basin Management Plans and the European Commission had stated that a cross-reference to
existing exceptions would be sufficient in EU MSs’ MSFD reporting process,
c.
Region IV Contracting Parties informed the meeting that Mediterranean EU MSs were due to
hold discussions on Art.14 and 15 implementation, after WG GES in April 2015. Three examples
of where exceptions could be applied were: (i) microplastics, because in the natural
environment they could be expected to increase due to natural degradation of larger plastics;
(ii) persistent pollutants in biota, and; (iii) ambient noise in hotspots of shipping, e.g. waters off
Gibraltar,
d.
depending on outcomes of the Environmental Council in December 2015, some EU MSs
indicated they might consider applying Art.15 in relation to microplastics,
e.
HELCOM had not agreed a common approach to regional application of Art.14.
2.10 In summary, ICG MSFD concluded that Contracting Parties have taken different approaches in
deciding whether to apply Art.14, reflecting their national understanding and interpretation of the
Directive, and differences in definitions of GES. Consequently it would be difficult to have commonly
applied (sub)regional Art.14 exceptions, except where there was commonly agreed GES, e.g. for noise.
Therefore it was agreed application of Art.14 would not form a section of the Joint Documentation.
6
France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Secretariat
7 of 14
OSPAR Commission
Report – ICG-MSFD(1) 2015
ICG-MSFD(1) 15/09/01
Agenda Item 3 – Common Indicators, Monitoring, Assessment and Data
management
ICG MSFD(1) 15/3/1Rev.1, ICG MSFD(1) 15/2/2, ICG MSFD(1) 15/3/3
Progress on common indicators
3.1
The United Kingdom, as coordinator for common indicator development, presented an overview of
progress on common indicators (ICG MSFD 15/3/1). A set of OSPAR common and candidate indicators had
been developed for assessment under the IA2017 and the QSR2021. Good progress had been made, but
there were still some unresolved issues. Out of 43 common and candidate indicators all except 5 (M6
mammal bycatch, FC8 distributional pattern fish, BH1 typical species contribution, BH4 area of habitat loss
and D11 ambient noise) would deliver data for the IA2017. Contracting Parties were encouraged to
continue to support their national experts for common indicators. The United Kingdom requested
Contracting Parties provide information in a timely manner on their national use of indicators, in order to
keep up to date the table of information on the status and progress of indicators. ICG MSFD was invited to
discuss the proposed changes to the list of biodiversity common indicators (ICG MSFD(1) 15/3/1 §9).
3.2
In discussion the following points were made:
a.
Portugal did not agree with the name ‘common indicator’ and would prefer they were called
‘OSPAR indicators’. It felt that reliance on these indicators was not appropriate, because
sometimes other indicators were more relevant. Portugal believed that because of differences
in natural characteristics assessment under one (sub)region was not possible. Communication
with neighbouring countries and monitoring of regionally-relevant indicators were more
important to achieve a common strategy for reporting,
b.
BDC had proposed promoting M5 grey seal production to Regions III and IV. It was noted that
these ‘OSPAR-wide’ indicators only applied where they were scientifically relevant. Therefore if
promoted to “common” in those Regions, France, Portugal and Spain nevertheless would
neither have to report, nor make a formal opt out for the indicator, if it was not ecologically
relevant (i.e. not breeding in their waters),
c.
Sweden reported that fulmars were not present in its waters. Sweden explained it was working
on developing a D11 ambient noise indicator for the Baltic,
d.
Contracting Parties pointed out that PH1 and FW5 merger would become PH1 but would still
have trophic elements,
e.
it was noted the NIS indicator was a merge between the previous two NIS indicators; this
would be reflected in the summary table,
f.
France confirmed it would lead on FW2 but that funding was required, as set out in the
EcApRHA proposal7.
3.3 The meeting noted other concerns and the proposals for dealing with them as listed in ICG MSFD(1)
15/3/1 §§10-12. ICG MSFD was reminded that continuing resources were needed, such as funding noise
indicator development. In discussion the following points were made:
a.
the European Commission was pleased to note progress in the common indicators over the
last year,
b.
the United Kingdom would provide more information on why M6 was being “demoted” from
common indicator to candidate indicator,
7
DG ENV/MSFD/Action Plans 2014. “Addressing gaps in biodiversity indicator development for the OSPAR Region from data to
ecosystem assessment: Applying an ecosystem approach to (sub) regional habitat assessments (EcApRHA)”.
8 of 14
OSPAR Commission
Report – ICG-MSFD(1) 2015
ICG-MSFD(1) 15/09/01
c.
Germany pointed out that the data sets from ICES for the assessment of BH3 are already
covering most of the OSPAR area and that therefore the no data related reservations from
Contracting Parties would be necessary for this indicator,
d.
Spain informed the meeting it was not the lead for the fulmar indicator, but was looking at
alternative species,
e.
the United Kingdom confirmed that seafloor litter data would be collected by the International
Bottom Trawl Survey and stored by ICES in conjunction with IBTS data.
3.4 ICG MSFD agreed that the Chair, would provide an overview of the status and progress on common
and candidate indicators to CoG(1) 2015, along with the key discussion points of ICG MSFD.
3.5 On behalf of the Co-convenors for ICG COBAM, the United Kingdom guided the meeting through ICG
MSFD 15/3/3. The paper described the scope for coordination between ICG COBAM and HELCOM’s
CORSET. COBAM had reported that the leader of a parallel ICES project on fisheries based biodiversity
indicators; the Celtic Seas Project had asserted that the project’s work would complement that of ICG
COBAM and would neither duplicate nor conflict with COBAM’s work. However, no details were available at
the present time. ICG MAQ had been kept abreast of progress with common indicators and what would be
available to contribute to IA2017. ICG COBAM requested guidance on whether the indicator assessments
could include interpretation, i.e. assessment of status against a value (baselines/thresholds/targets/
ranges). ICG COBAM wished to develop options for interpretation to for consideration by Committees and
ICG MSFD for adoption. The meeting noted that some established common indicators had thresholds, e.g.
contaminants, and others would only report trends, e.g. chlorophyll. In discussion the following points were
made:
a.
Contracting Parties noted that the matter of developing indicator assessment values had been
raised in several different meetings of ICGs and Working Groups, not just COBAM. These
groups considered an indicator without some kind of assessment value would not constitute a
meaningful assessment. However, it would not be possible to develop values for all common
indicators, e.g. foodwebs, until further development had been carried out,
b.
ICG MSFD was supportive of assessment criteria being associated with indicator development,
but agreed with ICG COBAM’s statement in ICG MSFD 15/3/3 that these did not necessarily
equate to GES targets,
c.
Portugal was of the view that there should be a clear regional strategy for monitoring first, and
boundaries should be established per region, taking account of regional specificities,
d.
the United Kingdom reminded the meeting that there were regular WebEx meetings to discuss
progress in all common indicators and experts were encouraged to participate,
e.
the European Commission suggested that there needed to be a reflection at a policy level of
what the outcomes of indicators showed, not just at indicator level but potentially contributing
to defining status against GES.
3.6 ICG MSFD agreed that, if approved by CoG(1) 2015, the Chair of CoG should instruct ICG COBAM that
its experts should, where possible, develop draft indicator assessment values (e.g. thresholds,
boundaries, ranges or trends as appropriate), against which the indicators could be assessed. Assessment
values could be proposed wherever technically feasible and be based on best available science, referring to
OSPAR guidance and the criteria used for Birds and Habitats Directives where it existed, and should take
into account regional specificities. First proposals for assessment values were to be submitted by ICG
COBAM to ICG MSFD(2) 2015 in order for ICG MSFD to consider their usefulness and viability for further
development, noting there would be a further process through Committees in 2016. ICG MSFD stressed
that it was important that work on development of new indicator assessment values should not jeopardise
delivery of assessment sheets to the agreed timetable for the IA2017.
9 of 14
OSPAR Commission
Report – ICG-MSFD(1) 2015
ICG-MSFD(1) 15/09/01
Intermediate assessment 2017 (IA2017)
3.7 The Secretariat presented the current state of play of work in ICG MAQ (ICG MSFD 15/3/2). The
meeting was reminded that ICG MAQ was steered by ICG MSFD and CoG decisions. The IA2017 would be
for all OSPAR waters, not just for MSFD. The Secretariat explained that the structure of the IA2017 had
evolved by merging the structures of the QSR2010 and the MSFD pressure and status approach. This would
remain relevant for the North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy while facilitating Contracting Parties that
are EU MSs to refer to the IA217 in their national MSFD Art.8 updates. A detailed timetable had been
drafted for the production of the IA2017, specifying where Committees and subsidiary bodies would need
to provide input to the IA2017. The meeting recognised the timeline was unavoidably tight, dictated by the
timings for the MSFD. The IA2017 would be available online only, on a dedicated website. Common
indicators would be presented in two-page assessment sheets, underpinned by more detailed information,
data and metadata on the production of the assessment. The expectation was that ODIMS would make all
the layers of information and data available and assessments would be searchable by Descriptor, theme or
indicator (subject to further decisions on funding). A socio-economic chapter had been proposed and the
potential contents were being developed. The Secretariat explained that national consultation was legally
required by the Directive. ICG MAQ had proposed that consultation on the elements of the IA2017
imported by EU MSs should be carried out by them at the national level. The implications of this would
include: (a) challenges in dealing with potentially contradictory national opinions for IA2017 revision, and
(b) some national consultations would not be completed by the time of the IA2017 revision i.e. mid-2018.
The form of the revision could not be determined until there was some knowledge of what kind of
information would come back from the national consultation processes. Five geographic reporting and
assessment ‘Levels’ have been proposed and maps delineating the boundaries were under development.
However, there were outstanding issues of how to manage layers that currently did not neatly nest inside
each other. The Secretariat explained that reporting and assessment of indicators would be carried out at
the most appropriate of the five Levels.
3.8
In discussion the following points were made:
Structure of the IA2017
a.
clarity was requested by Contracting Parties in the division of Descriptors between Chapters 4
(pressure) and 5 (state), because some indicators may be in both,
b.
ICG MSFD agreed to change the chapter 4 title to ‘Pressures arising from human activities’ and
that the list contains the item ‘Physical pressures arising from human activities such as bottom
fisheries’,
c.
the European Commission briefly reflected on discussions on structure at the recent EEAEuropean Commission-RSC meeting. It was satisfied with the proposed structures of the
IA2017 (and HOLAS II) to help in coordination of EU MSs reports under Art.8 of the MSFD.
Chapters 4 and 5 of the IA2017 were reasonably aligned with the Commission’s vision for
assessment,
Timetable
d.
ICG MSFD agreed that the draft of ICG MAQ’s top and tail should be reviewed by ICG MSFD(2)
and CoG(2) 2015,
e.
ICG MAQ had underlined the importance of achieving clarity on how Contracting Parties that
were EU MSs intended to use the IA2017 in their national reporting of MSFD Art.8 updates,
f.
recognising the tight timescales, the European Commission was content with the proposed
approach for consultation, acknowledging the process would not be clear until Contracting
Parties provided more information on how they intended to use the IA2017 in their national
reports,
10 of 14
OSPAR Commission
Report – ICG-MSFD(1) 2015
ICG-MSFD(1) 15/09/01
Indicator assessment sheet structure
g.
it was requested that there should be a section for reporting the outcome of assessment
against a value, where this was part of the indicator assessment,
Geographic assessment scales
h.
the European Commission requested that the MSFD (sub)regions be made distinct as one of
the mapped geographic Levels in the hierarchy and the description be clarified in the text,
making references to MSFD Art.4,
i.
Ireland questioned whether the proposed five geographic Levels would create conflicts for
some indicators that may not be applicable to any proposed scale,
j.
the European Commission confirmed that in EU MSs’ national reports they could make
reference to the roof report for those indicators that had been regional assessed, without
having to re-report all the information in their national reports,
k.
France reported it had a complex situation in waters off Brittany and that it would delineate
boundaries for assessment. This would be dealt with in time for the 2nd cycle of the MSFD.
3.9 ICG MSFD agreed that the Secretariat would consider ICG MSFD’s comments in its process of
revising the IA2017 documents in time for CoG(1) 2015.
Agenda Item 4 – Preparing the second MSFD cycle: coordination on GES and targets
ICG MSFD(1) 15/4/1, ICG MSFD(1) 15/4/2, ICG MSFD(1) 15/4/3
Portugal position paper on the second cycle of the implementation of the MSFD
4.1 Portugal presented ICG MSFD 15/4/1 that had been previously presented to the EU Marine Strategy
Coordination Group and Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment. Portugal proposed three
steps to delivering the MSFD: (1) initial assessment (Art.8) and risk assessment; (2) GES determination and
monitoring for Descriptors at risk at the (sub)regional level, and targets for those descriptors that are not in
GES; and (3) for Descriptors in GES, aim to maintain GES and for Descriptors not in GES implement
measures (Art.13) or invoke Art.14 and Art.15, if necessary. Portugal considered the risk based approach
applied to all steps of the MSFD. Portugal suggested that this approach would strengthen the role of RSCs,
identify the main (sub)regional problems, and enhance regional cooperation and coordination from the
beginning of the cycle. Portugal considered that the most important indicators for monitoring should be
selected according to which Descriptors were at risk, regardless of whether they were/were not OSPAR
common indicators. Portugal asserted that risk of failing GES was assessed at Descriptor level before
determination of GES (Art.9). Portugal clarified that as its existing monitoring programmes had been
initiated under other Directives, they would continue regardless of whether GES was identified as being at
risk or not. New regional monitoring programmes should be changed according to risk assessment
outcomes. In discussion the following points were made:
a.
several Contracting Parties agreed Portugal’s paper was helpful for stimulating discussion, and
the approach could be useful especially for EU MSs that had very large marine waters where
implementation of MSFD could represent a heavy financial burden,
b.
some Contracting Parties reported that the risk-based approach was already widely used for
MSFD and WFD purposes, in particular to determine monitoring programmes because these
could constitute the biggest proportion of national MSFD implementation costs. However, the
national applications of the assessment of risk differed. The Directive required maintenance of
GES so monitoring would also be needed to demonstrate no degradation. Portugal emphasised
the risk-based approach should be regionally applied in the 2nd cycle of the MSFD,
c.
several Contracting Parties questioned how it was possible to identify if waters were at risk,
including identification of spatial, temporal and frequency of risk, when GES had not been
determined for all Descriptors. Portugal stated that GES determination was not always
11 of 14
OSPAR Commission
Report – ICG-MSFD(1) 2015
ICG-MSFD(1) 15/09/01
necessary, e.g. it was immediately apparent that the large-scale oligotrophic Macaronesia is
not at risk of maintaining GES in the case of eutrophication, while the eutrophic Baltic Sea
clearly was at risk. Furthermore, Portugal suggested using the criteria and outputs of the
ODEMM project to identify Descriptors at risk (http://www.liv.ac.uk/odemm/),
d.
the European Commission agreed that risk was a key issue for implementation of the Directive,
even though there had not been explicit expression of it in MSFD documentation. However, EU
MSs needed to know what the benchmark was against which risk was being judged, i.e. GES
had to be determined. There was a clear expression in EU working groups of the necessity of
defining GES as a basis for the development of measures. With regard to the regional scaling
issue, GES should be determined at the level of marine region or sub-region to ensure there
was a common determination of GES, but it did not have to be assessed at this scale. Some
actions should be taken at the RSC level and some at the national level.
4.2 In summary, there was principle support for further developing the risk-based approach e.g. in
priority setting for future monitoring programmes and for programmes of measures. However, there were
differences in views of Contracting Parties on the context of application and its relationship with GES.
Coordinated targets and GES
4.3 The United Kingdom presented a proposal on OSPAR coordination for the determination of GES and
the establishment of environmental targets and indicators (ICG MSFD 15/04/02). The document took
“Finding Common Ground8” as its starting point.
4.4
8
In discussion the following points were made:
a.
it was suggested that recent work and documentation could also be considered as building
blocks for tracking progress towards determination of GES, e.g. the national reports to the
European Commission and the Regional Plan of Action responding to Art.12 (ICG MSFD
15/1/info.3). Furthermore there were the emerging Joint Documentation of Measures and a
draft Development of Measures Programme,
b.
it was also suggested that where OSPAR targets had been developed for indicators and there
was no disagreement, these could determine GES. However, in some Contracting Parties’
views GES should be determined at Descriptor level rather than at indicator level. The Chair
pointed out that, for example, Environmental Assessment Criteria (EACs) were common
ground even if they were not GES and represent one way of setting targets and taking
measures without having a common definition of GES. The Secretariat suggested work could
start with contaminants, looking at OSPAR targets as well as national GES definitions to
identify where they align and could be regionally coherent,
c.
the European Commission reflected that the Directive clearly stated determination of GES
should be at the (sub)region level and that the Art.12 review had highlighted GES needed to be
more clearly defined by EU MSs. There were possibilities for more specific and quantitative
GES determinations so that progress towards GES could be tracked, e.g. through common
indicators,
d.
certain Contracting Parties thought that there were several routes to more coherence; the
common indicators could be one route without the need for greater coordination on GES,
e.
the Chair reminded the meeting that the Regional Plan of Action and ICG MSFD’s work plan set
out actions and work products for more coherence on GES and environmental targets.
However there were no leads for either product 2.1 (coherent determination of GES) or 3.1
(coherence of environmental targets). Work could begin on exploring the scope for practical
ways of GES determinations for each pressure and status Descriptor and target setting, noting
http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00578/p00578_msfd%20report.pdf
12 of 14
OSPAR Commission
Report – ICG-MSFD(1) 2015
ICG-MSFD(1) 15/09/01
there was no agreed European Commission guidance on the process for aggregation as yet.
Germany and the Netherlands would support this work, but neither could lead at this time,
f.
several Contracting Parties proposed postponing a decision on what ICG MSFD could do on
GES targets until after the review of the Common Understanding and the Commission
Decision,
g.
the European Commission reminded the meeting of the anticipated timeline for revision of the
Commission Decision and the expectations of what the Decision would include; e.g. where
possible, express criteria as specific standards. The cross-cutting document was still not fully
developed in clarifying the distinction between Art.9 & 10,
h.
the Secretariat suggested Contracting Parties did not need to be passive in waiting for
guidance documents from the European Commission, and could begin a process of thinking
about greater coherence in GES and targets now. This could inform Contracting Parties’ and
regional reactions to whatever comes out of the European Commission. Contracting Parties
were reminded that much of the work in OSPAR comes from the bottom-up, led by
Contracting Parties. This has also proven to be a basis for guidance at EU level as well. OSPAR
created the opportunity for Contracting Parties to think outside their national commitments to
find the best approach to working effectively with the least resource
4.5 In conclusion, ICG MSFD agreed that it would postpone consideration of work on coherent MSFD GES
and environmental targets, additional to the ongoing efforts, until ICG MSFD(2) in September 2015.
Agenda Item 5 – Addressing knowledge gaps
ICG MSFD(1) 15/5/1
OSPAR Science (needs) Agenda (OSA)
5.1
On behalf of the OSA Task Group, the Secretariat presented the outcomes of discussions on the OSA
by the thematic Committees in their 2015 meetings (ICG MSFD 15/5/1, summarised in §§18-19). Projects
from the OSA that were underway or proposed were highlighted.
5.2 In discussion no Contracting Parties volunteered new information on their intentions for taking
forward any elements of the OSPAR Science Agenda. The Chair of HASEC reminded ICG MSFD that the OSA
should create ownership and would be kept alive by asking ICGs and WGs to consider it at their meetings;
e.g. ICG EUT had been tasked by HASEC to look again at the OSA to identify if there was interest taking
forward elements to develop proposals for projects. The chair encouraged Contracting Parties to take the
OSA back to their countries to discuss if there were projects on which they might take the lead.
Agenda Item 6 – Cross-cutting issues
ICG MSFD(1) 15/6/1
6.1 Sweden presented a proposal for dealing with the IA2017 assessment of Kattegat and The Sound
(ICG MSFD 15/6/1). The recommendation was to assess this area using OSPAR common indicators within
the framework of the IA2017, with additional HELCOM core indicators, where relevant. This would make
the assessment of the area appropriate for both RSCs’ joint reports. Sweden reported it would be meeting
with Denmark to further elaborate the proposal. In discussion the Secretariat was tasked to explore the
details of the proposal further with Sweden and Denmark.
6.2 Germany and Sweden briefly presented inter-regional streamlining activity between OSPAR and
HELCOM, in particular common/core indicator development. A successful joint CORSET and COBAM
meeting, COREBAM, had been held in 2014. COREBAM had identified a high level of overlap, with several
indicators being developed on the same basis by both RSCs, where further cooperation in the development
of the indicators could be undertaken by experts. HELCOM was working on a regional action plan for
marine litter, taking into consideration OSPAR’s experience. Both RSCs were discussing regional action
plans for noise, presenting another opportunity for coordinated work. Sweden requested that RSCs’
13 of 14
OSPAR Commission
Report – ICG-MSFD(1) 2015
ICG-MSFD(1) 15/09/01
meeting schedules were better coordinated so experts from Contracting Parties could attend each other’s
meetings.
6.3 France reported on OSPAR-UNEP MAP links in regard to marine litter. France and Spain were
organising a meeting between the Conventions in September 2015 on identifying common actions and
deliverables in the Barcelona and OSPAR regional action plans. HELCOM had also agreed to coordinate with
this work.
Agenda Item 7 – Regular update of coherent MSFD implementation
ICG MSFD(1) 15/7/1
ICG MSFD Work Plan
7.1 The Secretariat presented a GANTT chart setting out key MSFD tasks. Feedback from Contracting
Parties had been reflected in a revision of the chart (ICG MSFD 15/7/1). A few Contracting Parties reported
that this had been helpful for their own planning. Contracting Parties were invited to respond as to
whether part of the chart needed to be unpacked in more detail or whether to look at a future timeline in
more detail for planning purposes. In discussion the following points were made:
a.
one Contracting Party suggested it was important to consider the flow of tasks. For example
the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive timeline would need to be developed alongside the
MSFD timeline,
b.
no Contracting Parties volunteered as task managers for ICG MSFD Work Plan
Deliverable/Products 1.4 (improving and expanding MSFD Art.11 monitoring programme
factsheets), 2.1 or 3.1.
7.2 ICG MSFD agreed Contracting Parties would provide updates to the Secretariat on their national
timetables of MSFD reporting, as soon as they were available, and by ICG MSFD(2) 2015. The Secretariat
would update the table of national processes prior to each ICG MSFD meeting and would update the
GANTT timetable. The Secretariat would update the ICG MSFD work plan to reflect any changes made
during this meeting, by ICG MSFD(2) 2015.
Agenda Item 8 – Any other business
8.1
Contracting Parties had no other business to report.
Agenda Item 9 – Conclusions of meeting
9.1 The Chair briefly summarised the outcomes of the meeting and informed Contracting Parties that ICG
MSFD(2) 2015 would be in Copenhagen by the kind invitation of Denmark, and would take place in the
second half of September 2015.
9.2
The report of the meeting was adopted in written procedure.
14 of 14
OSPAR Commission
Report – ICG-MSFD(1) 2015
ICG-MSFD(1) 15/09/01