1

The newly adopted Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

and the work of the informal working group European Marine Monitoring and

Assessment (EMMA)

Gert Verreet, ‘Marine’ unit, DG Environment, European Commission Eva Royo Gelabert, Project Manager, Marine assessments, EEA

2

Broader context

3

« The European Council welcomes the conclusion of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive as the environmental pillar of [the EU maritime] policy »

(European Council, Heads of State & Government, 14 December 2007)

→ opportunities in areas of knowledge (research), data and information, sectoral eco-efficiency, …

→ a push for concrete integration of policies towards sustainability

December 2007 also brought integration…

4

• Different environmental conditions and threats

• Many diverse stakeholders with overlapping obligations in overlapping sea areas

• Lack of coherence and uncertain adequacy in level of control

• Diversity in information base and gaps in knowledge

• Duplication of efforts, waste of resources

Key issues & approach chosen for the Marine Strategy (2005)

• A dual EU - regional approach

• An ecosystem based approach

• A knowledge based approach

• A cooperative approach

5

Regional (and/or) sub-regional strategies to be developed

1. Baltic Sea (cf. HELCOM, BSAP)

2. North East Atlantic Ocean

(cf. OSPAR)

3. Mediterranean Sea (cf. Barcelona Convention)

4. Black Sea (cf. Bucharest Convention)

Sub-regions possible for 2. and 3.

6

MSFD implementation milestones

Marine Strategies to be progressively developed and implemented based on thefollowing steps:

• Description and assessment of current environmental status including the

environmental impact of human activities – 4 years after entry into force

• Determination of good environmental status – 4 years after entry into force

• Establishment of environmental targets and associated indicators – 4 years after

entry into force

• Monitoring programme – 6 years after entry into force

• Programme of measures towards good environmental status – by 2015

• Entry into operation of programmes of measures – by 2016

• ‘Good Environmental Status’ – by 2020

Strategies to be devised building upon existing programmes and activities developed

in the framework of international agreements, e.g. regional seas conventions + Iterative

approach – adaptive management – regular reviews (every 6 years)

7

Timeline for implementation

8

Initial Assessment

(2012)

Pressures & impacts

9

Art. 9 – Determination of good environmental status

1. By reference to the initial assessment made pursuant to Article 8(1), Member States shall, in respect of each Marine Region or Sub-Region concerned, determine, for the marine waters, a set of characteristics for good environmental status, on the basis of the qualitative descriptors listed in Annex I.

Member States shall take into account the indicative lists of elements set out in Table 1 of Annex III and, in particular, physical and chemical features, habitat types, biological features and hydro-morphology.

Member States shall also take into account the pressures or impacts of human activities in each Marine Region or Sub-Region, having regard to the indicative list set out in Table 2 of Annex III.2.

10

MSFD Annex I (1/2)

Qualitative Descriptors for determining ‘Good Environmental Status’ (referred to in Articles 3(5), 9(1), 9(3) and 24)

(1) Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions.

(2) Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystems.

(3) Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock .

(4) All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity.

(5) Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters.

11

(6) Sea floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected .

(7) Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems.

(8) Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects.

(9) Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by Community legislation or other relevant standards.

(10) Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.

(11) Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment.To determine the characteristics of good environmental status in a Marine Region or Sub-Region as provided for in Article 9(1)║, Member States shall consider each of the qualitative descriptors listed in this Annex in order to identify those descriptors which are to be used to determine good environmental status for that Marine Region or Sub-Region. When a Member State considers that it is not appropriate to use one or more of those descriptors, it shall provide the Commission with a justification in the framework of the notification made pursuant to Article 9(2).

MSFD Annex I (2/2)

12

Art. 10 – Establishment of environmental targets

On the basis of the initial assessment made pursuant to Article 8(1), Member States shall, in respect of each Marine Region or Sub-Region, establish a comprehensive set of environmental targets and associated indicators for their marine waters so as to guide progress towards achieving good environmental status in the marine environment, taking into account the indicative lists of pressures and impacts set out in Table 2 of Annex III, and of characteristics set out in Annex IV.

When devising those targets and indicators, Member States shall take into account the continuing application of relevant existing environmental targets laid down at national, Community or international level in respect of the same waters, ensuring that these targets are mutually compatible and that relevant transboundary impacts and transboundary features are also taken into account, to the extent possible.

13

DPSIR and indicators

14

Monitoring programmes

Coordinated Monitoring Programme

Initial AssessmentGood environmental status determination

Targets and associated Indicators

15

Organisation?

• For data issues, a WISE-Marine Implementation Group or MSFD Working Group on ‘Reporting’ (attached to both the existing WISE Steering Group and MSFD comitology) will be set up to concretise planning and partnerships.

• Overall MSFD implementation organisation is likely to start with the priority requirements specified in the Directive (comitology for ‘Good Environmental Status’ etc.)

16

EMMA present focus

Without prejudice of a recontextualised working environment (see slide 15), these are focus elements of EMMA that will continue to be relevant under MSFD implementation:

• Indicators – see next 3 slides• Data and information infrastructure - WISE-Marine

– concept paper published as basis for a consultation until 31 July 2008

• Exchange of ongoing monitoring and assessment developments between regions

• Tapping into useful research projects

17

EMMA Workshops & Plenary 2006-2007

Aim:Aim: To foster networking towards streamlined To foster networking towards streamlined monitoring and data collection monitoring and data collectionIndicator convergence processIndicator convergence process

1. Operational oceanography: 23-24 October 2006 (to increase dialogue between “users” and “producers” of operational oceanography products)

2. Ecological processes/biological elements: 20-21 November 2006 (we have great “needs”, what can we use already?)

3. Chemical loads and burdens: 17-18 April 2007 (we have been doing this for some time now, how to take it a step further?)

3. Plenary meeting: 30-31 May 2007 (review of draft conclusions, arrangements for further indicator analysis towards ‘converging’ pan-European indicators)

18

EMMA principal conclusions on indicators

Indicator convergence processIndicator convergence process

1. ‘Commonalities’ What is common at the pan-European level when matching existing regional and EEA indicators to the 44 MSFD determinands for ‘Initial Assessment‘ (Annex III)? = 23 determinads

2. Further indicator comparison required To confirm the ‘real’ commonalities and establish possible harmonisation where needed

3. Conditions EEA resources and support and others. Phase 1 (2007-2008): Priority 1 issues / Phase 2 (later): Priority 2 issues

4. ‘Gaps’ At the pan-European level between existing indicators and MSFD determinands for ‘Initial Assessment‘ = 21 determinands. No immediate action on these is suggested at the moment

5. 2 + 4 = Establishing a minimum, common pan-EuropeanEstablishing a minimum, common pan-European set of indicators for the marine environment

19

Further EMMA indicator work (1/2)

Indicator comparisonIndicator comparison

Priority 1.1: ’Temperature’; ‘Chlorophyll-a’; ‘Fish abundance’, ‘Nutrient concentrations; ‘Hazardous substances in biota’; ‘Oil slicks’; ‘Inputs of nutrients’ (riverine and direct discharges); and ‘Atmospheric deposition’ of non-toxic contaminants’.

Priority 1.2: For other ‘Physical and chemical’ determinands‘ (e.g. ‘Currents’; ‘Water exchange’; ‘Salinity’ and ‘Bathymetry’ as well as ‘Water transparency’) it is suggested that, rather than to carry out the same type of ‘detailed technical comparison’ as in the case of other determinands, to follow the recommendations from the “Operational oceanography” workshop. This is to be done in close cooperation with the regional sea conventions. Further, to ensure compatibility between the pan-European and the regional products by building demonstration products into the GMES Marine Core Service and downstream service chains and validate their performance (…).

Priority 2: ‘Phytoplankton communities’; ‘Species composition’ of benthic invertebrate fauna; ‘Non-indigenous species’; ‘Oxygen concentrations’; ‘Hazardous substances in sediments’; Chemical pollution ‘hot spots’; Inputs of ‘Organic compounds’, ’Metals’ and ‘Oil & PAHs’; and ‘Nutrient source apportionment’.

20

Further EMMA indicator work (2/2)

Indicator comparison Indicator comparison Priority 1.1

• Some delay because strengthening of EEA indicators (all of which have been put forward as a contribution to the EMMA convergence process) was deemed more prioritary Draft Indicator Scoping Report

• Some re-prioritisation as - in the meantime - some indicators can be produced at the pan-European level from inception (i.e. no need for comparison process), using e.g. operational oceanography products (e.g. sea surface temperature)

• Priority 1.1 from 8 MSFD determinands to 4

• Work ongoing should be completed by end 2008