DISCLAIMER:

This document is only for information in the context of MSCG and MSFD Regulatory committee meetings. It will be sent to members of WG GES for comments once reviewed.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Common Implementation Strategy

Minutes of 13th meeting of the Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES)

GESBrussels

22-23 April 2015

Document: GES_13-2015-Minutes_Draft

Title Minutes of the 13th WG GES meeting (draft)

Date prepared: 27-04-2015

Prepared by: DG Environment and Milieu

DRAFT SUMMARY MINUTES

1 Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda

The meeting was chaired by Joachim D’Eugenio from the Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit at DG Environment, and co-chaired by Uli Claussen from Germany (excused for Day 1). A list of participants is given in Annex 1. The papers and presentations for the meeting are listed in Annex 2, and are available on CIRCABC.

The key part of the discussions at this WG GES meeting was highlighted as being agenda item number 5. The timeline decided upon in the last WG GES meeting in respect to the Descriptor manuals, and the Commission Decision review process, has been successfully followed. The JRC, ICES and DG Environment teams have worked closely to prepare the descriptor documents. With the WG GES feedback and approval of the manual documents by the end of this meeting, the summary minutes along with a cover note will be submitted to the MSCG meeting (04-05.05.2015) and to the Regulatory Committee meeting (05.05.2015); with a request for an official endorsement by the Committee, allowing to kick-start the public consultation process on the Descriptor documents in Spring – Summer 2015.

1

2 Approval of minutes of 12th meeting of WG GES (October 2014)

Three comments on the draft minutes of the 12 th WG GES meeting were received in written form. They have been incorporated and the minutes are now approved.

3 Update on CIS activities of relevance to WG GES – info

a. Report on the Marine Directors meeting (24-25 November 2014)

The Marine Directors meeting discussed many issues, including the Work Programme for 2015. The next Directors meeting is currently under preparation; Latvia will circulate the draft agenda, which will be discussed at the next MSCG meeting (04-05.05.2015). The executive secretaries of the RSC’s, ICES and GFCM will also be invited to this meeting. For more details, check the upcoming minutes on CIRCABC.

b. Report on the MSCG meeting (09 February 2015)

The MSCG meeting discussed the future of the MSFD implementation and specifically the 2016-2018 Work Programme. More details on this will be presented at the next MSCG meeting. For more details, check the minutes on CIRCABC.

c. Report on the PCG meeting (10 February 2015)

A fruitful meeting took place, with a key relevant point that the PCG group emphasised the need to operationalise their work further, and create stronger collaborative opportunities and interactions between the PCG and other Working Groups. For more details, check the minutes on CIRCABC.

d. Report on WG ESA meeting (09-10 March 2015)

The Commission thanked the Netherlands for the preparation of the PoM document, which is a very useful interim product, highlighting strengths and areas of improvement in the PoM development process. All information in the document is based on a questionnaire sent to Member States. The Commission reported that seven Member States have started their public consultations on their PoMs. To consult the PoM document, click here. For more details, check the minutes on CIRCABC.

4 Art 12 assessment

a. For Article 8, 9, 10 Commission recommendations follow up

Member State replies have been sent on the Article 12 recommendations to the Commission. All replies are available on CIRCABC in a systematic manner. No operational follow-up process is foreseen on the Articles 8, 9 and 10 recommendations, in terms of any additional meetings or workshops. The next steps include a reflection on the recommendations in the Article 11 and Article 13 assessments in 2015-2016.

b. For Article 11 Monitoring Programmes

Assessments are currently underway and almost all countries have now reported. Some Member States have updated their GES and targets, and these are being taken into account in the Article 11 assessments. Some of the preliminary results will be presented at the next MSCG meeting. The Commission recommendations will be released in the second half of the year.

Discussion:

The Commission clarified that there is no operational follow up foreseen to the Member State replies on the Article 12 assessments; Member States will only receive replies to their answers in case further clarifications are needed.

The RSC’s informed the WG GES on their follow up on the Article 12 recommendations. HELCOM mentioned the work of the GEAR group in the context of regional coherence; OSPAR highlighted a

2

meeting they organised where the Article 12 recommendations were discussed. For UNEP-MAP, a project providing funding support to non-EU UNEP MAP signatories to conduct GES assessments was highlighted, while for the Black Sea region, the collaborative efforts of Bulgaria and Romania were welcomed.

5 Improving assessment of GES

a. Review of GES Decision per descriptor – State of play (JRC/ICES)

Introduction

The WG GES meeting serves as a final opportunity to fine-tune messages and flag up any outstanding issues on the Descriptor manuals, in view of closing the first technical phase of the Commission Decision review process and moving into the second phase of a public consultation. Any major outstanding issues which cannot be solved in an immediate manner and require further work will be redirected and proposed to be included in the 2016-2018 CIS Work Programme.

As a result of this meeting, the summary report and a cover note will be presented at the Regulatory Committee meeting which is to take place on 5 May 2015. After the Committee meeting, an official public consultation process will be launched with Member States, as well as stakeholders that are registered in the MSCG as official observers being invited to submit their official consolidated positions.

The timeline for the public consultation and follow-up will be discussed at the Committee meeting. Following the Committee meeting, the Commission will also have internal discussions on the way forward and seek the political mandate needed for the follow-up work. The Commission will report back to the Committee in November 2015. The overall aim is to finalise the Commission Decision revision by vote in the MSFD Committee before summer 2016, with all the relevant documents (technical reports, guidance) to be finalised by then.

The Commission kick started agenda item 5 by presenting the GES Decision review process, and the work undertaken in the past months. To consult the presentation, check CIRCABC.

Discussion:

Several Member States inquired about the eventual fate of the Descriptor manuals. The Commission clarified that these will not be guidance documents that need to be endorsed by this group or by the Commission. These documents represent expert group advice linked to ICES and the JRC, which will provide input to the Commission Decision review process after a public consultation.

On the question about the future involvement of ICES and the JRC, the Commission clarified that the two will remain involved based on the mandate given to them.

Pressure descriptors

A note for the nature of the Descriptor manuals presented to the WG GES. Given the structure of the two organisations that lead the work of the experts in the different descriptors, there are certain peculiarities in terms of how these documents can be further adapted.

For the ICES lead documents (D3, D4, D6 and D11): D3, D4 and D6 have been produced by official ICES procedure, and are finalised expert advice, which do not allow for adaptations of the documents as they stand. Nevertheless, the public consultation process will allow for the validation of what is considered fitting to take on board as part of the Commission Decision review. The D11 manual did not go through the official ICES expert advice development procedure and is as such more flexible to take up further modifications, if necessary.

3

For the JRC lead documents (D1, D2, D5, D8, D9 and D10): The JRC with its mandate will present a final version of the document for the public consultation after the Committee meeting. The documents are more flexible in terms of taking on board further modifications.

Descriptor 10 (CIRCABC)

Key recommendations from manual: simplification and updating of text, removal of one indicator (through integration), introduction of minimum requirements and a reflection of what the RSC’s have done on the topic.

Discussion:

Member States do not support the proposal to treat micro-litter along other size fractions in the different matrices, as there are different risks and sources of macro-litter and micro-litter. Sources and risks need to be considered and on that basis, choices of what to monitor can be made.

Member States questioned the ambition of the methodological standards to cover a wide range of topics, by specifying the seashore (beach), water surface, seafloor to be monitored; especially since the methodological standards are to be minimum requirements. The JRC clarified that the locations are complimentary to each other and that they are not prioritised. Furthermore, in practical terms, mid-water has been removed.

In relation to 10.2.1, it was requested for ingestion to be differentiated from entanglement. Different impacts need to be considered: entanglement vs. ingestion vs. toxicology.

Suggestion to not specifically mention “washed ashore” and only “deposited”. Yet given that the MSFD should reflect the open sea, “washed ashore” hints at the sources of the litter and could also be possibly kept.

Request for terminologies to be made consistent across the document: there is confusion between the terms “methodological standards” and “indicators” in the proposed text (e.g. page 14 of D10 document).

Some of the methodological standards have terms in their wording such as “include the analysis of” This type of wording should not be included, as the analytical methods may be different.

The flexibility of the Masterlist was discussed. Member States observed that the list needs to remain flexible to allow for regional adaptation. Others also commented that flexibility of lists is necessary not only for regional adaptations, but also to allow for adaptations based on scientific developments and better knowledge.

HELCOM stated that a series of factual errors are observed, which will be sent in written form.

Descriptor 11(CIRCABC)

Key recommendations from manual: maintain current criteria, with some minor rewording to improve clarity. Key knowledge gaps will only start being addressed once the monitoring programmes start in the Member State and thus more data is gathered.

Discussion:

One Member State commented on definitions: Definition of “trends” should be based on an environmental sciences definition and not on the Oxford dictionary. Some of the definitions provided in the document are pre-mature in relation to impact indicators, as Member States do not have data from monitoring.

4

One Member State commented that frequency bands included are too narrow; and by leaving out frequencies such as 2kHz, there will be types of noise not monitored, especially frequencies that are present in shallow waters.

Diverging opinions were stated on the need for impact indicators in D11. While one Member State reported the need to have one, others did not support the proposal. One Member State commented that there is the need for a clear mandate for TG Noise to work on the development of impact indicators in the context of the next Work Programme.

Other Member States commented that it is more important to start the monitoring with the indicators already in place, rather than re-opening the discussion on D11 indicators at this point in time.

Several Member States stated that the precautionary principle, as referenced in the document, needs to be in line with scientific evidence.

One stakeholder stated that the document includes language in relation to the precautionary principle that is unclear (especially in relation to ambient noise). TG Noise was asked to refer to the Cross Cutting document p.16 – where there is a clearer language is being used.

One stakeholder stated that linkages with RSC’s could be improved, and that relevant underwater noise definitions from the Convention on Biological Diversity have not been referenced in the document.

Descriptor 2(CIRCABC)

Key recommendations from manual: modifications in criterion 2.1, improve quality of species inventories, coherence across policies (in particular IAS Regulation), and further work on GES threshold values.

Discussion:

One Member State specified that while linkages with biodiversity indicators can be observed, links with aquaculture being a vector for D2 are not apparent in the document. The JRC clarified that aquaculture and also the Ballast Water Management convention have been taken into account.

One Member highlighted that the D2 manual is proposing several options, and not recommending one specific approach, which is positive.

One Member State welcomed the GES boundaries proposal as an interesting approach. One Member State highlighted that the ratio indicator is not helpful and should be removed. The JRC clarified that when it comes to established species it can be argued that 2.2 might not be

applicable in D2 but moved into D1. More work on this is needed on this.

Descriptor 5(CIRCABC)

Key recommendations from manual: set core set of indicators (minimum requirements), strengthen links with WFD, and strengthen links with RSC’s.

Discussion:

The importance of coherence with WFD was highlighted, in particular the forthcoming Commission Decision on intercalibration under the WFD in 2016.

Several Member States called for better alignment of definitions used in the document, especially taking into account the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Nitrates Directive and the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive.

Vague language was requested to be removed and terminology on indicators should be double checked (Total Nitrogen and Phosphate)

Several Member States stated that the document is not clear regarding the connections between the MSFD and WFD data and assessments. Some parts of the document imply a re-assessment of the WFD data in coastal areas under the MSFD methodologies. The JRC and Commission responded that clarifications to the document will be made in full accordance with the legal basis of where the WFD and the MSFD apply.

5

One Member State asked if there are plans to develop standards for nutrients under the MSFD. The JRC clarified that the Commission Decision in 2016 under the WFD will include nutrient standards, and that these need to be taken into account in the MSFD.

One Member State stated that there aren’t sufficient links with the eutrophication “Guidance document No23” or with how the European Court of Justice identifies eutrophication. The JRC stated that this topic should be brought forth at the next workshop for further discussion.

A Member State commented that the recommendation to include benthos as part of indirect effects is not appropriate. Anoxia is an indirect effect, and effect of anoxia on benthos is twice indirect with respect to eutrophication. It was further added, that benthos should be part of the biodiversity descriptor.

Another comment was that water transparency has been changed to Secci depth, which is a method, not a standard. Furthermore, Member States are moving to satellite observation as an assessment method, and thus other methods should not be excluded.

One Member State pointed out that the GES definitions of direct and indirect effects of nutrients (criteria 5.2 and 5.3) are formulated as methodological standard definitions, which are not consistent with the principle of GES definitions.

Several Member States questioned the appropriateness of the thresholds set in coastal areas to be used for offshore areas (page 21 of D5 document). The JRC clarified that differences in the way that eutrophication is manifested in the different seas is needed (e.g. mainly coastal in Mediterranean, while coastal and offshore in the Baltic).

Regarding criterion 1, one Member State clarified that it is important not to limit the measurements of nutrient concentrations in specific seasons, taking into account regional specificities (in southern seas light is not a limiting factor for primary production, can have chlorophyll all year).

One Member State highlighted that there is confusion in the document between primary production and biomass when discussing vulnerable zones (phytoplankton - biomass).

A clarification was asked regarding what “sub-GES” means. A clarification was asked regarding what a “pan-European” approach means. A clarification was asked regarding the last sentence on page 23 which discusses shifts (benthic

shifts, or species shifts) One Member State called for future work on climate change effects on eutrophication. HELCOM stated that in relation to methodological standards on opportunistic species (in the case

of macroalgae) only two Member States are using this indicator and even there only as part of an index, thus questioning the usefulness of this indicator. It was also added that nutrient ratios are not very useful since redfield ratio is varying in different areas.

Descriptors 8 and 9(CIRCABC)

Key recommendations from manual: basic structure to be retained, with some modifications at the indicator level.

Discussion:

- Several Member States specified the need for better alignment between the MSFD and the WFD. The current document has overlaps. One comment was to consider scales and how they are approached in each of the directives, with the purpose of compatibility.

- Several Member States highlighted that D8 should not be based on any human health related standards, with some suggesting to remove the term “where relevant to marine environment”The JRC clarified that the agreement is not to have a discussion of EQSD prioritisation in the MSFD, and that the matter will be looked at in more detail.

- One Member State specified that the new definition of criteria 8.1 which raises the number of substances to monitor, even with an opt out system, is not in line with the orientation given to the Commission Decision review which aims to propose minimum requirements.

6

- In relation to D8 recommendation 1, one Member State clarified that having a EU minimum list is suitable, but the choice of which contaminants to monitor should be based on risk assessments at the Member State level.

- One Member State specified that the EQSD should not be applied in offshore areas, as monthly measurements are not realistic in terms of cost-efficiency. The JRC clarified that this proposal was made relative to deep-sea contaminant accumulation.

- One Member State highlighted that the D8 document offers options in terms of choice of matrix, yet water is a relevant matrix only in coastal waters, while for offshore areas, sediments and biota are more important. As such it was suggested to have a prioritisation of matrices in the proposal.

- One Member State welcomed recommendation 6 but stated that the text needs to be improved; and methods should be harmonised at the regional level.

- Section 4 needs to be streamlined to ensure a logical flow of presenting issues and recommendations.

- For D9, it was requested that the word “area” should be removed from the text. - Regarding traceability of samples, one Member State highlighted that traceability should not be

necessary in Member States where levels are not being exceeded.- For criteria 9.1 where the text reads “batches […] exceeding limits” – one Member State specified

that they need a clarification or an exemption as in some countries like in Sweden, Finland and Latvia dioxins levels in fish for human consumption are allowed to exceed the European limits (for domestic consumption, but not for export).

- Regarding the recommendation to include biological parameters to be measured in the monitoring, one Member State highlighted that this can be a burden, and might not be realistic for health administrations to include this as part of their work.

- A clarification was asked if 9.1.2 is deleted or if it’s being used in the quantification of 9.1.1.

Descriptor 7 (CIRCABC)

Key recommendations from manual: basic structure to be retained, addition of “volume” to methodological standard 7.1.1 and “effects on ecosystems” to methodological standard 7.2.2.

Discussion:

- Several Member States called for the baseline to be set based on infrastructure as from 2012. Clarifications were asked on the document in relation to the baseline and how it relates to old and new infrastructure.

- Several Member States called for a better harmonisation of the information presented in the document between the WFD and the MSFD. For example, the document mentions good ecological status (biological elements are taken into account); and there are some sentences that hint that good ecological status can be used for MSFD. These links need to be clarified.

- One Member State stated that the work should be developed with the hydromorphology approach in WFD (in transitional and coastal waters).

- Several Member States called for harmonisation of the D7 criteria and methodological standards with those of other descriptors (i.e. D1, D4 and D8). For example, hydro-chemical parameters should not be included in D7, as chemicals are already being addressed under D8.

- One Member State stated that heavily modified water bodies are not applicable to the MSFD, as the scales are different. The JRC clarified that this will be the connecting item between MSFD and WFD. ECOSTAT is concentrating on inland water, and will work on coastal waters in 2016. Thus there is an opportunity to clarify this before hand through the MSFD process and ensure future alignment.

- Changes of introduction should be based on resistance, not cut-off times like the suggested in the document. This approach should be included and harmonised with the WFD. This methodology should also incorporate the concept of assessment of changes.

7

- One Member State stated that the concept of permanent changes needs to be clarified in the document.

- One Member State asked for clarification of methodological standard 7.2.2 in terms of language. - One Member State supported the second D7 criteria, and specified that biodiversity should maybe

even be the centre of the D7 assessment. - One Member State stated that the pressure change in water discharge through rivers in different

seasons is also important and should be included (affects salinity, not just morphology – on page 8)- One Member State highlighted that it is not possible to use time series for prediction, as there is no

data and the scales are not appropriate. - One Member State requested that models and data use should be included. - In addition to the RSCs work referenced in the document, a request was made to also mention the

EcAp process of the Barcelona convention.

Descriptor 3 (CIRCABC)

Key recommendations from manual: revisions needed in relation to D3.3 (not yet operational), which relate to size distribution, selectivity of fisheries and genetic effects. Proposal not to include D3.3 in GES assessment yet.

Discussion:

- Several Member States recognised the diverging opinions on the D3 manual. A suggestion was made to ask for the input of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).

- One Member State highlighted that there is a poor reflection of the nature conservation side in the workshop and advice process in D3; stressing that D3 is not about fisheries, but about health of commercially exploited stocks.

- Another Member State echoed the need for D3 to think past fishing pressures and past fisheries and take into account the health of stocks (page 12 “final consideration could be made”).

- One Member State stated that in criteria 2 the term “biomass” should be removed. Furthermore, in criteria 3 the “healthy composition of a stock” is very difficult to solve scientifically and a suggestion was made to deal with this in D4, rather than in D3.

- One Member State called for better delineation of what is covered under D1, D4 and D3, as there are many overlaps now. Better alignment between these three descriptors was requested.

- One Member State highlighted that there is contradiction between the definitions of commercially important species in the document.

- One Member State highlighted a number of issues relating to FMsy in the case of small pelagic species (3.1) and the fact that the indicators in 3.3 do not contribute to the GES.

- One Member State asked for clarifications in relation to the methodological standards as listed in table 2, stating that it is not clear if GES boundaries are related to assessments at the level of the indicator or of single stocks. This contradicts the GES definition that all stocks need to be covered.

- One Member State highlighted that the traditional approach of stock assessment are not adapted to the singularities of some regions (i.e. Mediterranean and Micronesian particularities, make it difficult to conduct stock assessments).

- One Member State highlighted that it’s important for the ICES scales in the report to be the same as those for the MSFD. ICES clarified that the advice from ICES has been formulated in way that is applicable, and more streamlining is underway (also relating to data flows).

- Two stakeholders welcomed the re-focused criterion 3.3, and highlighted that further work is needed on it. ICES clarified that more work is needed on 3.3, as the science is not there yet.

Descriptor1 (CIRCABC)

Key recommendations from manual: reduce the number of criteria by merging some species and some habitats criteria, criterion 1.7 “ecosystem structure” to be eliminated or re-defined with a clearer content,

8

identification of criteria and indicators overlaps across Descriptors, reach an agreement on Common lists of elements for the biodiversity assessments, clarify links with CFP and Birds and Habitats Directives, better consideration of RSCs achievements and progress on biodiversity.

Discussion:

- Several Member States echoed the comment from the JRC, that D1 is complex not because of lack of knowledge, but in relation to legislative conditions and due to D1 being a horizontal descriptor that relates to all others. They also added that they are overall content with the D1 document.

- One Member State highlighted that the D1 document is too complex as it includes a vast number of topics. It called for a more concise and narrow approach.

- One Member State requested that the assessment of descriptors should include risk analysis methodology. The Commission stressed that this can be discussed in the cross-cutting document and not in the context of a specific descriptor.

- Several Member States specified that new criterion 1.6 addresses interesting issues, but these topics are not operational enough to include them in the decision.

- Methodological standards 1.6.2 should not be used for assessments of GES, as assessment of ecosystem services is not applicable to GES assessment.

- Several Member States supported that “ecosystem level” should be left out of D1. - Furthermore, Methodological standards 1.7.1 under the ecosystem criteria overlap with

methodological standards of D4 and D6. - One Member State requested that in section 5.2 on recommendation on which criteria to retain,

amend and remove, to have a number of case-studies for methodologies, rather than just theoretical methodologies. Another Member State highlighted that section 5.2 needs general clarifications.

- One Member State requested that sources of monitoring data should explicitly state the possible use of EU, regional, national and other types of sources of data.

- In relation to 2.3.3, one Member State requested that RSC work should feature more prominently (work on biodiversity indicators).

- A reference to the EcAp process of the Barcelona convention expert group on biodiversity and fisheries in section 2.4 is to be added.

- In table 3 of species functional groups, the classification of birds should be simpler—it has already been proposed by the OSPAR birds expert group and it was suggested for RSC work to be consulted on this.

- Several Member States specified that “genetically different groups of species”, as well as the “maintenance of genetic structure” proposals are not possible to implement, as there is not enough scientific knowledge in place.

- Several Member State stressed that there is no mention of pelagic habitats and requested for those to also be included.

- One Member State requested that phytoplankton and zoopalntkon at the species level should be kept in brackets.

- One Member State requested that on page 40, in the table of scales; “assessment areas” should also be included in addition to “sub-divisions”.

- Several Member States proposed topics of discussion for the workshop. They were asked to send in their proposals in written form to the JRC.

- One Member State highlighted that the work of the DEVOTES project is too prominent in the proposed document.

- Member States and HELCOM questioned the reason why the biodiversity red list has now been supplemented with additional lists in the document. One Member State also called for flexibility in the proposed list. The JRC clarified that an analysis of available lists has been made, and the purpose is not to expand and complicate the process, but highlight the options available.

9

Descriptor 6 (CIRCABC)

Key recommendations from manual: Adapt two existing criteria to “damage to sea floor” and “structural and functional condition of benthic community” and consider the links to D1 as well as Birds and Habitats Directives.

Discussion:

- Several Member States welcomed the reformulation proposed in the document, but stated that it needs to be more operational and practical.

- Several Member States and the RSCs called for work not to be duplicated and for existing working groups on this topic to be included in the workflow.

- One Member State commented that the methodological standards under criterion 6.2 could be combined, as they are similar.

- One Member State called for the paragraph on climate sensitivity to be adjusted as to reflect regional situations, i.e. increased flow of rivers will in some cases lead to higher flow of nutrients (and not lower as suggested in the text).

- One stakeholder welcomes the new set of criteria and highlighted their improvement specifically in relation to damage to seafloor.

Descriptor 4 (CIRCABC)

Key recommendations from manual: revise criteria to reflect structure and function, and use the concept of trophic guilds. Additional guidance is also provided on GES assessment and use of surveillance indicators.

Discussion:

- Several Member States welcomed the proposal highlighting that there are a number of aspect that are improved. One Member State nevertheless commented that the practical relevance in the document is missing, and that more is needed to operationalise some aspects of the proposal.

- One Member State welcomed the simplification proposed, but commented on how the simplification makes assessment of the functioning of the ecosystem more difficult.

- One Member State stressed that the second criterion requires further work and scientific knowledge on how to assess it.

- One Member State pointed out that the D4 recommendations on how to deal with boundaries in surveillance indicators where links with human activities are not present should be fed into the common understanding document or cross-cutting paper.

Horizontal comments (all descriptors):

Several Member States raised the issue of flexibility of the minimum requirements being proposed for the descriptors. The Commission clarified that there will be minimum requirements, and Member States will be flexible to go beyond them. There will also be a generic exemption inserted applicable to all descriptors, and Member States will be able to apply it, thus again ensuring flexibility.

Overall, the Commission clarified that the list of technical issues pointed out will be addressed, while the more complex ones that leave open ended questions, will be further discussed in future workshops. Issues that require significantly more work will be added into the future Work Programme (2016-2018).

In respect to the links with the WFD and other directives, it was stressed that these are legal issues and all duplication will be removed at the stage when the text is drafted in a legal form.

Action points:

10

Factual errors to be sent in as soon as possible for correction. It’s noted that factual errors can be addressed at any point in time in the review process, and if observed they should be flagged up to the Commission (and to the relevant ICES or JRC team).

Written version of comments made during the meeting can be sent to the Commission, the JRC and ICES by 30.04.2015.

Written proposals for possible workshop topics for some of the descriptors to be sent to the JRC by 30.05.2015.

The JRC and the relevant teams behind the descriptors to send out the dates for the workshops as soon as possible.

Conclusions:

Conclusions on all Descriptors have been drafted and approved by WG GES in a separate document. The conclusions can be consulted on CIRCABC.

b. Cross cutting issues – conclusions from workshop (21-22 January 2015) and Annex III

The Commission presented the outcomes of the cross-cutting workshop and the progress made on the cross-cutting paper. There have been internal discussions in the Commission on the topic of integration with other policies, as well as discussions with the core team on integration across descriptors, with the aim of feeding the information into the Commission Decision review process. For more details, check the presentation on CIRCABC.

Discussion:

- Several Member States welcomed the updated version and highlighted that it addresses issues in a very thorough manner.

- One Member State highlighted that the document is confusing in some aspects as it takes Articles 8 and 9 in reverse order.

- It is also unclear on how it applies Article 14 in view of monitoring progress towards GES, in the case that GES is already achieved.

- One Member State highlighted that risk criteria are not being defined, and this is a missed opportunity and added that the definition of GES boundaries and risk criteria should be combined.

- One Member State commented that sections 4 and section 5 need more consideration, in terms of how the ecosystem approach is taken into account.

- One Member State welcomed the reference to climate change (on page 19).- One Member State questioned the usefulness of including the HOPE indicators in section 8 of the

document.

Action point:

- Member States are invited to submit written comments to the Commission on the cross-cutting document by 30.06.2015.

c. Common understanding document

Uli Claussen from Germany presented the way forward for the Common Understanding document; highlighting the achievements thus far, the challenges faced and asked the group to provide input on the way forward on how to continue shaping the document. For more details, check the presentation on CIRCABC.

Action point:

- Member States are invited to submit comments on the slides presented at the WG GES to Uli Claussen and Andrea Weiss by 20.05.2015.

11

6 Other points for discussion

a. Article 21 report on MPAs

The Commission gave an update on the Article 21 report on MPAs. Based on input from the EEA briefing "Marine Protected Areas in Europe's Seas" and the Deltares report "Proposal for an assessment method of the ecological coherence of networks of marine protected areas in Europe", internal progress on finalising this report has been made. The timeline for the publication is summer 2015. For more details, check the presentation on CIRCABC.

The EEA added that its briefing is based on the voluntary reporting done by marine and biodiversity networks to the EEA. A large number of networks have been invited for commenting in the context of the public consultation, which is currently underway.

Action point:

- Member States are invited to submit comments to the EEA public consultation on "Marine Protected Areas in Europe's Seas" by 11.05.2015.

b. Knowledge base and modelling toolbox

The Commission has started work on expanding the knowledge base on the marine environment. The backbone of the work is a modelling toolbox that will cover hydrological water flows on land, hydrodynamic modelling of marine waters, bio-geo-chemical modelling in the ocean and higher trophic level (food-webs) modelling. Thus the work goes beyond just marine policy and has links with other policy sectors such as water, air and soil.

The long-term ambition is to establish increased analytic capacity of the marine environment. The JRC is starting up work this year by focusing on eutrophication in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Eutrophication is chosen as the first subject to tackle, as it is a cross cutting topic which is relatively well understood and that will allow for good examples to emerge quickly.

The socio-economic aspects are to also be considered; as such ecosystem valuation aspects will be covered. This work will also be presented at the WG ESA.

Finally, an advisory structure will be created linked to the MSFD working groups, which will ensure transparency towards Member States, mobilising existing expertise and enabling a successful EU level engagement. As a first step, this will be discussed at the next MSCG meeting.

c. Supplementary guidance for the implementation of EQS biota (JRC)

The JRC informed the WG GES on the supplementary guidance for the implementation of EQS in biota, which has been developed in the context of the WFD. The MSFD expert network on contaminants will now look into its applicability in the context of the MSFD, and a meeting of the Working Group on chemicals is scheduled in June 2015, where this will be discussed.

d. Future work programme, WG GES 2016-2018

The aim is for all Working Groups to start reflecting on the future Work Programme. This is to be discussed as a draft proposal in the next WG GES meeting. The proposal will then be presented at the next MSCG meeting in November 2015, and then to the Marine Directors at the end of the year.

12

Action point:

- The WG GES is asked to send proposals for inclusion in the Work Programme by 30.06.2015.

7 Information exchange

a. Fisheries workshop (21 May 2015)

Invitations have been sent and the agenda is available on CIRCABC.

b. MAES project

WG GES members are invited to check the MAES project information on CIRCABC.

c. Roof report assessment 2018

The EEA reported on the roof reports of 2018 and the State of the Environment (SoE) assessment of 2019.

In relation to the implementation of Article 20 of the MSFD, the Commission is to prepare a SoE report by 2019. The roof reports, which are to be prepared by the RSCs, and the SoE assessment to be prepared by the EEA are interlinked and very close in terms of implementation timelines. As such, a workshop is currently being organised to discuss the practical implementation of this activity, focusing on how to harmonise the process so as to ensure timely implementation of the assessments.

Furthermore, it was emphasised that these reports also relate to the 2018 Member State reporting on Article 8. There is an urgent need to define an outline of the Article 8 reporting, as to ensure compatibility between the RSCs work in 2017 and what is to follow. This topic will be discussed in more detail at the WG DIKE meeting (19.06.2015)

8 Other issues / AOB

None.

9 Closure of the meeting

The co-chair thanked all participants for their presence and contributions and closed the meeting.

13

Annex 1 – List of participants

Organisation / Ministry Last name First name

Member States

AT Austria

BE Belgium

BG Bulgaria

HR Croatia

CY Cyprus

DK Denmark The Danish Nature Agency Løvendahl Raun Ane-Marie

EE Estonia Ministry of Environment of Estonia Nurmik Marek

FI Finland Finnish Environment Institute, Marine Research Centre (SYKE) Korpinen Samuli

FR France Ministère de l'écologie, du développement durable et de l'énergie Terrier Isabelle

Institut francais de recherche pour l'exploration de la mer (IFREMER) Wessel Nathalie

14

DE Germany Federal Environment Agency (UBA) Claussen Uli

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety Narberhaus Ingo

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) Krause Jochen

EL Greece

IE Ireland Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG) Cronin Richard

IT Italy Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA) Silvestri Cecilia

LV Latvia Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology Strake Solvita

LT Lithuania Environmental Protection Agency of Lithuania Kubiliūtė Aistė

MT Malta

NL The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment van den Ende Frank

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment Enserink Lisette

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment Dekeling Rene

PL Poland Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection Marciniewicz-Mykieta Malgorzata

PT Portugal Direcção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços Marítimos (DGRM) Lopes Vera

RO Romania Ministry of Environment and Climate Changes Mihail Otilia

15

SI Slovenia Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia Peterlin Monica

Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning Brelaik Barbara

ES Spain Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment Arrieta Algarra Sagrario

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment Diaz Laura

Instituto Español de Oceanografia Serrano Lopez Alberto

SE Sweden Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) Pettersson Karin

UK United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Scarsbrook Andrew

Joint Nature Conservation Committee Hawkridge Jane

Non-EU Member States (Observers)

NO Norway

Regional Sea Conventions

RSC Barcelona Convention (UNEP/MAP) Secretariat Hema Tatjana

RSC Black Sea Commission Secretariat

RSC Helsinki Convention (HELCOM) Secretariat Zweifel Ulla Li

RSC OSPAR Commission Secretariat Foden Jo

16

Stakeholders & International organisations

INT ORG General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)

INT ORG International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Dickey-Collas Mark

INT ORG Regional Advisory Council, North Sea (NS RAC) -VisNed

STH BirdLife International

STH European Mollusc Producers Association (EMPA) Dudoy Perrine

STH European Bureau for Conservation and Development Sanmartin Sandra

STH Europeche Voces de Onaindi Daniel

STH Europeche – Scottish Fishermen’s Association Coull Kenny

STH Marine Strategy Navigation Group (NAVI) representative (Central Dredging Association - CEDA) Lloyd Jones Dafydd

STH Oceana Fournier Nicolas

STH Oceancare Entrup Nicolas

STH Seas At Risk Priestland Emma

STH Worldwide Fund for Nature Lutter Stephan

17

STH The Fisheries Secreteriat (FISH) Brand Annelie

STH Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB) Hoglund Nils

STH Wageningen University Stamoulis Antonios

EU Commission / European Environment Agency / Consultants

Consultant Milieu Ltd Barsoumian Sarine

EEA European Environment Agency Christiansen Trine

ENV.C.2 European Commission, DG Environment, Unit C.2 "Marine Environment and Water Industry" Cheilari Anna

European Commission, DG Environment, Unit C.2 "Marine Environment and Water Industry" Connor David

European Commission, DG Environment, Unit C.2 "Marine Environment and Water Industry" Martin-Roumegas Lydia

European Commission, DG Environment, Unit C.2 "Marine Environment and Water Industry" D'Eugenio Joachim

European Commission, DG Environment, Unit C.2 "Marine Environment and Water Industry" Hoermandinger Guenter

ENV C1 Clayton Helen

JRC European Commission, Joint Research Centre Hanke Georg

Somma Francesca

18

Annex2 – List of papers and presentations (available on CIRCABC)

Documents

 draft joint list of RSC contaminants list

 GES_13-2015-00_List of documents

 GES_13-2015-01_draft Agenda.doc

 GES_13-2015-01_draft Agenda_revised.doc

 GES_13-2015-02_Annex3_MSFD Annex III revision v2

 GES_13-2015-02_Review of GES Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD Annex III - cross-cutting issues v4

 GES_13-2015-03_Information exchange.doc

 GES_13-2015-D01.pdf

 GES_13-2015-D02.pdf

 GES_13-2015-D05.pdf

 GES_13-2015-D07.pdf

 GES_13-2015-D08.pdf

 GES_13-2015-D09.pdf

 GEs_13-2015-D10.pdf

 GES_13-2015-D11.pdf

 GES_13-2015-D346.pdf

Presentations

 GES_13_2015-Article21

 GES_13_2015-Cross-cutting issues

 GES_13_2015-D10_ComDecRev

 GES_13_2015-D11_ComDecRev

 GES_13_2015-D1_ComDecRev

 GES_13_2015-D2_ComDecRev

 GES_13_2015-D3_ComDecRev

19

 GES_13_2015-D4_ComDecRev

 GES_13_2015-D5_ComDecRev

 GES_13_2015-D6_ComDecRev

 GES_13_2015-D7_ComDecRev

 GES_13_2015-D8+9_ComDecRev

 GES_13_2015-Follow-up to Article 12 Recommendation MS Replies

 GES_13_2015-Review of GES Introduction

 GES_13_2015-Way_Forward_all descriptors

 GES_13_2015-Way_forward_CU_Revision

20