msfd eu funding mechanisms - circabc - welcome€¦ · web viewmsfd eu funding mechanisms. ......

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)Common Implementation Strategy

Meeting of the Working Group ESA14-15 October 2014

Agenda Item: 4

Document: ESA 10-2014/4

Title:

MSFD Common Implementation Strategy – MSFD EU Funding MechanismsCo-financing Guidance

Prepared by: ARCADIS/EUCC

Date prepared: 22 September 2014

Background:

MSFD CIS work plan 2012-2014, adopted at the Marine Directors meeting in June 2012, gave the mandate to WG GES and WG ESA to develop a draft Recommendation on Programme of Measures and ensure further consultation by WG ESA, WG GES, DIKE and MSCG. The draft Recommendation (Annex to Doc MD 2014-1/1) was endorsed at the Marine Directors meeting of June 5, 2014.

EU Member States are facing different challenges in preparing and financing their Programme of Measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status (GES) of their marine environments.

Article 22 of the MSFD stipulates that the implementation of the Directive shall be supported by existing Community financial instruments in accordance with applicable rules and conditions.

In view of this Article, the European Commission contracted ARCADIS /EUCC to develop a guidance to support Member States to compile and finance a set of measures suited for their own implementation of the MSFD.

The guidance consists of a high level inventory of potential funding mechanisms for the financing of measures and supportive activities (e.g. concerning data collection, monitoring and compliance) by Member States, geared at the implementation of MSFD, complementary to the proper funding by MS themselves. Next to this inventory the guidance focuses on

the following EU-funding mechanisms: European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) EU Regional Funds:

− European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)− Cohesion Fund (CF)

EU Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020)

Consultation was done through the EC Directorates ENV, MARE and REGIO as well as WG ESA.

The co-financing guidance will be added to the recommendation on Programme of Measures, as an Annex 2 dealing with Art 22 implementation, as agreed by Marine Director on June 5, in Heraklion, Greece.

ESA is invited to: Take note of the final document Transmit the document for adoption to the MSCG meeting

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)Common Implementation Strategy

Meeting of the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG)10-11November 2014

Agenda Item: @@

Document: MSCG/@@/2014/@@

Title:

MSFD Common Implementation Strategy – MSFD EU Funding MechanismsCo-financing Guidance

Prepared by: ARCADIS/EUCC

Date prepared: 22 September 2014

Background: MSFD CIS work plan 2012-2014, adopted at the Marine Directors meeting in June 2012, gave the mandate to WG GES and WG ESA to develop a draft Recommendation on Programme of Measures and ensure further consultation by WG ESA, WG GES, DIKE and MSCG. The draft Recommendation (Annex to Doc MD 2014-1/1) was endorsed at the Marine Directors meeting of June 5, 2014.

EU Member States are facing different challenges in preparing and financing their Programme of Measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status (GES) of their marine environments.

Article 22 of the MSFD stipulates that the implementation of the Directive shall be supported by existing Community financial instruments in accordance with applicable rules and conditions.

In view of this Article, the European Commission contracted ARCADIS

/EUCC to develop a guidance to support Member States to compile and finance a set of measures suited for their own implementation of the MSFD.

The guidance consists of a high level inventory of potential funding mechanisms for the financing of measures and supportive activities (e.g. concerning data collection, monitoring and compliance) by Member States, geared at the implementation of MSFD, complementary to the proper funding by MS themselves. Next to this inventory the guidance focuses on the following EU-funding mechanisms: European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) EU Regional Funds:



Consultation was done through the EC Directorates ENV, MARE and REGIO as well as WG ESA.

The co-financing guidance will be added to the recommendation on Programme of Measures, as an Annex 2 dealing with Art 22 implementation, as agreed by Marine Director on June 5, in Heraklion, Greece.

The Members of the MSCG are invited to: Discuss the written comments, if necessary, and thereafter adopt the final version of the

document in accordance with Article 6 of the Rules of Procedures during the MSCG meeting;

Agree to forward this document to the Marine Directors for information, additional endorsement without discussion and agreement to the following section in the foreword:

The Marine Directors of the European Union and associated countries to this process have also endorsed this Document during their informal meeting under the Italian Presidency in November 2014 and reached the following conclusions: “We would like to thank the experts who have prepared this high quality document. We strongly believe that this and other documents developed under the Common Implementation Strategy will play a key role in the process of implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This document is a living document that will need continuous input and improvements as application and experience build up in all countries of the European Union and beyond. We agree, however, that this document will be made publicly available in its current form in order to present it to a wider public as a basis for carrying forward on-going implementation work.”

4 ARCADIS 077666829:0.1 - Draft report

MSFD EU FUNDING MECHANISMSCO-FINANCING GUIDANCE

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG ENV

22 September 2014077666829:0.1 - Draft report

Contents

Preface........................................................................................................................3

Quick reference guide.................................................................................................4

1 Introduction............................................................................................................5

2 MSFD types of measures and activities..................................................................6

3 Overview of potential MSFD funding options.........................................................8

4 Most relevant MSFD funding options...................................................................144.1 European Maritime and fisheries Fund (EMFF).......................................................16

4.1.1 Fund structure...........................................................................................164.1.2 Key elements relating to MSFD................................................................184.1.3 Available budget and funding criteria.......................................................224.1.4 How to apply for funding...........................................................................24

4.2 Regional Funds: ERDF and Cohesion Fund..............................................................284.2.1 Fund structure...........................................................................................284.2.2 Key elements relating to MSFD................................................................304.2.3 Available budget and funding criteria.......................................................324.2.4 How to apply for funding...........................................................................33

4.3 LIFE...........................................................................................................................354.3.1 Programme Structure................................................................................354.3.2 Key elements relating to MSFD................................................................364.3.3 Available budget and funding criteria.......................................................404.3.4 How to apply for funding...........................................................................42

4.4 HORIZON 2020.........................................................................................................444.4.1 Programme structure................................................................................444.4.2 Key elements relating to MSFD................................................................454.4.3 Available budget and funding criteria.......................................................454.4.4 How to apply for funding...........................................................................46

5 Funding MSFD measures and activities: examples..............................................49

Annex I References............................................................................................58Annex II Classification of MSFD-measures according to Annex VI (Programmes of measures)59Annex III ETC Programmes..................................................................................62

MSFD EU funding mechanismsCo-financing guidance

077666829:0.1 - Draft report ARCADIS 1

Preface

The Marine Directors of the European Union (EU), Acceding Countries, Candidate Countries and EFTA Countries have jointly developed a common strategy for supporting the implementation of the Directive 2008/56/EC, “the Marine Strategy Framework Directive” (MSFD). The main aim of this strategy is to allow a coherent and harmonious implementation of the Directive. Focus is on methodological questions related to a common understanding of the technical and scientific implications of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. In particular, one of the objectives of the strategy is the development of non-legally binding and practical documents, such as this guidance on co-financing of MSFD measures. This document is targeted to experts and officials in Member States implementing the MSFD in the marine regions and seeking co-financing of MSFD measures.

The document has been prepared by experts of ARCADIS and EUCC and following consultation of the Directorates ENV, MARE and REGIO and Working Group ESA. It has been agreed by the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (in accordance with Article 6 of its Rules of Procedures).

This part of the foreword will be discussed and agreed at the Marine Directors’ meeting: The Marine Directors of the European Union and associated countries to this process have also endorsed this Document during their informal meeting under the Italian Presidency in November 2014 and reached the following conclusions: “We would like to thank the experts who have prepared this high quality document. We strongly believe that this and other documents developed under the Common Implementation Strategy will play a key role in the process of implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This document is a living document that will need continuous input and improvements as application and experience build up in all countries of the European Union and beyond. We agree, however, that this document will be made publicly available in its current form in order to present it to a wider public as a basis for carrying forward on-going implementation work.”

The Marine Strategy Coordination Group will assess and decide upon the necessity for reviewing this document in the light of scientific and technical progress and experiences gained in implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/@@

Disclaimer:This document has been developed through a collaborative programme involving the European Commission, all EU Member States, the Accession Countries, and Norway, international organisations, including the Regional Sea Conventions and other stakeholders and Non-Governmental Organisations. The document should be regarded as presenting an informal consensus position on best practice agreed by all partners. However, the document does not necessarily represent the official, formal position of any of the partners. Hence, the views expressed in the document do not necessarily represent the views of the European Commission.



https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/@@

Quick reference guide

The purpose of this quick reference guide is to provide a concise overview of opportunities for MSFD financing in view of the available (EU) funding options in 2014-2020.

In the left hand column MSFD is pictured, divided in measures geared at achieving and/or maintaining a Good Ecological Status, related to

one or more MSFD descriptors/pressures and other activities, like data collection, monitoring and control.

Concerning the MSFD measures, different types of measures are identified in the centre column, ranging from research to hardware investments and awareness raising.

For these types of MSFD measures as well as the other MSFD activities, in the right hand column the major relevant EU co-funding options are indicated. Depending on the (phase in the) life cycle of a proposed MSFD project, different types of measures and other activities can be at issue, involving one or more co-funding options.

More information on MSFD, measures and funding mechanisms can be found in the sections as indicated in the scheme.



1 Introduction

The aim of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) is to protect more effectively the marine environment across Europe. Member States - cooperating with other Member States and non-EU countries within a marine region - are required to develop strategies for their marine waters.

These marine strategies must contain a detailed assessment of the state of the environment, a definition of "good environmental status" at regional level and the establishment of clear environmental targets and monitoring programs. When the marine environment in a Member State does not reach the set environmental targets, specific measures tailored to the particular context of the area and situation will need to be elaborated.

Article 22 of the MSFD stipulates that the implementation of the Directive shall be supported by existing Community financial instruments in accordance with applicable rules and conditions. In view of this Article, the European Commission contracted ARCADIS /EUCC to develop a guidance to support Member States to compile and finance a set of measures suited for their own implementation of the MSFD.

This guidance consists of an inventory of potential funding mechanisms for the financing of measures and supportive activities (e.g. concerning data collection, monitoring and compliance) by Member States, geared at the implementation of MSFD, complementary to the proper funding by MS themselves. The guidance should support Member States to compile and finance a set of measures suited for their own implementation of the MSFD.

Structure of the guidanceIn section 2 types of measures are presented according to descriptors of MSFD, geared at achieving the Good Ecological Status. In section 3 a high level inventory of funding mechanisms related to MSFD is presented. In this way the broader picture of potential financing instruments is established. Section 4 focuses in more detail on the content, conditions and application procedure of the following EU-funding mechanisms, considered to be the ones most relevant to apply for by Member States concerning MSFD measures: European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) EU Regional Funds:





Section 5 provides a number of ‘live examples’ in which MSFD measures are linked to specific funding options, as discussed in this guidance. In the Annex useful sources and web links are listed, including references to other (complementary) co-funding guidances.



2 MSFD types of measures and

activities

According to the MSFD, Member States are required to identify measures that contribute to the achievement or maintenance of the Good Ecological Status (GES) set out in their Marine Strategies and that will address the predominant pressures and impacts identified in the initial assessment of their marine waters (initial assessment). There should be a direct link between the proposed measures and the established national targets.

Where relevant it is possible that measures may address several descriptors, relating to different targets / pressures, economic sectors and activities. There is no definitive nor an exhaustive way in which measures may be presented. In the following section the classification according to Annex I (descriptors) of MSFD is used.1

Classification according to Annex I (descriptors) of MSFDBy using this typology a link can be established between measures and achieving the Good Ecological Status. These descriptors encompass the final objectives that can be targeted with the (set of) measures. The Table below gives an overview of MSFD descriptors/pressures and example type of measures.

Descriptor / pressure Existing (types of) measures Potential new (types of) measures1. Biological diversity is maintained

Designation and protection of marine habitats (MPA's, Natura 2000 for example).

Gear restrictions/modifications to prevent bycatch of birdsRegulation of underwater tourism (in MPAs)

2. Non-indigenous species

Ban on the discharge of untreated sewage water from ships.

Installation of migration barriers for invasive species.

3. Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish

Discard ban on the most commercially important species, ban on high grading

Installation of breakwaters for fish reproduction and growth

4. All elements of the marine food webs

Pollution control of rivers, supported by monitoring system for water quality

Region wide response programme to the threat of oil spills

5. Human-induced eutrophication is minimized

Limits to application of fertilizers in agriculture, limits on P per ha (existing for N)

Ditch dams and ditch filters to reduce phosphorous leakage from arable land (technical measure)

6. Sea-floor integrity Application of an environmental friendly Electric pulse fishing

1 In Annex II of this guidance an alternative classification of measures is available, according to Annex VI (Programmes of Measures).



sand extraction methodology or other mitigating measures for aggregate extraction

(Marine) Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund (MALSF)

7. Permanent alteration of hydrographic conditions

Environmental management: establish and maintain an environmental control and monitoring programme throughout the execution of large coastal development projects

Managed realignment in coastal areas

8. Concentrations of contaminants

Additional harbour taxes for "polluting" ships

‘No-special-fee’ system in sea ports

9. Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption

Establishing additional waste water treatment plants (compulsory), Implementing National Programme for Priority Construction of Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants

Grants for disposal of oil waste from ships

10. Properties and quantities of marine litter

Fishing for litter programme; Incentives to fishermen for reporting on and the removal of debris.

Deposit-refund programmes on plastic and glass bottles

11. Introduction of energy, including underwater noise

Installation of noise reduction techniques in ships

Seasonal restrictions on specific noise producing activities (e.g. piling) during construction wind farms

In section 5 a more detailed specification of example measures is provided.

Next to specific measures, also other types of activities can be deployed in order to achieve GES. For instance concerning monitoring and control. Refer to e.g. Monitoring for the MFSD: requirements and options.

Part of the financing of these MSFD measures and activities can be derived from EU funding mechanisms. In the following sections such funding mechanisms are described in more detail.



http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/23169/1/lbna25187enn.pdf

http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/23169/1/lbna25187enn.pdf

3 Overview of potential MSFD

funding options

A high level inventory has been made of a number of potential MSFD funding options, including EU-funding as well as – associated – funding by IFIs and Regional Conventions. For all funding opportunities taken into account, the following issues have been identified: Funding priorities Relevance for MSFD implementation in general and per type of measure Financing criteria Relevant regions and target groups Available budget Time schemes

The following table summarizes the main results of this inventory, focusing on the relevance of specific funding options for MSFD in view of content (funding priorities) and available budget.

Funding options ranking a medium or higher score for content and available budget concerning MSFD have been highlighted and will be explored in more detail in the next section.

Funding mechanism

Relevant priority areas for MSFD implementation

Overall available amount of funding

Relevance for MSFD measures

(content / budget)

Barcelona Convention

Abating and preventing pollution caused by dumping from ships and aircrafts, pollution from ships, pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continent shelf and the seabed and its subsoil.

Some project financing led by the World Bank (Investment Fund/Sustainable MED).

High / low

Black Sea Convention

The control of land-based sources of pollution, dumping of waste and joint action in case of accidents.

Some financial resources at the Regional Activity Centres

High / low



Cohesion Fund

Investing in the waste and water sectors to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis and to address needs, identified by the Member States, for investment that goes beyond those requirements. Protecting and restoring biodiversity and soil and promoting ecosystem services, including through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure. Developing and improving environmentally-friendly (including low-noise) and low-carbon transport systems, including maritime transport and ports, in order to promote sustainable regional and local mobility. Enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration through actions to strengthen the institutional capacity and the efficiency of public administrations and public services related to the implementation of the Cohesion Fund.

€ 63 billion. Medium / medium (only specific countries)

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

Priorities set by the EAFRD are limited to the development of rural areas. However, some measures implemented in rural areas can indirectly benefit the GES of marine environments. For example measures abating nutrient leaking, new farming practices, may have positive effects on coastal waters too.

EAFRD (cfr art 44, LEADER) also provides bottom-up opportunities, based on local action strategies, aimed specifically at mobilising and involving local communities and organisations.

EAFRD, or pillar II of the CAP, has €101.2 billion available to finance the rural development programmes 2014-2020.

Low / high

European Maritime and

The EMFF provides several opportunities to fund measures related to the MSFD during the

Budgetary resources under shared management, the resources available shall be

High / high



Fisheries Fund

2014-2020 period. Most important Union priority related to the MSFD is defined in article 6 (1): “Promoting a sustainable and resource efficient fisheries and aquaculture, focussing on:(a) reduction of the impact of fisheries on the marine environment;(b) protection and restoration of aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems;(c) enhancement of ecosystems related to aquaculture and promotion of resource efficient aquaculture;(d) promotion of aquaculture with high level of environmental protection and of animal health and welfare and of public health and safety.In general, the Regulation stipulates that an appropriate approach towards the GES should be integrated into the EMFF OPs (Article 18 (a)).There are several measures under shared and direct management that can contribute to realising the PoMs within the MSFD.

about EUR 5.749 million.

Budgetary resources under direct management are set at roughly EUR 647 million.

The decision of the Commission approving the operational programme shall set the maximum EMFF contribution to that programme. In most cases, the maximum EMFF contribution rate shall be 75% of the eligible public expenditure, the minimum shall be 20%.

European Regional Development Fund

Supporting Research and Innovation: technological and applied research (applied to fishery/maritime sector). Addressing the significant needs for investment in the waste and water sectors to meet the requirements of the environmental acquis; protecting biodiversity, soil protection and promoting ecosystem services including NATURA 2000 and green infrastructures.

€ 183 billion Medium/high

European SocialFund

The ESF is Europe’s main instrument for supporting jobs, helping people get better jobs and ensuring fairer job opportunities for all EU citizens. Only one

€ 84 billion Low/high



article was identified in the context of MSFD: Article 3.2 (a): support in shift towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient, resource-efficient and environmentally sustainable economy,

HELCOM

Environmental policy making for the Baltic Sea Area by developing common environmental objectives & actions, including: prevention and abatement of dumping and pollution from ships and preservation of marine biodiversity.

The main sources of funding are state budgets and EU's structural funds including the Cohesion Fund.

High (only specific countries) / low

Horizon2020

Horizon 2020 is the largest EU Research and Innovation programme, follow-up of FP7.

The sustainable exploitation of the diversity of marine life will put emphasis in 2014 on valuing and mining marine biodiversity while 2015 will focus on the preservation and sustainable exploitation of marine ecosystems and climate change effects on marine living resources. The new offshore challenges will be tackled in 2014 through a support action (CSA) preparing potential further large –scale offshore initiatives and one initiative focused on sub-sea technologies while in 2015 a large scale initiative is planned on response to oil spill and maritime pollution. Also a large-scale initiative on improving ocean observation systems/technologies including novel monitoring systems for in-situ observations will be supported in 2014 as well as one activity on acoustic and imaging technologies..

Blue Growth indicative budget: €100 million from the 2014 budget, and €45 million from the 2015 budget. In total, Horizon 2020 is worth nearly €80 billion over seven years.

High / High

International Financial Institution

EBRD:

– Fleet modernisation and retrofitting of vessels.

Concerning the MedPartnership Investment Fund, The GEF grant funding received by Sustainable MED is expected to co-finance

Medium / low



s

– Introduction of best practices (port environment and vessel operators) and compliance with IMO regulations

EIB/EIF:

- Fleet modernisation.

WB:

- Finance port investments / renovation.

- Natural resources management: (i) integrated coastal zone management; (ii) protection of marine resources; (iii) vulnerable ecosystems and biodiversity; (iv) water resource management.

- Pollution prevention and abatement: (i) water treatment; (ii) solid and hazardous waste management; (iii) industrial pollution abatement; (iv) sea transportation, (v) maritime safety."

larger investments estimated at around US$ 737 million provided by beneficiary countries, through World Bank loans, from bilateral and regional banks, technical assistance grants and other sources. This applies however mainly to non-EU MS.

Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance II

Transition Assistance and Institution Building , Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) and Regional Development – for investment in transport, environment and economic cohesion, and associated technical assistance. As far as can be applied to MSFD.

IPA II funding will amount to some €14.1 billion over 2014-2020.

Low (specific countries only) / medium

LIFE:Programme for the Environment and Climate Action

Thematic priorities for Water, including the marine environment: activities for the implementation of the specific objectives for water set out in the Roadmap for a Resource-Efficient Europe and the 7th Environment Action Programme, in particular activities for the implementation of the programme of measures of Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD) with a view to achieving good environmental status of marine

Subprogramme Environment € 2.600 million.

At least 55 % dedicated to projects supporting the conservation of nature and biodiversity.

A maximum of 30 % may be allocated to integrated projects. These integrated projects, while focusing on the themes identified, should be multi-purpose delivery mechanisms

High / High



waters.Thematic priorities for Waste: activities for the implementation of the specific objectives for waste set out in the Roadmap for a Resource-Efficient Europe and the 7th Environment Action Programme, in particular activities for the implementation and development of Union waste legislation, with particular emphasis on the first steps of the Union waste hierarchy (prevention, re-use and recycling).Thematic priorities for Nature: activities for the implementation of Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC, in particular activities aimed at improving the conservation status of habitats and species, including marine habitats and species, and bird species, of Union interest."(a) Information, communication and awareness raising campaigns in line with the priorities of the 7th Environment Action Programme;(b) Activities in support of effective control process as well as measures to promote compliance in relation to Union environmental legislation, and in support of information systems and information tools on the implementation of Union environmental legislation."

(e.g. aiming at environmental benefits and capacity-building) that make it possible to achieve results in other policy areas, in particular the marine environment in accordance with the objectives of Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD).

OSPARBiodiversity and Ecosystem Strategy, Eutrophication Strategy, Hazardous Substances Strategy, Strategy for Joint Assessment and Monitoring. The MSFD aims to achieve good environmental status for the EU Member States’ marine waters by 2020. OSPAR is the main platform for coordination for the marine area concerned (North East Atlantic)

OSPAR works primarily through the resources of the Contracting Parties.

High / low



4 Most relevant MSFD funding

options

In view of the outcome of the high level inventory of potential funding mechanisms in section 3 as well as the background of Article 22 of the MSFD2, the focus in this co-financing guidance is on the following EU-funding mechanisms for MSFD implementation: EU Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds):

− European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)− EU Regional Funds:

• European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)• Cohesion Fund (CF)


In this section we clarify the general structure and procedures of these funds or programmes as well as the more specific linkage to MSFD.

Shared management fundsEMFF and the Regional funds are part of the so-called EU Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). These funds are

allocated to Member States, based on national allocations (% share). Furthermore specific procedures apply

concerning the shared management of the funds between EC and MS, involving the requirement of incorporating

MSFD-needs or measures in Partnership Agreements and subsequent Operational Programmes for any specific

MSFD funding application by MS or regions later on.

In the following scheme the ‘building blocks’ are identified, leading to the operational programmes of the EMFF, ERDF

and CF funding mechanisms. Based on the Common Strategic Framework3, Partnership Agreements are signed

between the EU and the MS. In the Partnership Agreements, the MS outlines its needs and objectives, relating to the

Common Strategic Framework, and building on the Commission’s individual recommendations, as laid out in the

‘Position Paper’ adopted for each Member State in 2012. Based on the needs and objectives as laid down in the

Partnership Agreements, more detailed activities / investment plans are drawn up in the individual Operating

Programmes (OPs) for the specific funding mechanisms, at MS or regional level. In general, the OP structure is based

on matching an EU pre-defined set of thematic objectives, investment priorities and indicators and the specific MS

2 This article implies that the implementation of the Directive shall be supported by existing Community financial instruments in accordance with applicable rules and conditions.3 The Common Strategic Framework (CSF) translates the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy in a multi-annual financial framework, determining rules for the cohesion policy and for an integrated use of the 5 principal funds: European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), Cohesion Fund (CF), European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).



needs and objectives as stated in the Partnership Agreements. The (combined) OPs for ERDF and CF are usually

drawn up on a regional level, the EMFF OP is made on a national (MS) level.

The ‘Union priorities’ and “thematic objectives” constitute the basis for the Common Strategic Framework, which shall

outline key actions for each thematic objective. Every action financed must be linked to a particular thematic objective.

In view of MSFD, Union priorities 1 (Promoting environmentally sustainable, resource efficient, innovative, competitive

and knowledge based fisheries), 2 (Fostering environmentally sustainable, resource efficient, innovative, competitive

and knowledge based aquaculture), 3 (Fostering the implementation of the CFP) and 6 (Fostering the implementation

of the Integrated Maritime Policy) are most relevant for potential co-funding of MSFD measures and activities by both

EMFF and the Regional Funds (ERDF and CF). The same holds for thematic objective 6 (Protecting the environment

and promoting resource efficiency) and – to a lesser extent – thematic objective 3 (Enhancing the competitiveness of

small and medium-sized enterprises, the agricultural sector (for the EAFRD) and the fisheries and aquaculture sector

(for the EMFF)).

Direct FundsLIFE and Horizon 2020 are so called direct EU Funds. General characteristics of these types of funds are:

- Calls for Proposals are made, usually annual calls. These calls may have different priorities and criteria.

- The funds are largely independent, applying different criteria.

- The bidding process is competitive, merit based, meeting pre-defined criteria.

- A strong transnational requirement exists, requiring partners from other Member States.

- Co-financing generally ranges between 45% - 85%, to ensure partner buy-in.

- Most Funds have National Contact Points to assist/advise.



4.1 EUROPEAN MARITIME AND FISHERIES FUND (EMFF)

The EMFF provides several opportunities to finance the Common Fisheries Policy and the Integrated Maritime Policy. Specifically, dedicated support is provided for the management, restoration and monitoring of coastal and marine Natura 2000 sites. In addition, support is also made available for the management, restoration and monitoring of other marine protected areas (MPAs) to support the implementation of MSFD. Also the improvement of the knowledge on the state of the marine environment (establishing monitoring programmes) and the PoMs foreseen in the MSFD in line with the obligations established in the Directive, are eligible to funding by EMFF. More information on EMFF can be found on the EMFF section of the DG MARE website.

4.1.1 FUND STRUCTURE

EMFF is structured in two parts: The largest part of EMFF (90%) is based on shared management by EC and Member

States, ruled by operational programmes; A minor part (10%) of EMFF is based on direct management by EC.

Shared management: operational programmeThe shared management part of EMFF is implemented by Member States through national OPs, allocating budget to measures/actions, addressing specific objectives. Once the Commission has approved the OP, it is up to the MS to decide which projects will be funded. The MS and the Commission will be jointly responsible for the implementation of the programme. For MS to be able to apply for EMFF funding of MSFD measures, the EMFF OPs must contain specific MSFD needs and associated measures to address them. Hence it is necessary that MS integrate MSFD objectives and measures into their EMFF OP before proceeding to apply to EMFF for funding of MSFD-measures. This concerns specifically the following items.

Item

Operational Programme section

Title Concerns

1 2.1 SWOT / identification of needs

MSFD related needs addressed and relation with GES Is the SWOT analysis consistent with the progress to achieve

GES through the development and implementation of MSFD? In this respect, have any MSFD descriptors/pressures or other

needs (e.g. relating to capacity building) been included?2 3.1 Description of OP

strategyIntegrating the MSFD into the EMFF OP strategy Have relevant objectives been set, with an adequate

explanation/link with achievement of GES under the MSFD?3 3.3 Measures and

output indicatorsEnsuring selection of MSFD-relevant measures and indicators Have MSFD-relevant measures been identified (see Annex 4) Have one or more of the following output indicators been

included?:

− UP1.4: Conservation measures, reduction of the fishing

impact on the environment and fishing adaptation to the

protection of species− UP1.6: Protection and restoration of biodiversity and

ecosystems− UP 2.14: Limiting the impact of aquaculture on the

environment (eco-management, audit schemes, organic



http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/index_en.htm

aquaculture environmental services)− UP 3.18: Implementing the Union’s control, inspections and

enforcement system− UP 3.19: Supporting the collection, management and use of

data;− UP 6.28: Protection and improvement of knowledge on

marine environment4 3.4 Complementarity

with other ESI funds

Possibilities of multiple ESI fundingWhat other ESI funding will be attracted to co-finance measures? And how is this managed?

5 3.5 Sea basin strategies

In case a sea basin strategy is relevant for MS, how has this been taken into account? Is the MS/region covered by a Macro-Regional Strategy (e.g.

Baltic Sea, Adriatic/Ionian, Danube)? If yes, are the (marine) priorities/actions of these strategies

adequately supported under the OP in question?6 4.1 Specific needs of

N2000 areasMarine N2000 needs Have the specific needs of marine N2000 areas been addressed

in the proposed measures? Is there a clear link between this OP section and the measures

chosen in OP Section 3.3 (e.g. measures under Art 40.1.d and 40.1.e, and 44.6.a can all contribute to designation/management of N2000 sites)

7 4.7 Technical Assistance

Is technical assistance required for MSFD implementation?If so, this should be specified in this section of the OP, specifically mentioning Article 78 of the EMFF (refer to section 4.1.2 of this guidance document). For some MS this is a crucial element in order to be able to implement MSFD.

8 8.2 EMFF contribution and co-financing

Costs of measures and amount of national co-financing Rough estimate of proposed MSFD measures should be

available. How much can be co-funded by the MS themselves, taking into

account EMFF-co funding rates and other (ESI) sources of funding.

9 13 Data collection Data collection activities What MSFD related data is necessary, based on the needs

identified in item 2. There should be a clear link between the data collection outlined

here, and the reporting requirements under the MSFD, especially in relation to biodiversity and fisheries Descriptors.

10 14 Financial instruments

MSFD measures entailing use of financial instrumentThis may be the case e.g. in 'economic incentive' type of measure.4 If so, measures and amounts should be specified.

4 This type of measures include e.g. the use of taxes, charges, fees and other kind of financial instruments.



4.1.2 KEY ELEMENTS RELATING TO MSFD

Shared managementConcerning the shared management of EMFF, as laid out in the Operational Programmes, a so-called Intervention Logic has been constructed by the Commission, in which Union Priorities, Thematic Objectives and EMFF Specific Objectives are linked to specific EMFF articles.

The EMFF Intervention Logic and the most relevant EMFF articles for MSFD (highlighted) are presented in the following Table.

Union priorities

Specific objectives

Measures Thematic objective

1. Promoting environmentally sustainable, resource efficient, innovative, competitive and knowledge based fisheries

1. Reduction of the impact of fisheries on the marine environment, including the avoidance and reduction, as far as possible, of unwanted catches;

Article 37 Support for the design and implementation of conservation measures and regional cooperation

TO 6

Article 38 Limiting the impact of fishing on the marine environment and adapting fishing to the protection of species

TO 6

Article 39 Innovation linked to the conservation of marine biological resources

TO 6

Article 40.1.a Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – collection of lost fishing gear and marine litter

TO 6

Article 43.2 Fishing ports, landing sites, auction halls and shelters – investments to facilitate compliance with the obligation to land all catches

TO 6

2. Protection and restoration of aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems

Article 40.1.b-g, i Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – contribution to a better management or conservation, construction, installation or modernisation of static or movable facilities, preparation of protection and management plans related to NATURA2000 sites and spatial protected areas, management, restoration and monitoring marine protected areas, including NATURA 2000 sites, environmental awareness, participation in other actions aimed at maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services.

TO 6

3. Ensuring a balance between fishing capacity and available fishing opportunities

Article 34 Permanent cessation of fishing activities TO 6

Article 36 Support to systems of allocation of fishing opportunities

TO 6

4. Enhancement

Article 27 Advisory services TO 3Article 30 Diversification and new forms of income TO 3



of the competitiveness and viability of fisheries enterprises, including of small scale coastal fleet, and the improvement of safety or working conditions

Article 31 Start-up support for young fishermen TO 3Article 32 Health and safety TO 3Article 33 Temporary cessation of fishing activities TO 3Article 35 Mutual funds for adverse climatic events and environmental incidents

TO 3

Article 40.1.h Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – schemes for the compensation of damage to catches caused by mammals and birds

TO 3

Article 42 Added value, product quality and use of unwanted catches

TO 3

Article 43.1 + 3 Fishing ports, landing sites, auction halls and shelters - investments improving fishing port and auctions halls infrastructure or landing sites and shelters; construction of shelters to improve safety of fishermen

TO 3

5. Provision of support to strengthen technological development and innovation, including increasing energy efficiency, and knowledge transfer

Article 26 Innovation TO 3

Article 28 Partnerships between fishermen and scientists

TO 3

Article 41.1.a, b, c Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change – on board investments; energy efficiency audits and schemes; studies to assess the contribution of alternative propulsion systems and hull designs

TO 4

Article 41.2 Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change - Replacement or modernisation of main or ancillary engines

TO 4

6. Development of professional training, new professional skills and lifelong learning

Article 29.1 + 29.2 Promoting human capital and social dialogue - training, networking, social dialogue; support to spouses and life partners

TO 8

Article 29.3 Promoting human capital and social dialogue – trainees on board of SSCF vessels / social dialogue

TO 8

2. Fostering environmentally sustainable, resource efficient, innovative, competitive and knowledge based aquaculture

1. Provision of support to strengthen technological development, innovation and knowledge transfer

Article 47 Innovation TO 3

Article 49 Management, relief and advisory services for aquaculture farms

TO 3

2. Enhancement of the

Article 48.1.a-d, f-h Productive investments in aquaculture

TO 3

Article 52 Encouraging new sustainable aquaculture TO 3



competitiveness and viability of aquaculture enterprises, including improvement of safety or working conditions, in particular of SMEs

farmers practising sustainable aquaculture

3. Protection and restoration of aquatic biodiversity and enhancement of ecosystems related to aquaculture and promotion of resource-efficient aquaculture

Article 48.1.k Productive investments in aquaculture - increasing energy efficiency, renewable energy

TO 4

Article 48.1.e, i, j Productive investments in aquaculture - resource efficiency, reducing usage of water and chemicals, recirculation systems minimising water use

TO 6

Article 51 Increasing the potential of aquaculture sites TO 6

Article 53 Conversion to eco-management and audit schemes and organic aquaculture

TO 6

4. Promotion of aquaculture having a high level of environmental protection, and the promotion of animal health and welfare and of public health and safety

Article 54 Aquaculture providing environmental services

TO 6

Article 55 Public health measures TO 3

Article 56 Animal health and welfare measures TO 3

Article 57 Aquaculture stock insurance TO 3

5. Development of professional training, new professional skills and lifelong learning

Article 50 Promoting human capital and networking TO 8

3. Fostering the 1. Article 77 Data collection TO 6



implementation of the CFP

Improvement and supply of scientific knowledge and collection and management of data2. Provision of support to monitoring, control and enforcement, enhancing institutional capacity and the efficiency of public administration, without increasing the administrative burden

Article 76 Control and enforcement TO 6

4. Increasing employment and territorial cohesion

Promotion of economic growth, social inclusion and job creation, and providing support to employability and labour mobility in coastal and inland communities which depend on fishing and aquaculture, including the diversification of activities within fisheries and into other sectors of maritime economy

Article 62.1.a Preparatory support TO 8

Article 63 Implementation of local development strategies (incl. running costs and animation)

TO 8

Article 64 Cooperation activities TO 8



5. Fostering marketing and processing

1. Improvement of market organisation for fishery and aquaculture products

Article 66 Production and marketing plans TO 3

Article 67 Storage aid TO 3

Article 68 Marketing measures TO 3

Article 70 Compensation regime TO 3

2. Encouragement of investment in the processing and marketing sectors

Article 69 Processing of fisheries and aquaculture products

TO 3

6. Fostering the implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy

Development and implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy

Article 80.1.a Integrating Maritime Surveillance TO 6Article 80.1.b Promotion of the protection of marine environment, and the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources

TO 6

Article 80.1.c Improving the knowledge on the state of the marine environment

TO 6

Technical Assistance

Article 78 Technical assistance at the initiative of the Member States

Example MSFD measures that may be co-financed by EMFF are included in section 5.

Direct managementA minor part of EMFF is directly managed by the Commission, geared at the implementation of the new common fisheries policy and integrated maritime policy. Some of the appropriate articles are also relevant in view of MSFD and specifically address issues like monitoring, scientific advice, control and enforcement and more general technical assistance concerning MSFD. These articles are listed in the following Table.

Relevant Title and chapter in EMFF

Article + Short description

TITLE VI: MEASURES FINANCED UNDER DIRECT MANAGEMENTCHAPTER I: Integrated Maritime Policy

Article 81:Foster the development and implementation of integrated governance of maritime and coastal affairs at local, regional, national, sea basin, EU and international level.

Contribute to the development of cross sector initiatives that are mutually beneficial to different maritime sectors and/or sector policies, taking into account and building upon existing tools and initiatives, such as integrated maritime surveillance, maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal zone management, development of a high quality marine knowledge base, promoting the protection of the marine environment, in particular its biodiversity and marine protected areas such as Natura 2000 sites, and the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources in particular in the framework of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

CHAPTER II Articles 84-90: Measures under this Chapter shall facilitate the implementation



Relevant Title and chapter in EMFF

Article + Short description

Accompanying measures for the Common Fisheries Policy and theIntegrated Maritime Policy

of the CFP and IMP. Specifically relevant concerning MSFD are the following:(a) scientific advice under CFP (article 85)(b) specific control and enforcement measures under CFP ( article 86);(f) Common Fisheries Policy and Integrated Maritime Policy communication activities (article 90)

CHAPTER III: Technical assistance

Article 91: Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission, specifically(c) the setting up of a European network of FLAGs aiming at capacity building, disseminating information, exchanging experience and best practice and supporting cooperation between the local partnerships. This network shall cooperate with the networking and technical support bodies for local development set up by the ERDF, the ESF and the EAFRD as regards their local development activities and transnational co-operation.

4.1.3 AVAILABLE BUDGET AND FUNDING CRITERIA

Shared managementArticle 13 of the EMFF Regulation provides the budgetary resources under shared management for the 2014-2020 period. In total, EUR 5.749 million is available for commitments of EMFF, to be allocated as follows: EUR 4.341 million for sustainable development of fisheries, aquaculture and fisheries

areas. EUR 580 million for control and enforcement measures referred to in Article 78. EUR 520 million for measures on data collection referred to in Article 79. EUR 71 million for measures on integrated maritime policy.

All EU Member States except for Luxemburg are eligible for EMFF funding. The allocation of total EMFF funding per MS is based on the size of its fishing industry. The overall amount of funding per MS can be checked here.

Concerning the shared management, each country will draw up an operational programme, as detailed in section 4.1.1. The decision of the Commission approving the operational programme shall set the maximum EMFF contribution to that programme. In that respect also the allocation of the EMFF shared management funds per Member State applies, setting the available EMFF funding per MS.

Once the Commission approves the operational programme, it is up to the national authorities to decide which projects will be funded. The national authorities and the Commission will be jointly responsible for the implementation of the programme.

The maximum EMFF contribution rate is 75% of the eligible public expenditure, the minimum is 20%. Derogations are described in EMFF article 94 (3) and (4).

Some articles are linked to a set of general criteria and/or financial criteria, these are described in the Table below regarding the articles relevant to MSFD as listed in section 4.1.2.

Article General criteria Financial criteria

CHAPTER II: Sustainable development of aquacultureArticle 53 Support shall only be granted to Compensation is only for a maximum of




Article General criteria Financial criteria

beneficiaries who commit themselves for a minimum of 3 years to participate in the EMAS or for a minimum of 5 years to comply with the requirements of organic production.

three years during the period of the conversion of the enterprise to organic production or during the preparation for participation in the EMAS scheme.

The compensation is calculated on the basis of:-the loss of revenue or additional costs incurred during the period of transition from conventional into organic production, paragraph 1(a);-the additional costs resulting from the application and preparation to the participation in EMAS, paragraph 1(b).

Article 54 Funding of 1 (c) only possible for a commitment of minimum of five years;

Support shall take the form of annual compensation for the additional costs incurred and/or income foregone.

CHAPTER VII: Technical assistance at the initiative of the Member StatesArticle 79 (a) Maximum 6 % of the total amount of the

operational programme for technical assistance and the establishment of national networks.

Direct managementArticle 14 provides the budgetary resources under direct management. An amount of EUR 647 million is available for such measures and activities. This amount includes technical assistance under Article 91.

4.1.4 HOW TO APPLY FOR FUNDING

Shared managementIn the following scheme the structure of the shared management part of EMFF, relating to MSFD is pictured. This is explained underneath.



Approval of Operational ProgrammeFor measures financed under shared management, each Member State shall first draw up a single Operational Programme to implement the Union priorities referred to in Article 6. Refer to section 4.1.1.

For the purpose of data collection as imposed by the OP, Member States shall submit to the Commission an annual work plan before 31 October each year. Annual work plans shall contain a description of the procedures and methods to be used in collecting and analysing data and in estimating their accuracy and precision. The Commission shall approve, by means of implementing act, the annual work plan for each year by 31 December of each year. The implementing act will contain provisions recognizing that no annual work plans will be required for the period 2014-2016 for the 23 coastal Member States for whom National Programmes for the years 2014-2016 have already been adopted. The implementing act will also confirm that land-locked Member States do not need to submit annual work plans until the amended Data Collection Framework (DCF) Regulation enters into force.

After the submission of the OP by the Member State, the Commission shall make observations within three months of the date of submission of the OP (article 29.3 CPR). The Commission then has to approve each OP no later than six months following its submission by the Member State. The Commission shall approve the OP by means of implementing act.

Next, the Commission shall approve the amendment of an OP by means of implementing acts. The Commission is able to adopt a decision every two years, detailing any changes in the priorities of the Union in the enforcement and control policy and the corresponding eligible operations to be prioritised. Member States may submit an amendment to their OP, taking into account the new priorities.

Regular procedureMember States have to duly justify requests for amendments of OPs which they submit to the Commission. Requests for OP amendments need to be accompanied by the revised OP. The Commission may make observations within one month of the submission of the amendment. The Commission has to approve requests for amendment as soon as possible but no later than three months after their submission by the Member State provided that any observations made by the Commission have been adequately taken into account. The CPR includes a specific procedure for amendments of OPs which result from the allocation of the performance reserve. Under this specific procedure, the Commission has less time to approve the request for amendment than under the regular procedure: It has to approve the request no later than two months after the submission of the request by the Member State.

Simplified procedureUnder this procedure, the Commission will approve a request for amendment no later than two months after the submission by the Member State. In any case, a Commission implementing decision will follow to formally approve the request for amendment. This procedure takes account of the fact that data collection and control and enforcement measures have become part of shared management under the EMFF. For the parts of the OPs covering these elements more regular revisions will be required in line with changes in



EU priorities in these fields. The objective of the simplified procedure is to facilitate these updates of the OPs. The simplified procedure has also been extended to other OP amendments such as transfers of funds between Union priorities (within certain limits), the introduction or withdrawal of measures or types of relevant operations (within certain limits) and changes in the description of measures, including changes of eligibility conditions.

The simplified procedure applies to OP amendments concerning the following 4 topics: A transfer of funds between Union priorities (not exceeding 10% of the amount allocated

to the Union priority); Introduction or withdrawal of measures or types of relevant operations and related

information and indicators; Changes in the description of measures, including changes of eligibility conditions; Amendments referred to in Article 22(2) as well as further amendments of the

programme of the section referred to in Article 20(1)(n).

Any amendments, including amendments related to the four topics listed above, which concern the changes listed below always have to be adopted by regular procedure: a change in the programme strategy through a change of more than 50% in any result

indicator (refer to this list) linked to a Union priority; a change in the EMFF contribution rate of one or more Union priority/(ies) or

measure(s); a change of the entire Union contribution or its annual distribution at programme level; any change related to the measures of temporary cessation (articles 33a).

Direct managementFor measures financed under direct management, the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt annual work programmes. The annual work programme shall set out a description of the activities to be financed and the objectives pursued for each activity. It shall also contain an indication of the amount allocated to each activity, an indicative implementation timetable, as well as information on their implementation.

Combining EMFF with other funding optionsCombining EMFF with other ESI Funds (e.g. ERDF and CF) or with other EU (typically directly managed) financing instruments may enhance overall impact by a) bringing together financial resources from different EU funds in the same project, b) through successive projects that build on each other or c) through parallel projects that complement each other.

Combination with other ESI FundsAs stated in the ‘checklist’ in section 4.1, in their EMFF OP, the Member States should consider projects that can be funded under different EU programmes. Community-led local development (CLLD): Since 2007, the European Fisheries Fund

(EFF) has provided support for the sustainable development of fisheries areas. Actions undertaken by the Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs) can be financed by the different ESI Funds.



http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/emff/doc/02-common-indicators-emff_en.pdf

Integrated territorial investment (ITI): ITI is a new tool to implement territorial strategies in an integrated way (planned with a top-down approach). ITI allows Member States to implement Operational Programmes in a cross-cutting way and to draw on funding from different sources to ensure the implementation of an integrated strategy for a specific territory. Within the Integrated Maritime Policy, some Member States and regions might propose the use of ITIs to implement maritime strategies through the combination of several ESI Funds.

European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) and its transnational strand in particular, allows for the implementation of cross-sectoral initiatives at territorial level, for example a sea-basin. An example is the network of centres of excellence for maritime training within the Baltic Sea Region. More details on this transnational ETC-strand can be found in section 4.2 (Regional Funds).

Example of type of project funded through different ESI funds:

Implementation of a local development programme around a port, including investments in infrastructure linked to

landing all catches, traceability and safe working conditions (EMFF), tourism (ERDF and EMFF) investments to ensure

access to public services (health, education) in the area and vocational training, including for fishermen (ESF)

Combination with other EU FundsCombining EMFF with other EU financial instruments is also a possibility. This holds for the two non-ESI funds discussed in more detail in this guidance: LIFE and Horizon 2020. LIFE helps coordinate various sources of funding for environment and climate action, and fills gaps by addressing environmental issues, focusing on providing and disseminating solutions and best practices to achieve environmental and climate goals, and by promoting innovative environmental and climate change technologies. Horizon 2020 includes maritime research priorities and covers the launch of blue growth calls as from 2014.

The European Commission (required by Article 13 of the Common Provisions Regulation) has prepared guidance (available per September 2014, click here) on how to effectively access and use the ESI Funds, and on how to exploit complementarities with other instruments of relevant Union policies. This guidance provides, for each thematic objective, an overview of the available relevant instruments at Union level with detailed sources of information, examples of good practices for combining available funding instruments within and across policy areas, a description of relevant authorities and bodies involved in the management of each instrument, a checklist for potential beneficiaries to help them to identify the most appropriate funding sources.



4.2 REGIONAL FUNDS: ERDF AND COHESION FUND

The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund are both instruments of the EU Cohesion Policy. General information on the Cohesion Policy is available at INFOREGIO.

European Regional Development FundThe European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) aims to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the European Union by correcting imbalances between its regions. The ERDF supports regional and local development by co-financing investments in R&D and innovation, climate change and environment, business support to SMEs, services of common economic interest, telecommunication, energy and transport infrastructures, health, education and social infrastructures and sustainable urban development. Concerning the issue of environment and resource efficiency, opportunities exist for Member States for co-financing MSFD-measures.

Cohesion FundThe Cohesion Fund is one of the EU (financial) instruments of the overall EU Cohesion Policy. The Cohesion Fund (CF) provides a financial contribution to projects in the fields of environment and trans-European networks in the area of transport infrastructure. Following the environment focus, also here possibilities exist for specific Member States to co-fund MSFD measures.

4.2.1 FUND STRUCTURE

The ERDF (99%) and CF (85%) are for the largest part subject to shared management.

Shared management: operational programmeERDF and CF are implemented by Member States through regional Operational Programmes. Concerning MSFD, investments priorities under Thematic Objective (TO) 6 (Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency) are most important. Following the Common Provisions for ERDF/CF the following investment priorities within the thematic objectives will be supported5: Investing in the water sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental

acquis and to address needs, identified by the Member States for investment that goes beyond those requirements.

Investing in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis and to address needs, identified by the Member States, for investment that goes beyond those requirements.

In the proposed Specific Provisions for ERDF/CF further details are listed concerning the TO 6 investment priorities6 of which the following are relevant for MSFD:

5 REGULATION (EU) No 1303/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.6 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on specific provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the Investment for growth and



http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/index_en.cfm

addressing the significant needs for investment in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the environmental acquis;

addressing the significant needs for investment in the water sector to meet the requirements of the environmental acquis;

protecting biodiversity, soil protection and promoting ecosystem services including NATURA 20007 and green infrastructures.

Furthermore, in the Regional Funds OPs, priority axes (PA) are defined. The allocation of funding of the individual OPs is managed on the basis of these axes. Thematic Objectives (TOs) and Investment Priorities (IPs) are EU pre-defined. Priority axes (PAs) should be defined by the MS or regions themselves, based on a combination of one or more IPs per TO, as shown in the following graph.

Once the Commission has approved the OP, it is up to the regions to decide which projects will be funded. The regions and the Commission will be jointly responsible for the implementation of the programme. For the MS / regions to be able to apply for ERDF / CF funding of MSFD measures, the appropriate OPs must contain specific MSFD needs and associated measures to address them. It is necessary that MSFD-objectives/measures are integrated into the appropriate OPs before regions proceed to apply for funding of MSFD-measures. This concerns specifically the following items.

Item Operational Programmesection

Title Concerns

1 1.1.2 Thematic objectives / investment priorities

MSFD-related Thematic Objectives (TOs) and associated Investment Priorities (IPs) should be included in one or more Priority Axes.

Are TO 6 (Environment & Resource Efficiency) and the associated

Investment Priorities present?

For some MSFD pressures/measures, TOs 1 (Research/Innovation) and

5 (Climate change adaptation) also provide ‘hooks’ to facilitate co-funding

of such measures.2 2 Description

of priority axes

Relevant MSFD related priority axes should be included and detailed

Do any of the priority axes address something of potential relevance to

jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006.7 Set up as a coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation pursuant to Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.



the marine environment/MSFD?

Within the identified priority axes, are specific MSFD-relevant investment

priorities mentioned?3 2 Technical

assistanceIs any specific technical assistance required for implementing the MSFD, e.g. concerning monitoring, compliance etc.? This should then be addressed.8

4 3.2 Total financial appropriation by fund and national co-funding

Costs of measures and amount of national co-fundingReality check on cost estimates of proposed MSFD measures, allocation of costs by union support (ERDF and/or CF co-funding) and co-funding by MS.

5 4.5 Sea basin strategies

In case a sea basin strategy is relevant for MS, how has this been taken into account?Has a relevant sea basin strategy (e.g. Baltic Sea) been taken into account in the definition of objectives and types of actions?

6 8 Coordination between funds

How is coordination established between use of multiple funds?This concerns coordination between ERDF/CF, LIFE, Horizon 2020 and national co-funding, e.g. have relevant links been made between non-ESIF projects and the vision set out in the OP?


Shared managementConcerning the shared management Article 5 of the ERDF and Article 4 of the CF relate to the investment priorities in both funds, as specified in the Operational Programmes.

For MSFD investments priorities under TO 6 (Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency) are most important. Following the Common Provisions for ERDF/CF the following investment priorities within the thematic objectives will be supported: Investing in the water sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental

acquis and to address needs, identified by the Member States for investment that goes beyond those requirements.

Investing in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis and to address needs, identified by the Member States, for investment that goes beyond those requirements.

In the proposed Specific Provisions for ERDF/CF further details are provided concerning the TO 6 investment priorities: addressing the significant needs for investment in the waste sector to meet the

requirements of the environmental acquis; addressing the significant needs for investment in the water sector to meet the

requirements of the environmental acquis; protecting biodiversity, soil protection and promoting ecosystem services including

NATURA 20009 and green infrastructures.

8 In the OP, a distinction is made between specific technical assistance in connection with a particular priority axe, e.g. specific actions to increase the administrative capacity of the bodies implementing the priority axis (section 2A) and more general forms of technical assistance (section 2B). The latter applies to public procurement, environmental compliance, state aid compliance and statistical requirements. It is also for supporting actions to reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries, for actions to reinforce the capacity of beneficiaries to use the ESI Funds, as well as for actions to reinforce the capacity of relevant partners.9 Set up as a coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation pursuant to Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.



Typical ERDF/CF co-financed projects in the field of environment are investments in waste water treatment facilities. Depending on the location of such facilities, also MSFD objectives come into the picture.

The clean-up of the Santander Bay"When completed, the new Santander Bay sewage system will remove residues from wastewater and restore

damaged habitats", says Jesús Bedoya, the Head of the Department for the Management of Community Funds and

Planning at the Government of Cantabria. Implementation of the project began in 1997, when sewer collectors were

installed along the whole of the Bay. "The collectors cover some 250 000 inhabitants, or around half of the population

of Cantabria", explains Jesús Bedoya. The second phase involves installing pumps to carry water to the treatment

plant and constructing an underwater outfall. This pipe, 2 500 m long, will allow the treated water to be discharged into

the open sea. "Up until now, waste has been discharged into Santander Bay, causing serious damage to the marine

environment, although the tides have helped reduce the effects", explains Jesús Bedoya. In a third phase, a new

treatment plant has been built in Santa Cruz de Bezana to replace the existing plant.

Total Investment:

first phase: € 27.9 million

second phase: € 28.5 million

third phase: € 27.9 million

EU contribution: first phase (ERDF): EUR 19.5 million (1994-99 Programme)

On the DG REGIO web link more executed ERDF/CF example projects can be checked.

European Territorial Integration: INTERREGA specific strand within the cohesion policy funding, and potentially relevant for MSFD, are the INTERREG programmes under the European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) goal. These programmes generally are of the character of enabling exchange of experience, knowledge and good practices among relevant stakeholders from different MS and/or regions.

The Operational Programmes under ETC involve more than one MS and can include also non – EU MSs. They can be cross-border (along internal EU borders), transnational (cover larger areas of co-operation such as the Baltic Sea, North Sea or Mediterranean Sea), and interregional at EU-28 level (between regional and local bodies in different countries belonging also to different regions). They are co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), also in combination with the Instrument for Pre – Accession Assistance (IPA) and the European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument (ENPI – future ENI) Funds when candidates/potential candidates or neighbouring countries are also part of the Programmes.

Both 'cross-border cooperation' (INTERREG VA) and 'transnational cooperation' (INTERREG VB) are considered within the cohesion policy fund MS allocations, while 'interregional cooperation' (INTERREG VC) is on the top of national allocations.

In Annex II the list of the planned ETC Programmes 2014 – 2020 and their geographical scope is included. For MSFD the programmes for MS / regions with bordering seas are considered relevant.



http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/indexes/project_examples_en.cfm

INTERREG projects typically focus on cooperation between regions and Member States.

Removing the threat to Baltic watersLike many marine zones, the Baltic Sea has a very sensitive marine environment. Apart from the natural factors at

work, the area also experiences large volumes of shipping traffic which remain a constant threat. Despite this, many

coastal regions have few or no contingency plans in place. The Baltic Master II project is now beginning to address

this gap by focusing on two key areas: improving the on-land response capacity to oil spills and enhancing the

prevention of pollution from maritime transport.

The current project picks up where the previous Baltic Master project left off, and will ensure that coastal zone

management includes a suitable response system in line with the traffic volume, which is currently not the case. Four

work packages will be used to ensure safety for both the environment and the well-being of coastal communities,

given the Baltic Sea’s classification as a particularly sensitive sea area.

The project brings together local, regional and national authorities, research institutes, universities and pan-Baltic

organisations, ensuring a combination of hands-on knowledge and strategic work. The project is divided into four work

packages: project management and administration; communication and information; improved on-land response

capacity to oil spills at sea; and enhanced prevention of pollution, including treating ship-generated waste. The project

will also contribute to practical solutions and suggestions for strategic investments in maritime protection.

Given the diversity of partners involved in the project, updated information and communication is important and will be

achieved through a communication strategy, joint action plan on dissemination, website with intranet, partner meetings

and training courses. Press and media activities will also be arranged to ensure wide-scale awareness of the project.

A final document called ‘Vision of the Baltic Sea’ will be produced and outline expectations of the Baltic Sea of

tomorrow.

Oil contingency plans will be developed, updated and tested in a scenario exercise. An ‘Environmental

Atlas’ produced will also be a relevant coastal management tool, while guidelines will be drafted and cover

how to integrate contingency planning in coastal management. The final work package will examine the

existing legal framework regulating maritime pollution and see where this can be improved. Given the key

role of ports in pollution prevention, Baltic Master II will investigate common solutions for waste

management at ports and on board vessels.

EU contribution: € 3,100,000

More executed ETC/INTERREG projects can be found at the DG REGIO web link.

Example MSFD measures that may be co-financed by Regional funds are included in section 5.

Direct managementAbout 20% of the Cohesion Fund is transferred to the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)10 and less than 1% of the ERDF is reserved for ‘urban innovative actions’. These funds are under direct management of the Commission and are not considered relevant for MSFD.

10 The CEF finances projects which fill the missing links in Europe's energy, transport and digital backbone.



http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/projects/stories/search.cfm?LAN=EN&pay=ALL&region=ALL&the=97&type=ALL&per=2


Shared managementThe available total ERDF funding (regional convergence) for 2014-2020 is € 183 billion. For the Cohesion Fund this amount is € 63 billion for the 2014-2020 period.

In principle all EU Member States are eligible for ERDF funding. Provided the overall convergence goal, within ERDF the focus is on regions with severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps and outermost regions. Concerning the Cohesion Fund, only specific Member States with a Gross National Income (GNI) < 90% of EU28 are eligible for funding. Eligibility and overall amount of funding per MS can be checked here.

Concerning the shared management, each country will draw up an operational programme, as detailed in section 4.2.1. The decision of the Commission approving the operational programme shall set the maximum contribution to that programme. Once the Commission approves the operational programme, it is up to the relevant MS authorities to decide which projects will be funded. The MS authorities and the Commission will be jointly responsible for the implementation of the programme.

European Territorial Integration: INTERREGBoth 'cross-border cooperation' (INTERREG VA) and 'transnational cooperation' (INTERREG VB) are considered within the cohesion policy fund MS allocations, while 'interregional cooperation' (INTERREG VC) is on the top of national allocations. It is listed as a separate entry in the following Table, outside national allocations. For the period 2014 – 2020, there are 79 ETC Programmes with a total ERDF budget of some € 10 billion: 60 Cross - Border Programmes: € 7.5 billion 15 Transnational Programmes: € 2.1 billion 4 Interregional Cooperation Programmes: € 0.6 billion

Direct management€ 11.2 billion of the Cohesion Fund is transferred to the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and € 370 million of the ERDF is reserved for ‘urban innovative actions’.


Shared managementIn the following scheme the structure of the shared management part of ERDF/CF, relating to MSFD is pictured. This is explained underneath.



http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/xls/overall_table.xls

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/eligibility/index_en.cfm

Approval of Operational ProgrammeThe cohesion policy operational programmes present the priorities of the country and/or regions or the cooperation area concerned. In accordance with the principles of shared management, Member States and the Commission should be responsible for the management and control of operational programmes. Member States should have the primary responsibility, through their management and control systems, for the implementation and control of the operations in programmes. In practice programmes are implemented by the Member States and their regions by selecting, monitoring and evaluating of a great many projects. This work is organised by 'managing authorities' in each country and/or region.

For the MS / regions to be able to apply for ERDF / CF funding of MSFD measures, the appropriate OPs must contain specific MSFD needs and associated measures to address them. It is necessary that MSFD-objectives/measures are integrated into the appropriate OPs before regions proceed to apply for funding of MSFD-measures. Refer to section 4.2.1.

More specific information, of key relevance for prospective beneficiaries, is available at the websites of national 'managing authorities', accessible via INFOREGIO.

Direct managementFor measures financed under direct management, the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt annual work programmes. The annual work programme shall set out a description of the activities to be financed and the objectives pursued for each activity. It shall also contain an indication of the amount allocated to each activity, an indicative implementation timetable, as well as information on their implementation. For MSFD however, the direct management funds relating to ERDF and CF are not considered relevant.



http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/manage/authority/authority_en.cfm

Combining ERDF/CF with other funding optionsThere is no formal procedure for combining EU funding options. Annex 1 (Common Strategic Framework) of the Common Provisions Regulation addresses the issue of complementarity between ESI funds (including ERDF and CF) and also including coordination with EMFF, LIFE and Horizon 2020 programme. Essentially ERDF and CF could complement solutions, methods and approaches investigated in Horizon 2020, tested in LIFE (integrated projects) and/or EMFF by subsequent investments in green/blue infrastructure.

The European Commission (required by Article 13 of the Common Provisions Regulation) has prepared guidance (available per September 2014, click here) on how to effectively access and use the ESI Funds, and on how to exploit complementarities with other instruments of relevant Union policies. This guidance provides, for each thematic objective, an overview of the available relevant instruments at Union level with detailed sources of information, examples of good practices for combining available funding instruments within and across policy areas, a description of relevant authorities and bodies involved in the management of each instrument, a checklist for potential beneficiaries to help them to identify the most appropriate funding sources.



http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&from=EN


4.3 LIFE

The main objective of the LIFE Programme is to improve the implementation of EU environment and climate policy and legislation. Though in principle supported through all major EU funding programmes, these do not address all environmental and climate needs. LIFE helps coordinate various sources of funding for environment and climate action, and fills gaps by addressing environmental issues that are not dealt with by other EU Funds, focusing on providing and disseminating solutions and best practices to achieve environmental and climate goals, and by promoting innovative environmental and climate change technologies.

4.3.1 PROGRAMME STRUCTURE

LIFE 2014-2020 identifies the following types of projects:

Traditional projectsProject types of LIFE 2014-2020 that are the same as in the previous LIFE+ programme are referred to as ‘traditional projects’. Relating to the specified priority areas this implies: Priority area Environment: focus on innovation (pilots) and demonstration Priority area Nature and Biodiversity: focus on best practice projects Priority area Environmental Governance and Information: focus on dissemination and

information.

Preparatory projects Projects identified by the Commission to support specific needs for the implementation and development of EU environmental or climate policy and legislation.

Capacity building projectsFinancial support to the activities required to build the capacity of Member States with a view to enabling their more effective participation in LIFE.

Integrated projectsIntegrated Projects are a new type of project that aim to improve the implementation of environment and climate policy by focusing on the implementation of environmental or climate plans and strategies on a larger territorial scale (e.g. regional, multi-regional, national). Examples are new or existing sector programmes such as regional Natura 2000 networks, river basin management plans, waste management plans or cross-border flood prevention strategies. These projects should improve the integration of environment and climate aspects into other EU policies. To do this they will need to be inclusive, so they require stakeholders to be involved. They are intended to coordinate the mobilisation of other EU, national and private funds for environmental and climate objectives, encouraging applicants to develop a strategic approach towards certain environmental and climate challenges by using various funds and programmes.

For the LIFE sub programme Environment, Integrated Projects will focus on plans and programmes related to the

Birds and Habitats Directives, the Water Framework Directive, and Waste and Air quality legislation. These integrated

projects, while focusing on the themes identified, should be multi-purpose delivery mechanisms (e.g. aiming at

environmental benefits and capacity-building) that make it possible to achieve results in other policy areas, in



particular the marine environment in accordance with the objectives of Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD). This will require

structured cooperation between LIFE and the other main EU Funds within the Common Strategic Framework. The

new LIFE programme may also fund technical assistance projects aimed at supporting the preparation of Integrated

Projects.


For the MSFD related projects the LIFE sub programme Environment is most relevant. This sub programme covers three priority areas: environment and resource efficiency; nature and biodiversity (at least 55 % of the budgetary resources); environmental governance and information.

Each priority area covers thematic priorities and project topics. The ones relevant to MSFD are summarized below.

Previous LIFE funded projects related to MSFDLIFE projects can contribute to all stages of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) implementation

schedule. Between 2005 and 2012 a total of 72 projects with a marine element were granted, representing around €

70 million (4.5% of the granted LIFE projects during that period). Topics in which LIFE projects excel can be divided in

seven categories:

- Means of Intervention

- Projects which address cross-cutting issues

- Good Environmental Status (GES)

- Projects which address marine eco system health

- Projects which address pressures on the marine environment

- Programmes of Measures (PoMs)

- Integrated Coastal Management

Granted projects are evenly split between the Nature (NAT) and Environment (ENV) strands of the LIFE programme.

Monitoring is one of the main elements of the Marine Strategy which requires Member States to establish a monitoring

programme for ongoing assessment and regular updating of targets by 15th July 2014. However, projects which have

monitoring as their central theme were not well represented in the LIFE portfolio even though most LIFE projects do

monitor their own project actions

Priority area: Environment and Resource Efficiency (ENV)This priority area will focus on the implementation of environment policy and exclude market replication-oriented innovation. Requirements of importance for this priority area are innovation and demonstration.

Thematic priorities Thematic priorities for Water, including the marine environment: activities for the

implementation of the specific objectives for water set out in the Roadmap for a Resource-Efficient Europe and the 7th Environment Action Programme, in particular activities for the implementation of the programme of measures of Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD) with a view to achieving good environmental status of marine waters.



Thematic priorities for Waste: activities for the implementation of the specific objectives for waste set out in the Roadmap for a Resource-Efficient Europe and the 7th Environment Action Programme, in particular activities for the implementation and development of Union waste legislation, with particular emphasis on the first steps of the Union waste hierarchy (prevention, re-use and recycling).

Project topics Projects developing tools, technologies and practices to ensure the sustainability of

economic activities related to the marine environment (reducing the pressure of economic activities on the marine environment; mainstream marine resource sustainability into maritime economic sectors). Projects are expected to include the development of related management plans .

Projects aiming at preventing and reducing marine litter or microbial contaminants (addressing also their sources).

Projects promoting synergies between integrated coastal management and maritime spatial planning; demonstrating the added value of coordinating them in new marine contexts ; or connecting them with the procedures for designating and managing Marine Protected Areas or Natura 2000 sites; supporting the concrete implementation of sea basin strategies.

Priority area: Nature and Biodiversity (NAT/BIO)This priority area will develop best practices for wider biodiversity challenges, while keeping its primary focus on Natura 2000; especially via Integrated Projects, which are consistent with Prioritised Action Frameworks developed by the Member States. It concerns thematic priorities for Nature: activities for the implementation of Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC, in particular activities aimed at improving the conservation status of habitats and species, including marine habitats and species, and bird species, of Union interest. This priority area is different from environment in that it could be a best practice (it does not need to be innovative, or demonstrative).

Thematic priorities Thematic priorities for Nature: activities for the implementation of Directives 92/43/EEC

and 2009/147/EC. Thematic priorities for Biodiversity: activities for the implementation of the Union

Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.

Project topicsProjects addressing the marine component of the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives and related provisions under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive , in particular where such projects focus on one or several of the following actions: completing and finalising national inventories for setting up the offshore marine Natura

2000 network of sites; restoration and management of marine Natura 2000 sites , including the preparation and

implementation of site management plans; actions addressing species-, habitat- or site-related conflicts between marine

conservation and fishermen or other "marine users", as well as actions which combine conservation measures with a sustainable use of Natura 2000 sites ;



demonstrative or innovative approaches to assess or monitor the impact of human activities on critical marine habitats and species as a tool to guide active conservation measures

Priority area: Environmental Governance and Information (GIE).This priority area will promote knowledge sharing, dissemination of best practices, better compliance, and awareness raising campaigns.

Thematic priority information, communication and awareness raising campaigns in line with the priorities

of the 7th Environment Action Programme; activities in support of effective control process as well as measures to promote

compliance in relation to Union environmental legislation, and in support of information systems and information tools on the implementation of Union environmental legislation.

Project topics Projects aiming to initiate beach and sea clean-up schemes as a means to increase

awareness of the impacts of marine litter, and thereby increasing awareness on issues related to the protection of the marine environment that are targeted by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Awareness-raising on MSFD obligations and opportunities (other than marine litter), targeting authorities and other stakeholders, in particular from within the fisheries and maritime sectors who can contribute to identifying cost effective solutions to be included in Marine Strategies and Programmes of Measures with a view to the achievement of ‘good environmental status’ in line with the 11 Descriptors set out in Annex I to the MSFD.

Projects where stakeholders and authorities collaborate transnationally across borders of national jurisdictions on implementing Sea Basin Strategies.

LIFE projects addressing cross-cutting issues - Stakeholder and public engagementThe MSFD prescribes early and effective engagement with stakeholders. One of the outcomes of the series of

‘Resource Efficiency ‘ studies conducted by Astrale covering water, air & noise and waste has been that LIFE projects

are particularly effective in engaging with stakeholders. This applies to stakeholders on a range of different levels from

the policy makers to the local communities. Many LIFE projects deal with stakeholder engagement as an integral part

of the project and conflict resolution is often the key to project progress. This is particularly true when trying to balance

conservation requirements (like establishing MPAs) with perceived loss of economic resources (fishing); or trying to

balance the needs of two different economic interests like fishing and tourism.

Project: PiscesFor implementing the MSFD engaging with stakeholders to develop a coordinated marine strategy for a regional sea is

difficult. One of the key outputs of the recently completed LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943 PISCES, was identification of a

range of ways in which stakeholders can become actively involved and support implementation of the MSFD in the

southern waters of the Celtic Seas sub-region. This project also involved stakeholder engagement with Government

and fisheries industry representatives from Spain that operated in the Celtic Seas. The benefits of involving

stakeholders are also likely to provide opportunities to reduce regulatory burden, more certainty for investment, fairer

and more affordable measures, and increased commercial opportunities. At a time when public authorities are

stretched resource-wise, it seems sensible to incorporate as much voluntary effort as possible by utilising the skills



and knowledge of stakeholders (or interested parties) as a contribution to the successful implementation of the MSFD.

Examples of ways in which stakeholders can participate in the implementation of the MSFD are the following:

- Supporting assessment and monitoring: stakeholders can contribute to the programme design; collecting, providing

and validating data; supporting data analysis and interpretation; and collaborating on joint-data collection.

- Implementing voluntary sector measures: stakeholders can help meet policy targets, encourage others to do so, and

highlight these efforts to government.

- Helping to identify, test and evaluate measures: stakeholders can improve the quality of marine strategies and help

government meet targets while minimising costs.

- Providing evidence to support overriding public interest and disproportionate cost arguments: stakeholders can

actively help to ensure that sustainable development requirements are met.

LIFE projects addressing marine ecosystem healthThe MSFD supports the strong position taken by the Community in the context of the Convention on Biological

Diversity, on halting biodiversity loss, ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity, and on the

creation of a global network of marine protected areas by 2012. The obligation for Member States to designate Natura

2000 sites under the Birds and Habitats Directives can clearly make an important contribution to this process.

Accordingly 30 projects have been funded by the LIFE programme in the marine sector under the NAT funding strand

between 2005 and 2012. All of these projects operate within the existing Natura 2000 network, only a few projects aim

to delineate and establish new Natura 2000 sites. Lack of scientific knowledge has been the main gap for the

implementation of the Natura 2000 network in the marine area, especially concerning habitats and species offshore.

Research in marine areas far from the coast is not only costly but few organizations or institutions have the necessary

means and capacities to undertake such work. Member States were committed to provide by mid-2008 a clear

identification of scientific information required to complete the marine Natura 2000 network at sea, or to provide a clear

time frame to achieve this. Understandably many of the LIFE projects focused on collecting data. Five projects on

seagrass integrating LIFE, Natura 2000 and Marine Protected Areas are summarized below.

Projects sea grass bedsA number of projects under the NAT funding stream deal with priority habitats as identified under the Habitat Directive

and several deal in some way with the conservation of Posidonia beds. Sea grass meadows around the

Mediterranean sequester carbon and produce large quantities of oxygen. They also protect the coast from erosion and

act as nursery areas for many crustaceans, molluscs and fish. There are at least five projects where the Posidonia

beds were the main objective, although there were many more where some action concerning the conservation of this

habitat type were included in a wider set of project objectives. This aspect of improving coastal waters was featured

recently in the Life and Coastal Management publication 2012 (p. 82-83– minding the meadows). All projects aim to

control activities within the grass beds through a combination of concrete actions and management approaches. The

key stakeholders involved are representatives of the fishing industry who can cause significant damage through the

use of inappropriate fishing gear and the tourism / recreational sector through use of fast boats in shallow water and

anchoring in the grass beds. The concrete actions all involve installation of mooring buoys, to limit anchor damage,

and this measure has been found to be very successful in reducing damage. One project LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176

POSEIDONE is attempting to halt the damage done by trawling by placing 500 anti-trawl devices (tetrapods) in

strategic locations (fishing hotspots) around the SCIs. The Italian project LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053 CILENTO IN RETE

established an underwater trail to both inform tourists as to the fragile nature of the habitat and to confine their

activities in a controlled area. In some cases translocation of sea grasses has been attempted in an effort to restore

damaged areas. The Portuguese project LIFE06 NAT/P/000192 Biomares tried this approach by taking healthy

Zostera material from elsewhere in an effort to restore ‘the lost sea grass meadow at Portinho da Arrábida’. This

aspect of the project ran into difficulties in that the success rate for translocation was low and not cost effective.

However, it could be that this was because the translocation events were undertaken on the exposed Atlantic coastline

and better success may be obtained in more sheltered areas.



Project INDEMARESThe Spanish project INDEMARES is a good example of identifying and designating a network of marine protected

areas in a national context. The project deals with the increasing pressure of human activities in the marine

environment to protect the health of the oceans and the natural resources that live in them. In the marine environment,

the Natura 2000 Network is in a very early stage. The high cost and complexity to undertake an inventory in offshore

and deep sea areas makes obtaining the scientific information about the habitats and species used to identify the

areas to include in this Network difficult. In order to obtain this information and begin the conservation and

management actions, it is necessary to make a big effort to identify the marine ecosystems. It is here where the

project LIFE+ "Inventory and designation of marine Natura 2000 areas in the Spanish sea” was born. The main

objective of the LIFE+ INDEMARES project is to contribute to the protection and sustainable use of the biodiversity in

the Spanish seas through the identification of valuable areas for the Natura 2000 Network.

The project actions have been carried out from January 1st, 2009 to December 31st, 2013. The budget has been €

15.4 million with LIFE-co financing of 50% of the project. Coordinated by the Biodiversity Foundation, the project has

included different institutions in management, research and conservation in marine environments: Ministerio de

Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente, the Spanish Institute of Oceanography (IEO), the Spanish Council for

Scientific Research, ALNITAK, the Coordinator for the Study of Marine Mammals, OCEANA, the Society for the Study

of Cetaceans in the Canary Archipelago, SEO/BirdLife and WWF Spain.

Specific objectives

- To complete the identification of the marine Natura 2000 Network in Spain.

- To promote participation of all involved parties in marine research, conservation and sea management;

- To provide management and monitoring guidelines for each of the study areas;

- To raise awareness in the population about conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity;

- To contribute to the reinforcement of international sea agreements in force in Spain (OSPAR and Barcelona).

Other planned actions

- To implement scientific studies, through oceanographic campaigns, in the 10 proposed areas for marine habitats and

species (mainly cetaceans, reptiles and birds);

- Monitoring human activities and their tendencies;

- Evaluate the consequences of the CIS declaration and the impact of the SPAB proposals;

- Monitoring and evaluation of deliberate oil spills;

- Information, participation and awareness campaigns.

Source: Indemares

In section 5 further MSFD example measures are provided in which LIFE co-funding can be relevant.


According to Article 4 of the LIFE Regulation, the overall budgetary envelope for the LIFE programme for the period 2014-2020 is around EUR 3.457 million, 75 % of which is attributed to the sub-programme Environment (EUR 2.592 million), and 25 % of which is attributed to the sub-programme Climate Action (EUR 864 million).



http://www.indemares.es/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2763&Itemid=59&lang=en&Itemid=108

At least 55 % of the budgetary resources allocated to projects supported by way of action grants under the sub programme for Environment shall be dedicated to projects supporting the conservation of nature and biodiversity.

The LIFE Regulation also fixes the minimum percentage of the total budget to be reserved for projects (81 %, Article 17(4) of the LIFE Regulation) and the maximum percentage of the budgetary resources allocated to projects supported by way of action grants that may be allocated to integrated projects (30 %).

Projects shall be funded by action grants or, where appropriate, by financial instruments (Article 17(4) of the LIFE Regulation). The Multi Annual Work Programme (MAWP) shall specify the amounts to be allocated per priority area and funding type.

Funding of ‘traditional’ LIFE projects will continue with selection based on merit. However, the aim is to stimulate the development of Integrated Projects. The budget split between Integrated Projects and "traditional" LIFE projects will be defined in the multi-annual work programmes to be prepared by the Commission, in consultation with the Member States.

Eligible countriesMember States, candidate countries and the Western Balkan countries involved in the Stabilisation and Association Process, as well as countries to which the European Neighbourhood Policy applies, should be eligible to participate. This also applies to individuals from an overseas country or territory (OCT) and, where applicable, the relevant public and/or private bodies and institutions in an OCT.

Target groups/beneficiariesThe LIFE Programme may fund public and private bodies, NGO's included.

Allocation of fundingThe thematic allocation of LIFE funding 2014-2020 is as follows: Traditional Nature and Biodiversity Projects: 60% co-financing, but 75% for projects

targeting priority habitats & species Integrated projects, preparatory projects and technical assistance projects: 60% co-

financing Capacity building projects: 100% co-financing All other projects, i.e., traditional projects under the sub-programme of Climate Action

and traditional projects under priorities Environment and Resources Efficiency and Environment Governance and information Projects in the sub-programme for Environment:− 60% co-financing during the first multiannual work programme (2014-2017)− 55% co-financing during the second multiannual work programme(2018-2020)

The following criteria are used by the Commission for establishing indicative national allocations for projects, other than integrated projects, submitted under the sub-programme for Environment: Population

− total population of each Member State (50 % weighting); and





http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/documents/life2014-2020.pdf

− population density of each Member State, up to a limit of twice the Union's average population density (5 % weighting)

Nature and Biodiversity − total area of Natura 2000 sites for each Member State expressed as a proportion of

the total area of Natura 2000 (25 % weighting); and − proportion of a Member State's territory covered by Natura 2000 sites (20 %

weighting).




Time schemeThe figure below presents the indicative timetable for the (annual) LIFE calls. Grants for awarded projects will be signed approximately one year after submission of the project. The first call for tender for under the new LIFE programme (2014-2020) for Environment and Climate Action has been launched 18 June 2014.

Given the novelty of the integrated project approach, stakeholders should be supported, when needed, by technical assistance. A two-stage application procedure should ease the application phase. In the first stage, a financial plan should specify which other Union, national or private funding sources are to be mobilised and to what extent. Only in the second stage should letters of intent from at least one other funding source be required. The extent to which other Union funds are mobilised should be taken into account during the award phase.

Further guidance on the procedure including reference to national contact points per MS can be found on the LIFE call web page.

Combining LIFE with other EU fundingEnvironmental and climate requirements should be integrated into the Union's policies and activities. The LIFE Programme should therefore in general be complementary to other Union funding programmes, including ERDF/CF, EMFF and Horizon 2020.

The proposed LIFE 2014-2020 Regulation specifically includes provisions for financing of Integrated Projects, which will address the implementation of plans or strategies required by EU environmental or climate legislation, developed pursuant to other EU acts or developed by Member States’ authorities. It is obligatory for Integrated Projects to ensure the mobilisation of other sources of financing, for complementary actions related to the



http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life2014/index.htm

same target plan, programme or strategy. This complementary finance may come from any source, however, the main European Structural and Investments (ESI) Funds, including the cohesion/structural (ERDF and CF) and maritime (EMFF) funds, provide an important potential source for such finance. The proposal for the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), which governs the ESI Funds, and specifically the Common Strategy Framework (Annex 1 of the CPR), underlines the need for complementarity and coordination with LIFE, in particular with Integrated Projects.

Both opportunities and requirements to combine LIFE Integrated Projects with ESI-funding are tentative. In principle Member States can apply for multiple funding sources and are also encouraged by the Commission to do so, but the schedules and requirements of these funding options differ, making it difficult for the beneficiary to apply.

An example of combining multiple EU Funds including LIFE, is a project that aimed to help the five largest protected

areas in central Lapland so that ecotourism and recreational use can be organised on a sustainable basis. It combined

LIFE (for planning), ERDF for construction of the tourism infrastructure and national funds (for construction of barns on

the hay meadows). The combination of funds provided the opportunity to make environmental objectives more

ambitious without significant additional administrative costs and the confidence that the combination of funds will be

used in the future.



4.4 HORIZON 2020

Horizon 2020 is the largest EU Research and Innovation programme ever with nearly €80 billion of funding available over 7 years (2014 to 2020). Horizon 2020 will cover activities from research to market with a new focus on innovation-related activities, such as piloting, demonstration, test-beds, and support for public procurement and market uptake. It will include establishing links with the activities of the European Innovation Partnerships (EIP).

4.4.1 PROGRAMME STRUCTURE

The structure of the Horizon 2020 programme consists of three pillars:1. Excellence in the science base, including the European Research Council (ERC), Marie

Skłodowska Curie, Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) and Research Infrastructures.

2. Industrial leadership, including “Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies” (LEIT) (ICT, nanotechnologies, advanced materials and manufacturing processes, biotechnology, space), access to risk finance and the SME-instrument.

3. Societal challenges, focusing on the following:a. Health, demographic change and wellbeing;b. Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and

inland water research, and the bio economy;c. Secure, clean and efficient energy;d. Smart, green and integrated transport;e. Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials;f. Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies;g. Secure societies - protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens.

Compared to the previous EU research programme FP7, Horizon 2020 entails a change of focus and approach: A new structure consisting of 3 pillars with similar rules for the entire programme Simplification of Rules for Participation, in particular regarding the funding model where

all types of participants receive similar funding rates in accordance with the activities to be undertaken

The use of 3 years Strategic Programmes to set the priorities in the Work Programmes Biannual Work Programmes A challenge-driven approach to the formulation of topics. Topic texts include the

definition of a specific challenge, a scope which defines the elements addressed by selected projects and the expected impact of selected projects.

More emphasis on industry, innovation and linking research to deployment, market application and impact.

Horizon 2020 will combine all research and innovation funding previous provided through the Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development, the innovation related activities of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT).




The EU Blue Growth Strategy (2012) is the EU’s long term strategy to support sustainable growth in the marine and maritime sectors. The Blue Growth Strategy recognises that the European seas and oceans are central to the European economy with great potential for innovation, economic growth and job creation. The Blue Growth Strategy is the Integrated Maritime Policy’s contribution to achieving the goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, including addressing the research gaps and needs in order to support the MSFD implementation.

The 2014 - 2015 Work Programme for Societal Challenge B is composed of three calls. Two highly cross-cutting calls on 'Sustainable Food Security' and on 'Blue Growth' (to which other parts of Horizon 2020 contribute directly and indirectly) and a call aiming at fostering an 'Innovative, Sustainable and Inclusive Bio economy'.

Blue Growth focus area aims to unlock the potential of the seas and ocean. This focus area addresses the challenge through five cross-cutting priority domains supporting the Blue Growth Agenda: valorising the diversity of marine life; sustainable harvesting of deep-sea resources; new offshore challenges; ocean observation technologies; and the socioeconomic dimension.

The 2014 Blue Growth call will put emphasis on valuing and mining marine biodiversity while the 2015 call will focus on the preservation and sustainable exploitation of marine ecosystems and climate change effects on marine living resources. The new offshore challenges will be tackled in 2014 through a support action (CSA) preparing potential further large –scale offshore initiatives and one initiative focused on sub-sea technologies while in 2015 a large scale initiative is planned on response to oil spill and maritime pollution. Also a large-scale initiative on improving ocean observation systems/technologies including novel monitoring systems for in-situ observations will be supported in 2014 as well as one activity on acoustic and imaging technologies. Finally, several horizontal activities regarding socio-economic issues, valorising research outcomes or engaging with society as well as projects targeting SMEs will be promoted in 2014.

In section 5 MSFD example measures are listed for some of which Horizon 2020 co-funding could be an option.


The indicative available budget for Blue Growth is €100 million from the 2014 budget, and €45 million from the 2015 budget. In total, Horizon 2020 is worth nearly €80 billion over seven years.

The projects are co-financed by the EU and the participants. For research and development projects the share of the EU contribution can be up to 100% of the total eligible costs. For innovation projects up to 70% of the costs, with the exception of non-profit legal entities which can also receive up to 100% in these actions. In all cases indirect costs will be covered by a flat rate of 25% of the direct costs.




The current Work Programme: Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research and the Bioeconomy covers 2014 and 2015. Due to the launching phase of Horizon 2020, parts of the Work Programme that relate to 2015 (topics, dates, budget) are provided at this stage on an indicative basis only. Such Work Programme parts will be decided during 2014.

Funding opportunities for marine and maritime research relevant for the implementation of the MSFD with in Horizon 2020 often have a cross-cutting nature across several Societal Challenges (Bio-economy (SC2), Environment (SC5), Transport (SC4), Energy (SC3) and other priorities of EU Horizon 2020 such as Blue Growth (BG) (Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies, Excellent Science).

All five Blue Growth focus areas are addressed by the first calls 2014-2015: BLUE GROWTH (BG): UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL OF SEAS AND OCEANS

AREA 1: Sustainably exploiting the diversity of marine life − BG 1 – 2015: Improving the preservation and sustainable exploitation of Atlantic

marine ecosystems − BG 2 – 2015: Forecasting and anticipating effects of climate change on fisheries and

aquaculture − BG 3 – 2014: Novel marine derived biomolecules and industrial biomaterials − BG 4 – 2014: Enhancing the industrial exploitation potential of marine derived

Enzymes AREA 2: The new offshore challenge

− BG 5 – 2014: Preparing for the future innovative offshore economy − BG 6 – 2014: Delivering the sub-sea technologies for new services at sea − BG 7 – 2015: Response capacities to oil spills and marine pollutions

AREA 4: Ocean observations systems and technologies − BG 8 – 2014: Developing in-situ Atlantic Ocean Observations for a better management

and sustainable exploitation of the maritime resources − BG 9 – 2014: Acoustic and imaging technologies

AREA 5: Horizontal aspects − BG 10 – 2014: Consolidating the economic sustainability and competitiveness of

European fisheries and aquaculture sectors to reap the potential of seafood markets − BG 11 – 2014: Monitoring, dissemination and uptake of marine and maritime research − BG 12 – 2014/2015: Supporting SMEs efforts for the development – deployment and

market replication of innovative solutions for Blue Growth − BG 13 – 2014: Ocean literacy – Engaging with society – Social innovation − BG 14 – 2014: Supporting international cooperation initiatives: Atlantic Ocean

Cooperation Research Alliance − BG 15 – 2014: European polar research cooperation − BG 16 – 2015: Coordination action in support of the implementation of the Joint

Programming Initiative on "Healthy and Productive Seas and Oceans"



Key dates for the implementation of HORIZON 2020 – Blue Growth (2014/2015)

Calls are still open for: BG 1 – 2015 Improving the preservation and sustainable exploitation of Atlantic marine

ecosystems BG 2 – 2015 Forecasting and anticipating effects of climate change on fisheries and

aquaculture BG 7 – 2015 Response capacities to oil spills and marine pollutions BG 16 – 2015 Coordination action in support of the implementation of the Joint

Programming Initiative on "Healthy and Productive Seas and Oceans"

Further references to the Blue Growth Calls are inserted as web links in the Horizon 2020 part of the Annex to this guidance.

Currently the Work Programme for the years 2016 -2017 is under preparation and will be published during Summer 2014. As soon as this information becomes available, updated information will be included in this guidance.

Combining Horizon 2020 with other EU fundingIn combination with Horizon 2020 there are other funding opportunities at joint Member States and EU level that can be used. For instance, funding for research and innovation at regional level as introduced in section 4.2 in this guidance, can be combined with Horizon 2020 initiatives. For the moment however, there are no examples yet of combined projects of Horizon 2020 with other EU funding as the call process, revision of proposals of 2014 is currently ongoing.

Underneath follows a brief introduction of some other potential relevant funds.

ERA-NET actionsERA-NET actions aim at coordinating national and regional research programmes by developing joint activities or supporting joint calls for proposals. ERA-NET Cofund under



http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/2459-bg-16-2015.html


http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/calls/h2020-bg-2015-2.html


Horizon 2020 supports public-public partnerships, including joint programming initiatives between Member States, establishment of networking structures as well as Union topping-up of transnational calls for proposals. As a research institute, enterprise or individual you can find funding opportunities in these transnational calls.NETWATCH11 is the EC information platform that gives further information about ERA-NETs and transnational R&I programme collaboration. Joint calls for proposals of the ERA-NETs are published on the same platform. NETWATCH supports transnational R&D programme collaboration in Europe by: mapping networks; providing information on Joint Calls; analysing the impact of programme collaboration; describing the scope and results of individual networks; supporting mutual learning among transnational programme networks.

Article 185 InitiativesArticle 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) enables the EU to participate in research programmes undertaken jointly by several Member States. One of the examples of this regarding Blue Growth is the Baltic Sea Research Programme 12 (BONUS) that launches regularly calls for proposals for the Baltic Sea Region.

COST – Funding for R&DCOST13 funds European networks of researchers across all science fields to coordinate nationally funded research. COST does not fund research itself, but provides support for networking activities. There is a continuous Open Call to submit proposals for COST Actions.

11 http://netwatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home 12 http://www.bonusportal.org/ 13 http://www.cost.eu/



http://www.cost.eu/

http://www.bonusportal.org/

http://netwatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home

5 Funding MSFD measures and

activities: examples

In the previous sections types of MSFD-measures and different co-funding mechanisms have been discussed. In this section a number of example measures are described in more detail, addressing also the potential funding option(s), depending on the type and operational phase of the measure (research, testing, investing, good practice exchange etc.). All measures follow the same structure: Title Content of measure Purpose / type of effect envisaged MSFD descriptor Applicant Target group / stakeholders involved Cost of measure Potential co-funding

DESIGNATION AND PROTECTION OF MARINE HABITATS (E.G. MPAS, SPAS, SACS)Content of measureClosing off sites for specific or even all human activities to protect marine habitats or Natura 2000 (SACs and SPAs)

sites is applied at a number of locations. Localities can be coastal or entirely marine.

Purpose / type of effect envisagedRecovery of populations of species and/or recovery of habitats

MSFD descriptor / pressure1: Biological diversity is maintained

ApplicantMS National Governments

Target groups / stakeholders involvedFisheries industry, recreation sector, sand extraction companies

Cost of measureThe costs of this measure differ extensively. As an example the “Voordelta Sea Reserve” off the coast in the

Netherlands where a part of the seafloor of the reserve is protected: with only a ban on beam trawlers the cost may

amount to € 0,2 million/1000km2 annually. In addition to the already existing Sea Reserve another 1430 km2 would

have similar restrictions. The costs may amount to € 0,3 million Euro/ annually if no capacity related measures are

needed. One should note that there are also large administrative costs related to compliance monitoring. These were

estimated at € 0,5 million for the Sea Reserve. Regarding the extension of the remaining Natura 2000 areas, a similar

intensity of monitoring will be needed. Overall the cost may be in the order of € 0,8-1 million/year. If the total areas

banned becomes very large, some capacity may need to be tied up at substantial higher costs. However, new, less



destructive fishing techniques may develop and even be encouraged in Natura 2000 areas, offsetting losses from

banning conventional fishing.

Potential co-fundingCosts and opportunities for funding differ extensively and depend on the nature of the site e.g. entrance fees for

diving. The costs are initially taken by the sector. Some costs are transferred into higher consumer good prices. Some

parties within the sector will actually gain from the exclusive fishing rights within the Natura 2000 areas. Co-funding

possible through:

- HORIZON 2020 BG 1–2015: Improving the preservation and sustainable exploitation of Atlantic marine ecosystems

- LIFE: Funding is possible under LIFE traditional projects under priority areas of the sub programme NAT/BIO.

Funding may also be possible under LIFE integrated projects, if the protection of marine habitats improves the

integration of environment and climate aspects into other EU policies such as N2000, the OSPAR agreement or the

Water Framework Directive.

- EMFF article 40.1 b-g, i: Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – contribution to a better management or

conservation, construction, installation or modernisation of static or movable facilities, preparation of protection and

management plans related to NATURA2000 sites and spatial protected areas, management, restoration and

monitoring marine protected areas, including NATURA 2000 sites, environmental awareness, participation in other

actions aimed at maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services.

GEAR RESTRICTIONS/MODIFICATIONS TO PREVENT BY CATCH OF MAMMALS AND BIRDSContent of measureAction plan for conservation of marine mammals (e.g. harbour porpoises) and/or birds. Several actions are combined

to conserve the species:

- develop regional plans by working groups with representatives from different stakeholders

- modifying fishing gear and practices in accordance with existing criteria for environmental certification of fisheries

- systematic collections of ghost nets (discarded nets, still free-floating in the seas entrapping and drown animals)

- development of fish traps as alternatives to gill-nets

- arrangement of instruction for professional and recreational fishermen

- development of a camera system for data collection on by catches

- survey of by catches in recreational fisheries.

Purpose / type of effect envisagedBaltic region: the population structure of harbour porpoises, the effects of environmental contaminants on the health

status of porpoises and the levels of anthropogenic, underwater noise will be investigated.

Romania, Black Sea: incidental catches of marine mammals decreased as a result of the actions taken: all of the

proposed objectives were fulfilled.

Several of the proposed actions are expected to improve the conservation status for species of seals, sea-birds and

fish in addition to harbour porpoises.


ApplicantMember State, scientific or technical body.

Target groups / stakeholders involvedFishery sector

Cost of measure- Sweden: The cost for the proposed actions is approximately 3.9 million euro during 2008-13.

- Romania, Black Sea: The total budget was €416,631.00 of which there was a LIFE contribution of €208,315.00. In

total, around 50 people worked on the initiative on a voluntary basis.

Potential co-funding



- LIFE: Funding is possible under the LIFE traditional projects and the priority areas of the sub programme ENV.

Developing tools, technologies and practices to ensure the sustainability of economic activities is mentioned as a

project topic. This sub programme focuses on innovation and demonstration. If the project is not innovative, funding

may still be possible under the priority areas of the sub programme NAT/BIO where the protection of species and birds

are highlighted.

- EMFF: Article 39: Innovation linked to the conservation of marine biological resources (supporting projects to improve

fishing techniques and gear selectivity). If an applicant is planning financing through Article 39 (EMFF), then the

measure shall be carried out by, or in collaboration with, a scientific or technical body recognised by the Member State

which shall validate the results of such operations.

REHABILITATION OF MIGRATION ROUTES FOR MIGRATORY SPECIESContent of measurePort development can lead to direct loss of habitat (e.g. intertidal mud as a result of dredging the tidal basin) and

further impacts with e.g. the displacement and disturbance of internationally important bird populations, risks to water

quality from accidental spillages or remobilisation of sediment bound contaminants and issues related to maintenance

dredging and navigation. Habitat creation as compensation for port development (e.g. in Natura 2000 areas), involving

a unique agreement between the developer and those who were initially opposed to the port expansion because of the

habitat loss. (e.g. Humber estuary - UK)

Purpose / type of effect envisagedIn the Humber estuary example, farmland has been converted into new inter-tidal habitat to compensate for the land

lost due to the new port developments. Numerical modelling is helpful to support the choice for compensation areas.

With one exception, all target species established for the site have been observed. Extensive consultation and

cooperation with environmental organizations can positively affect the success of the implementation and can lead to

acceptance. To this respect an agreement between the developer and those who were initially opposed to the port

expansion can lead to a successful implementation of the measure. .


ApplicantMember State, scientific or technical body.

Target groups / stakeholders involvedShipping/ports

Cost of measureThe cost was £ 3,5 million (around 4,3 million euro)..

Potential co-funding- LIFE: Funding is possible under the LIFE traditional projects, priority areas of the sub programme NAT/BIO, where

the protection of habitats, species and birds are highlighted. If there is an innovative solution to improve the migration

of species there may a funding possibility under the priority areas of the sub programme ENV.






INSTALLATION OF MIGRATION BARRIERS FOR INVASIVE SPECIESContent of measureDeterrent electrical systems, salt water locks etc. installed to prevent and manage invasive species migration through

channels, particularly relevant for the Mediterranean (Suez) and Black Sea.

Purpose / type of effect envisaged



The global scale of alien species is becoming more and more evident. As many examples prove, aquatic invasions are

irreversible and alien species may be associated with unforeseeable ecological as well as economical risks (e.g.

Carlton 1985; Bartley & Minchin 1996; Reise et al. 1998, 2002). Even against the background that continuous climate

change will probably influence the biocoenosis of European aquatic systems much stronger (Nehring 1998, 2003), the

introduction of alien species enhances the trend of global unification of flora and fauna associated with an irretrievable

loss in biodiversity. Measures may at least slow down the rate of migration.

MSFD descriptor / pressure2: Non-indigenous species

ApplicantProposed in Germany by Aquatic Aliens (http://www.aquatic-aliens.de).

Target groups / stakeholders involvedGovernments

Cost of measureUnknown, depends on the nature and size of the measure.

Potential co-funding- LIFE: Funding is possible under the priority areas of the sub programme NAT/BIO where the protection of species

and birds are highlighted. Non-indigenous species are a descriptor of the MSFD. Therefore funding is also possible

under the LIFE traditional projects, priority areas under the sub programme ENV. However, projects in the sub

programme ENV must be demonstrative or innovative.






INSTALLATION OF BREAKWATERS FOR FISH REPRODUCTION AND GROWTHContent of measurePresence of breakwaters can increase fish reproduction and growth. Especially the introduction of breakwaters in

sandy areas they will change the species community. Although the general impression is that breakwaters increase

fish reproduction and growth, several studies also show that species associated with sandy habitats may suffer from

the introduction of the hard substrate. Abundance of smaller fish may also be suppressed by increased predator

presence around the breakwaters.

Purpose / type of effect envisagedMore and larger fish for conservation or exploitation

MSFD descriptor / pressure3: Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish

ApplicantMember State, scientific or technical body, NGO

Target groups / stakeholders involvedFishing industry, NGO, ports

Cost of measureThe costs of this measure depend on the coastal setting at which the breakwaters will be installed.

Potential co-fundingBreakwaters for fish production and growth may be used as conservation action but also as compensation and

mitigation for projects that harm the marine environment. Hence multiple co-funding routes:

- EMFF article 37: Support for the design and implementation of conservation measures.

- EMFF article 39: Innovation linked to the conservation of marine biological resources.



http://www.aquatic-aliens.de/

- LIFE: Funding is possible under the priority areas of the sub programme NAT/BIO, where the protection of species

and birds and synergy between conservation and marine uses are highlighted. If measures are innovative there are

possibilities under the priority areas of the sub programme ENV.



AQUACULTURE INCLUDING CONSERVATION AND BIODIVERSITY PROTECTIONContent of measureAquaculture causes nutrient and organic matter enrichment because of input of fertilizer/ organic matter. The

European Environmental Agency lists aquaculture as an important potential cause of environmental deterioration in

the region (EEA, 2006). Integrated Aquaculture (INTAQ) is the culture of two or more species of different trophic levels

in a single farm or in close enough proximity that they interact in a way that mimics the energy flow pathways in natural

ecosystems. The main environmental advantage that distinguishes INTAQ from monoculture is its capacity to reduce

farm effluent in the form of uneaten food, faeces and excretory wastes. Of particular interest is the combination of

finfish culture with detritivores and algae both of which use finfish waste as food. Their presence reduces waste

effluent into the environment as compared to a monoculture finfish installation with no waste treatment. It also

produces added product that has a market value.

Purpose / type of effect envisagedPreliminary evidence, mainly from pilot studies outside the Mediterranean Sea region, indicate that INTAQ can lower

costs, diversify and increase production and improve profits while solving a number of the environmental challenges

posed by monoculture aquaculture. The main environmental advantage that distinguishes INTAQ from monoculture is

its capacity to reduce farm effluent in the form of uneaten food, faeces and excretory wastes.

MSFD descriptor / pressure5: Human-induced eutrophication is minimized

ApplicantAquaculture enterprises. Considering operations under EMFF Article 47, which will be carried out by, or in

collaboration with, public or private scientific or technical bodies, recognised by the Member State. Regarding EMFF

Article 49, advisory services 1(b) shall be provided by scientific or technical bodies, as well as by entities providing

legal or economic advice with the required competences as recognised by the Member State.

Support under point 1(a) shall only be granted to public law bodies or other entities selected by the Member State to

set up the farm advisory services. Support under point 1(b) shall only be granted to aquaculture SMEs or aquaculture..

Target groups / stakeholders involvedAquaculture/ mariculture is targeted. Acceptance is required to be a successful measure, business operators will not

engage in the practice unless they are well informed and confident of success.

Information on the environmental and broader social consequences must be disseminated efficiently and public

education increased in order to counter prevailing skepticism and negative attitudes towards mariculture and INTAQ.

Cost of measureINTAQ requires a higher level of technological and engineering sophistication and up-front investment. Preliminary

indications for (potential) significant improvement in the return on investment (mainly increased production -lower

trophic taxa- without necessity of augmenting manufactured feed inputs. Moreover, INTAQ may have advantages in

risk management at the business level (diversification of products, multiple markets: finfish, shellfish, macroalgae and

other seafood directly as well as derivative products).

Ways of co-fundingCo-funding possible through:

- Horizon 2020 BG-2-2015: Forecasting and anticipating effects of climate change on fisheries and

Aquaculture

- EMFF article 47: Innovation. (a) developing technical, scientific or organisational knowledge in aquaculture farms,

which, in particular, reduces the impact on the environment, reduces dependence on fish meal and oil, fosters a

sustainable use of resources in aquaculture, improves animal welfare or facilitates new sustainable production

methods; (b) developing or introducing on the market new aquaculture species with good market potential, new or

substantially improved products, new or improved processes, or new or improved management and organisation

systems; (c) exploring the technical or economic feasibility of innovative products or processes.

- EMFF article 48.1: Productive investments in aquaculture (a) productive investments in aquaculture; (b) the

diversification of aquaculture production and species cultured; (e) investments reducing the negative impact or



enhancing the positive effects on the environment and increasing resource efficiency; (f) investments in enhancing the

quality of, or in adding value to, aquaculture products;

- EMFF article 49.1: Management, relief and advisory services for aquaculture farms Support for: (a) the setting-up of

management, relief and advisory services for aquaculture farms; (b) the purchase of farm advisory services of a

technical, scientific, legal, environmental or economic nature.

- EMFF article 52: Encouraging new aquaculture farmers practising sustainable aquaculture in order to foster

entrepreneurship in aquaculture

- ERDF: co-financing of investments of production and/or water treatment facilities under TO6.

ELECTRIC PULSE FISHINGContent of measureBy application of electric pulse techniques the physical impact of fishing on the sea bottom to the physical environment

can be reduced. The pulse trawl is, a fishing net that floats just above the seabed and emits small electrical pulses to

startle bottom-dwellers into the net. This form of trawling causes much less disturbance to the seabed than traditional

methods, results in less by-catch, and uses far less fuel. Heavy chains that damage the seafloor are not needed to

chase the fish into the net, since this is done by means of electrical pulses.

Purpose / type of effect envisagedThere is less impact caused to the physical environment (sea floor) than by the application of traditional beam trawlers

that use tickler chains which affect the sea bed, and additionally, a reduction in fuel consumption is a result as well.

MSFD descriptor / pressure6: Sea-floor integrity

ApplicantMS national governments, fishery sector

Target groups / stakeholders involvedFisheries sector, academia.

Cost of measureThis measure is already being applied in the Netherlands. No substantial costs to the sector are expected.

Potential co-funding- EMFF article 38: Limiting the impact of fishing on the marine environment and adapting fishing to the protection of

species.

- LIFE: As electric pulse fishing is already developed, future funding cannot come from the sub programme ENV, but it

can come from sub programme NAT/BIO. Developing tools, technologies and also practices to ensure the

sustainability of economic activities is mentioned as a project topic under NAT/BIO. If the project is innovative, for

instance an optimal way to regulate the electric pulses, funding is possible under the priority areas of the sub

programme ENV.

MARINE AGGREGATE LEVY SUSTAINABILITY FUND (MALSF)Content of measureIn 2002 the British Government imposed a levy on all primary aggregate production (including marine aggregates /

sand and gravel) to reflect the environmental costs of winning these materials. A proportion of the revenue generated

was used to provide a source of funding for research aimed at minimising the effects of aggregate production.

Purpose / type of effect envisagedFunding for research to improve the knowledge on the impacts and possible mitigation of aggregate extraction. The

Fund is aiming at achieving better environmental management at aggregate sites, and at promoting greater use of

recycled aggregates. Although this type of earmarking of tax revenues can be questioned both on political and

economic grounds, it can often be effective in increasing the perceived legitimacy of the tax policy. The political

problem lies in the fact that earmarking removes funds from parliamentary control, and can thus lead to reduced

democratic influence and even increased corruption. Economically earmarking can be inefficient since it does not



ensure that the tax revenues are used where their utility is the highest and/or where national priorities currently are the

most pressing.

MSFD descriptor / pressure6: Sea-floor integrity

ApplicantMS National Government

Target group / stakeholders involvedAggregate extraction

Cost of measureSince 2002, over £20 million has been invested in projects increasing the knowledge and understanding of marine

environmental resources through applied, science led research. This directly supports marine planning and decision

making through the provision of robust state-of-the-art evidence. The MALSF has commissioned projects that have

addressed a range of scientific and socio-economic themes.

Potential co-fundingCosts are primarily administrative, as this measure is a levy on specific activities.

- ERDF INTERREG: exchange of (best) practices concerning certification systems may well be fundable through the

INTERREG VA or VB strands.

- LIFE: Funding may be possible under the LIFE traditional projects and the priority areas of the sub programme GIE.

These project must promote knowledge sharing, dissemination of best practices, better compliance, and awareness

raising campaigns.

CERTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR PORTS AND MARINASContent of measureThe system aims to improve the environmental quality in ports. Encourage all operations that contribute to improving

the environmental quality of the marinas. In the port of Cavalaire (France) -driver for this initiative- first port cleaning in

France was conducted here (1993). The “Clean Ports” approach was launched in the PACA (Provence Alpes Côte

d’Azur) region in 2001. In 2008, AFNOR created the « Harbour Environmental Management» certification.

Purpose / type of effect envisagedCleaner ports, less pollution

MSFD descriptor / pressure8: Concentrations of contaminants

ApplicantPort authorities

Target groups / stakeholders involvedPort authorities

Cost of measureBudget for the certification system was initially funded by the Water Agency (80%) and amounted to a grant aid of

120,000 euro. Since 2001 when the concept of "ports propres" was launched, 86 ports have joined the process and in

that respect been granted funding of 14 million euros.

Potential co-funding- EMFF article 43.1: Fishing ports, landing sites, auction halls and shelters – investments improving infrastructure.

- LIFE: Funding is possible under the LIFE traditional projects and the priority areas of the sub programme GIE. These

project must promote knowledge sharing, dissemination of best practices, better compliance, and awareness raising

campaigns.

- ERDF INTERREG: exchange of (best) practices concerning certification systems may well be fundable through the

INTERREG VA or VB strands.



FISHING FOR LITTER PROGRAMMEContent of measureFishermen often (accidently) collect marine litter during their fisheries activities. This can be handed over to the

harbour authorities. It is possible that fishermen obtain a certain amount of money for this. Incentives can be given to

stimulate this. By participation on this programme they do not discard marine litter that they accidently collected but

store this in big bags which are being taken to land for processing Minimally, the facilities that accept waste should be

easily available for participants in such programmes (at no cost). Marine litter in general is to be collected, but other

types of litter like debris, lost and abandoned fishing gear etc. should be collected too..

Purpose / type of effect envisagedLess marine litter present at sea.

MSFD descriptor / pressure10: Properties and quantities of marine litter

ApplicantThe operations referred to in EMFF Article 40.1.a may be implemented by scientific or technical public law bodies,

Advisory Councils, fishermen or organisations of fishermen which are recognised by the Member State, or by non-

governmental organisations in partnership with organisations of fishermen or in partnership with FLAGs.

Target groups / stakeholders involvedFishermen, waste collection and processing industry, governments.

Cost of measureStill unknown.

Potential co-funding- EMFF Article 40.1.a: Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – collection of lost fishing gear and marine litter

- LIFE: Funding is possible under the LIFE traditional projects and the priority areas of the sub programme GIE. These

project must promote knowledge sharing, dissemination of best practices, better compliance, and awareness raising

campaigns. Fishing for litter can be seen as an awareness raising campaign. If the project is innovative, for instance

an optimal way fish for marine litter, funding may be possible under the priority areas of the sub programme ENV.

INSTALLATION OF NOISE REDUCTION TECHNIQUES IN SHIPS Content of measureA major contributor to underwater noise is shipping. Effects of underwater noise include disturbance, stress and the

masking of biological sounds used to communicate and find food. Ships generate underwater noise with their main

engine and on board generators. The level of underwater noise will probably increase with the expected increase of

the shipping industry. New noise reduction techniques will likely contribute to the achievement of GES for underwater

noise. Possible noise reducing measures are:

- Standard silencers on diesel generator exhaust i.e. reflection type, absorption type and combination type silencers.

- Utilizing the main engine exhaust silencer during port stay for the diesel generator exhaust by rerouting the exhaust.

- On shore power supply

- Standard methods for reducing noise from ventilation systems onboard a ship including adding mineral wool to fan

rooms, cylindrical silencers, baffle silencers and noise reducing louvers.

Purpose / type of effect envisagedTo minimize exceeding the limits for above- and underwater noise.

MSFD descriptor / pressure11: Introduction of energy, including underwater noise

ApplicantShipyards, ports, research institute, shipping companies

Target groups / stakeholders involvedShipping companies

Cost of measure



Costs of this measure depend on the project that will implement it and the scale of implementation.

Potential co-funding- HORIZON 2020 : BG 9 2014: Acoustic and Imaging Technologies (closed)

- EMFF article 41.1 a/c: Energy efficiency – studies and investments to assess the contribution of alternative

propulsion systems and hull designs

- EMFF article 41.2: Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change – Replacement or modernization of main or

ancillary engines.

- LIFE: Funding is possible under the LIFE traditional projects and the priority areas of the sub programme NAT/BIO.

Developing tools, technologies and also practices to ensure the sustainability of economic activities is mentioned as a

project topic. If the project is innovative, for instance an optimal way to regulate the electric pulses, funding is possible

under the priority areas of the sub programme ENV.

MSFD DATA COLLECTION AND MONITORINGContentAt present, most of the methods in use necessitate gathering detailed information using direct observations or

sampling methods. Such approaches often provide adequate information for coastal areas but off shore detailed

information is usually sparse or absent. New broad‐scale methods and methods that use surrogate information about

the resource are needed. Several approaches and techniques of measurement are available in marine environment

monitoring. These consist of direct sampling, airborne and satellite imagery, hydrological measurements using CTD

probes, remote sensing with the use of electromagnetic waves and acoustic methods. Marine monitoring involves the

acquisition, processing, integration and visualization of various kinds of data obtained through these techniques

Purpose / type of effect envisagedAlleviate present obstacles concerning data availability and its collection relating to marine environment assessment,

target setting and trends monitoring.

MSFD descriptor / pressureAll descriptors / pressures

ApplicantMS, research institutes

Target groups / stakeholders involvedMS, NGO’s, port and shipping companies, fisheries sector

Cost of measureCosts vary, depending on the type of monitoring requirements and technology.

Potential co-funding- EMFF article 77: Data collection

- EMFF article 80.1.c: Improving the knowledge on the state of the marine environment

- EMFF article 78: Technical assistance. This may hold specifically for those MS still lacking an initial assessment of

the state of the seas and GES characteristics, targets and indicators, due to administrative capacity problems.



Annex I ReferencesEMFF Official documents concerning EMFF can be found on:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/index_en.htm More information on eligibility and allocation:


Regional Funds (ERDF and CF) Eligibility and allocation of funds per MS:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/eligibility/index_en.cfm Complementarity between ESI-funds and non ESI-funds: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&from=EN Database of previous, executed projects under ERDF/CF:


LIFE More information on the types of projects in LIFE:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/documents/life2014-2020.pdf Allocation of funding and co-financing rates:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/documents/life2014-2020.pdf Allocation of LIFE-budget amongst Member States: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1293&from=EN

Horizon 2020 HORIZON 2020 – Work Programme 2014-2015 on Food Security, sustainable agriculture

and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research and the bio economy (European Commission Decision C (2013)8631 of 10 December 2013). Online: Work programme Horizon 2020 marine and maritime issues

2015 Blue Growth calls:− BG 1 – 2015 Improving the preservation and sustainable exploitation of Atlantic

marine ecosystems − BG 2 – 2015 Forecasting and anticipating effects of climate change on fisheries and

aquaculture − BG 7 – 2015 Response capacities to oil spills and marine pollutions − BG 16 – 2015 Coordination action in support of the implementation of the Joint

Programming Initiative on "Healthy and Productive Seas and Oceans" Participant Portal: http://bit.ly/H2020PP Helpdesk: http://ec.europa.eu/research/enquiries Learn more about Horizon 2020: http://ec.europa.eu/horizon2020 National contact Points (NCPs): http://bit.ly/H2020NCP

More co-funding opportunities in field of (marine) environment DG Environment funding opportunities European Commission: The guide to multi-benefit Cohesion Policy Investments in Nature

and Green Infrastructure (2013) European Commission: Financing Natura 2000. Guidance Handbook (2014)



http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Natura2000financingHandbook_part%201.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/guide_multi_benefit_nature.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/guide_multi_benefit_nature.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/intro_en.htm

http://bit.ly/H2020NCP

http://ec.europa.eu/horizon2020

http://ec.europa.eu/research/enquiries

http://bit.ly/H2020PP





http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-wp1415-food_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-wp1415-food_en.pdf








http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/eligibility/index_en.cfm



Annex II Classification of MSFD-measures according to Annex VI (Programmes of measures)

A Programme of Measures (PoMs) is a set of measures that the MS is responsible for implementing, put into context with each other, referring to the environmental targets they address. The Programme of Measures includes existing and new measures.

Existing measures (Art 13.1 & 13.2): - Category 1.a: Measures relevant for the maintenance and achievement of GES under the MSFD, that have been

adopted and implemented;

- Category 1.b: Measures relevant for the maintenance and achievement of GES under the MSFD that have been

adopted under other policies but that have not yet been implemented or fully implemented;

New measures (Art 13.3): - Category 2.a: Additional measures to maintain and reach GES which build on existing implementation processes

regarding other EU legislation and international agreements but go beyond what is already required under these;

- Category 2.b: Additional measures to maintain and reach GES which do not build on existing EU legislation or

international agreements.

The PoMs are structured as follows: Input controls: management measures that influence the amount of a human activity that

is permitted. Output controls: management measures that influence the degree of perturbation of an

ecosystem component that is permitted. Spatial and temporal distribution controls: management measures that influence where

and when an activity is allowed to occur. Management coordination measures: tools to ensure that management is coordinated. Measures to improve the traceability, where feasible, of marine pollution. Economic incentives: management measures which make it in the economic interest of

those using the marine ecosystems to act in ways which help to achieve the good environmental status objective.

Mitigation and remediation tools: management tools which guide human activities to restore damaged components of marine ecosystems.

The Table below gives an overview of potential measures (examples) structured according Annex VI of the MSFD.

MSFD measures category cf. annex VI

Clarification List of example measures [ARCADIS, 2012b]

(1) Input controls: management measures that influence the

Regulating instruments: guidelines, bans, operating licenses,..

Stricter controls on discharges of thermal energyBan on fishing techniques (like beam trawling, other towed fishing gear) that are the most damaging to the seabed, usually spatially





amount of a human activity that is permitted.

restrictedBan on the discharge of sewage water from passenger ships and ferriesBan or further regulation of deepwater drillingDesignation of NOx emission control area (under MARPOL, Annex VI).

(2) Output controls: management measures that influence the degree of perturbation of an ecosystem component that is permitted.

- Regulating instruments: standards- Clean-up measures

License system for (sustainable) aquaculture (e.g. fin-fish farming)

Limitations on density of wave and tidal device arraysCompulsory bioremediation (e.g. bivalves in fish farms)Control on saline discharges (e.g. creation of gas storage facilities)Discard ban on the most commercially important species, ban on high gradingEco-tourism in coastal Natura 2000 areas. (local economic benefits can also arise from the combination eco-agriculture and coastal nature in semi-enclosed areas or coastal areas, e.g. Väinameri (“the sea of straits”) area in West Estonia bordering the Baltic)

(3) Spatial and temporal distribution controls: management measures that influence where and when an activity is allowed to occur.

Regulating instruments geared at spatial and temporal restrictions, e.g. zoning.

Regulation of production areas of fish (mariculture) near areas where wild migratory fish are present.Application of Environmental Impact Zones/buffer zones around the project siteDelineation of extraction zones (planning) to avoid particularly sensitive features (micro-siting)Designation and protection of marine habitats (MPA's, Natura 2000 for example)Designation of a non-building zone of 2km (landward) from the coastline.Designation of national fishing zones

(4) Management coordination measures: tools to ensure that management is coordinated.

Management coordination plans and programming

Action plan for conservation of marine mammals (e.g. harbour porpoises)Application of Maritime Spatial Planning with an ecosystem approachCoastal Area Management Programmas as an integrated sustainable management tool for planning and development activitiesContingency plans for chemicals and oil spills in case of accidents





Creating MPAs. 3 objectives are generally defined:- fisheries management, resource conservation- biodiversity conservation / ecosystem protection- opportunities for recreational users

(5) Measures to improve the traceability, where feasible, of marine pollution.

Preventive measures, R&I based.

Establish remote sensing (satellite) system for observing and controlling fishing operations in open sea.Introduction of a maritime surveillance system and risk assessment,Pollution control of rivers, supported by monitoring system for water qualityStrengthening the system of control for the movement of hazardous substance and materials and prevention of marine pollution by vesselsApplication of a feedback monitoring system, enabling one to intervene rapidly when dangerous levels are exceeded

(6) Economic incentives: management measures which make it in the economic interest of those using the marine ecosystems to act in ways which help to achieve the good environmental status objective.

Economic or market based instruments, including fee-based systems, financial incentives, liability, warranty and trading systems.

(Habitat-species) banking: wetland mitigation banking, biobanking, bushbroker scheme, bushtender scheme, conservation banking, fish habitat banking…‘No-special-fee’ system in all Baltic Sea portsAdditional harbour taxes for "polluting" shipsAggregate taxes / levyAgri-environmental schemesAllocation of regional funds to promote fishing tourism in order to reduce the fishing effortApplication of user fees for MPA, e.g. fees for scuba diving.Charge for emissions as a baseline-and-credit systemCharging for waste services including landfillsVoluntary competitive biddingsWater pollution charge

(7) Mitigation and remediation tools: management tools which guide human activities to restore damaged components of marine ecosystems.

Prevention, abatement and remediation measures, technical and R&I based.

(Marine) Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund (MALSF)Alternatives for anti-fouling paintsAnaerobic digestion of manure (biogas) to reduce N leaching (technical measure), biogas production from manureApplication of an environmental friendly sand extraction methodology or other mitigating measures for aggregate extraction





Application of mitigation and compensation measures when needed: e.g. designation of protected sites, nature development projects.Bioremediation or biomanipulation measures, such as mussel farming

(8) Communication, stakeholder involvement and raising public awareness.

Communication and awareness types of measures

Active dissemination of research findings to the publicAward-based incentives for coastal villages with Integrated Waste Management (IWM)Awareness programs to mitigate ALDFG (abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear) impactsCertification system for ports and marinasClean Shipping IndexEcolabelling for fisheries, MSC labeled fish, MAC certification for aquarium oganisms



Annex III ETC ProgrammesETC Cross-Border Programmes (INTERREG V - A)

N° Name of the Programme Countries

1 (INTERREG V-A) NL-BE-DE Euregio Maas Rhein NL-BE-DE

2 (INTERREG V-A) AT-CZ - Austria-Czech Republic AT-CZ

3 (INTERREG V-A) SK-AT Slovakia-Austria SK-AT

4 (INTERREG V-A) AT-DE - Austria- Germany (Bavaria) AT-DE

5 (INTERREG V-A) ES-PT - Spain-Portugal ES-PT

6 (INTERREG V-A) ES-FR - Espagne-France - Andorra ES-FR-AND

7 (INTERREG V-A) ES- PT- Madeira-Açores-Canarias ES-PT

8 (INTERREG V-A) HU-HR- Hungary-Croatia HU-HR

9 (INTERREG V-A) DE-CZ - Bavaria-Czech Republic DE-CZ

10 (INTERREG V-A) AT-HU Austria-Hungary AT-HU

11 (INTERREG V-A) DE-PL Germany(BB)-Poland DE(BB)-PL

12 (INTERREG V-A) PL-SK Poland-Slovakia PL-SK

13 (INTERREG V-A) PL-DK-DE-LT-SE - South Baltic PL-DK-DE-LT-SE

14 (INTERREG V-A) FI-EE-LV-SE - Central Baltic FI-EE-LV-SE

15 (INTERREG V-A) HU-SK - Hungary-Slovakia HU-SK

16 (INTERREG V-A) SE-NO - Sweden-Norway SE-NO

17 (INTERREG V-A) DE-CZ Saxony-Czech Republic DE-CZ

18 (INTERREG V-A) PL-DE Poland(DS)-Germany PL(DS)-DE

19(INTERREG V-A) DE-PL Germany(Mecklenburg-Vorpommern/Brandenburg)-Poland

DE-PL

20 (INTERREG V-A) GR-IT - Greece-Italy GR-IT

21 (INTERREG V-A) RO-BG - Romania-Bulgaria RO-BG

22 (INTERREG V-A) GR-BG - Greece-Bulgaria GR-BG

23 (INTERREG V-A) DE-NL - Germany-Netherlands DE-NL

24 (INTERREG V-A) DE-AT-CH-LI - Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein DE-AT-CH-LI

25 -(INTERREG V-A) CZ-PL - Czech RepublicPoland CZ-PL

26(INTERREG V-A) SE-DK-NO - Öresund-(INTERREG V-A) Kattegat-Skagerrak

SE-DK-NO

27 (INTERREG V-A) LV-LT - Latvia-Lithuania LV-LT

28 (INTERREG V-A) SE-FI-NO - Botnia-Atlantica SE-FI-NO

29 (INTERREG V-A) SI-HR - Slovenia-Croatia SI-HR

30 (INTERREG V-A) SK-CZ Slovakia-Czech (INTERREG V-A) Republic SK-CZ

31 (INTERREG V-A) LT-PL - Lithuania-Poland LT-PL

32 (INTERREG V-A) SE-FI-NO - Nord SE-FI-NO

33 (INTERREG V-A) IT-FR - Italy-France maritime IT-FR

34 (INTERREG V-A) IT-FR - Italy-France (ALCOTRA) IT-FR



35 (INTERREG V-A) IT-CH - Italy-Switzerland IT-CH

36 (INTERREG V-A) IT-SI - Italy-Slovenia IT-SI

37 (INTERREG V-A) IT-MT - Italy-Malta IT-MT

38 (INTERREG V-A) FR-NL-BE-UK - Les Deux Mers/Two seas FR-NL-BE-UK

39 FR-DE-CH - Rhin Supérieur-Oberrhein FR-DE-CH

40 (INTERREG V-A) FR-UK - France-United Kingdom (Manche) FR-UK

41 (INTERREG V-A) FR-CH France-Suisse FR-CH

42 (INTERREG V-A) IT-HR - Italy-Croatia IT-HR

43 (INTERREG V-A) BE-FR France-Wallonia-Flanders BE-FR

44 (INTERREG V-A) FR-BE-DE-LU Grande Région FR-BE-DE-LU

45 (INTERREG V-A) BE-NL - Belgium (Vlanderen)-Netherlands BE-NL

46(INTERREG V-A) UK-IE - Ireland- United Kingdom (Scotland and North Ireland)

UK- IE

47 (INTERREG V-A) IE-UK - Ireland-United Kingdom (Wales) IE-UK

48 (INTERREG V-A) HU-RO - Hungary-Romania HU-RO

49 (INTERREG V-A) EE-LV - Estonia-Latvia EE-LV

50 (INTERREG V-A) Mayotte/Comores /Madagascar FR/KM/MG

51 (INTERREG V-A) IT-AT - Italy-Austria IT-AT

52 (INTERREG V-A) SI-HU - Slovenia-Hungary SI-HU

53 (INTERREG V-A) SI-AT Slovenia-Austria SI-AT

54 (INTERREG V-A) GR-CY - Greece - Cyprus GR-CY

55 (INTERREG V-A) DE-DK - Germany-Denmark DK-DE

56 (INTERREG V-A) FR-NL (St. Martin - St Maarten) FR-NL

57 (INTERREG V-A) France ( Guyane)-Brazil - Suriname (Amazonia)- FR-BR-SR

58(INTERREG V-A) France (Martinique & Guadeloupe)-OECS (Org Eastern Caribbean St)

FR-OECS

59 (INTERREG V-A) France (Ile de la Reunion) –IOC countries FR/MU

60 (INTERREG V-A) PEACE IE-UK



ETC Transnational Programmes (INTERREG V-B)

N° Name of the Programme MS Non MS

1(INTERREG V-B) ADRIATIC-IONIAN14

Greece - Croatia - Italy - Slovenia

Albania - Bosnia and Herzegovina - Montenegro - Serbia

2(INTERREG V-B)ALPINE SPACE15

Germany - France - Italy - Austria - Slovenia

Switzerland - Liechtenstein

3(INTERREG V-B)ATLANTIC AREA

Spain - France - Ireland - Portugal - United Kingdom

N/A

4(INTERREG V-B)BALTIC SEA16

Denmark - Germany - Estonia - Latvia - Lithuania - Poland - Finland - Sweden

Belarus - Norway - Russia

5(INTERREG V-B) CARIBBEAN AREA

France Other third countries

6(INTERREG V-B) CENTRAL EUROPE

Czech Republic - Germany - Italy - Croatia - Hungary - Austria - Poland - Slovenia - Slovakia

N/A

7(INTERREG V-B) DANUBE17

Austria - Bulgaria - Czech Republic - Germany - Croatia - Hungary - Romania - Slovenia - Slovakia

Bosnia and Herzegovina - Montenegro - Serbia

8(INTERREG V-B) INDIAN OCEAN

France Other third countries

9(INTERREG V-B) MEDITERRANEAN

Greece - Spain - France - Croatia - Italy - Cyprus - Malta - Portugal - Slovenia - United Kingdom

Albania - Bosnia and Herzegovina - Montenegro

10(INTERREG V-B) NORTHERN PERIPHERY and ARCTIC

Ireland - Finland - Sweden - United Kingdom

Other third countries

11 (INTERREG V-B) NORTH SEA

Belgium - Denmark - Germany - The Netherlands - Sweden -

Norway

14 The Programme should cover the same geographical scope of the EU Strategy for the Adriatic Ionian Region – EUSAIR (for further info, see: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/adriat_ionian/index_en.cfm )15 The Programme should cover the same geographical scope of the EU Strategy for the Alpine Region – EUSAR (for further info, see: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/alpine/index_en.cfm )16 The Programme should cover the same geographical scope of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region – EUSBSR (for info, see: http://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/ )17 The Programme should cover the same geographical scope of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region – EUSDR (for further info, see: http://www.danube-region.eu/ )



http://www.danube-region.eu/

http://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/alpine/index_en.cfm

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/adriat_ionian/index_en.cfm

N° Name of the Programme MS Non MS

United Kingdom

12(INTERREG V-B) NORTH WEST EUROPE

Belgium - Germany - France - Ireland - Luxembourg - The Netherlands - United Kingdom

Switzerland

13(INTERREG V-B) PLATEAU DES GUYANES

France Brazil - Suriname - Guyana

14(INTERREG V-B) SOUTH WEST EUROPE

Spain - France - Portugal - United Kingdom

Andorra

15(INTERREG V-B) BALKANS MEDITERRANEAN

Bulgaria - Greece - CyprusAlbania - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

-- MAC Spain - Portugal --

ETC Interregional Programmes (INTERREG V - C)

N°NAME OF THE PROGRAMME

MS Non MS

1 INTERREG EUROPE All Member StatesSwitzerland - Norway

2 INTERACT All Member StatesSwitzerland - Norway

3 URBACT All Member States

4 ESPON All Member States



msfd eu funding mechanisms - circabc - welcome€¦ · web viewmsfd eu funding mechanisms. ......

Documents