Upload
others
View
11
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MSFD EU FUNDING MECHANISMS
CO-FINANCING GUIDANCE
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG ENVIRONMENT
28 January 2015
078276625:0.1
C03041.003134.0100
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
1
Contents
Preface .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2
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 ........................................................................................................... 15
4.1 European Maritime and fisheries Fund (EMFF) .................................................................................. 17
4.1.1 Fund structure ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.1.2 Key elements relating to MSFD ......................................................................................... 20
4.1.3 Available budget and funding criteria .............................................................................. 25
4.1.4 How to apply for funding ................................................................................................... 26
4.2 Regional Funds: ERDF and Cohesion Fund ......................................................................................... 29
4.2.1 Fund structure ...................................................................................................................... 30
4.2.2 Key elements relating to MSFD ......................................................................................... 32
4.2.3 Available budget and funding criteria .............................................................................. 35
4.2.4 How to apply for funding ................................................................................................... 35
4.3 LIFE ........................................................................................................................................................... 37
4.3.1 Programme Structure .......................................................................................................... 37
4.3.2 Key elements relating to MSFD ......................................................................................... 38
4.3.3 Available budget and funding criteria .............................................................................. 42
4.3.4 How to apply for funding ................................................................................................... 43
4.4 HORIZON 2020........................................................................................................................................ 45
4.4.1 Programme structure .......................................................................................................... 45
4.4.2 Key elements relating to MSFD ......................................................................................... 46
4.4.3 Available budget and funding criteria .............................................................................. 46
4.4.4 How to apply for funding ................................................................................................... 47
5 Funding MSFD measures and activities: examples ..................................................................................... 50
Annex I References ..................................................................................................................................... 59
Annex II Classification of MSFD-measures according to Annex VI (Programmes of measures) .. 60
Annex III ETC Programmes ......................................................................................................................... 64
Colophon ................................................................................................................................................................... 68
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
2
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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
3
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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
4
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.
MSFD
Measures related to achieving and maintaining aGood Ecological Status (GES): Biological diversity Non-indigenous species Commercially exploited (shell)fish Marine food webs Eutrophication Sea-floor integrity Hydrographic conditions Contaminants Marine litter Underwater noise
Other activities: Data collection Monitoring Control/compliance
Type of measure
Research
Pilot / demonstration
Best practice analysisand dissemination
Awareness raising
Interregional / transnationalcooperation
Set up and maintenanceof (protection) schemes
Investment and operations (assets)
Co-funding through
Horizon 2020 /Blue Growth
Section 4.4
LIFESection 4.3
ERDF/InterregSection 4.2
ERDF/CFSection 4.2
EMFFSection 4.1
Section 5 / Appendix 2
Section 5 / Appendix 2
In the left hand column MSFD is pictured, divided in
measures to be included in a Programme of Measures (PoM) geared at achieving and/or maintaining a
Good Ecological Status, related to one or more MSFD descriptors/pressures and
other activities related to the implementation of MSFD, 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
5
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 guidance
In 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:
− 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).
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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
6
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 MSFD
By 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) measures
1. Biological diversity is
maintained
Designation and protection of marine
habitats (MPA's, Natura 2000 for example).
Gear restrictions/modifications to
prevent bycatch of birds
Regulation 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)
1 In Annex II of this guidance an alternative classification of measures is available, according to Annex VI (Programmes
of Measures).
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
7
Descriptor / pressure Existing (types of) measures Potential new (types of) measures
6. Sea-floor integrity Application of an environmental friendly sand
extraction methodology or other mitigating
measures for aggregate extraction
Electric pulse fishing
(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
(when not taken care of in WFD
measures)
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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
8
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
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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
9
Funding
mechanism
Relevant priority areas for MSFD
implementation
Overall available amount of
funding
Relevance for MSFD
measures
(content / budget)
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
(specific countries only)
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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
10
Funding
mechanism
Relevant priority areas for MSFD
implementation
Overall available amount of
funding
Relevance for MSFD
measures
(content / budget)
European
Maritime and
Fisheries
Fund
The EMFF provides several
opportunities to fund measures
related to the MSFD during the
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.
Budgetary resources under shared
management, the resources
available shall be about € 5,749
million.
Budgetary resources under direct
management are set at roughly
€ 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%.
High / high
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
€ 183 billion Medium/high
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
11
Funding
mechanism
Relevant priority areas for MSFD
implementation
Overall available amount of
funding
Relevance for MSFD
measures
(content / budget)
protection and promoting
ecosystem services including
NATURA 2000 and green
infrastructures.
European
Social
Fund
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 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.
€ 84 billion Low/high
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
Horizon
2020
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
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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
12
Funding
mechanism
Relevant priority areas for MSFD
implementation
Overall available amount of
funding
Relevance for MSFD
measures
(content / budget)
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.
International
Financial
Institutions
EBRD:
– Fleet modernisation and
retrofitting of vessels.
– 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."
Concerning the Med Partnership
Investment Fund, The GEF grant
funding received by Sustainable
MED is expected to co-finance
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.
Medium / low
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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
13
Funding
mechanism
Relevant priority areas for MSFD
implementation
Overall available amount of
funding
Relevance for MSFD
measures
(content / budget)
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
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."
Subprogram 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 (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).
High / High
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
14
Funding
mechanism
Relevant priority areas for MSFD
implementation
Overall available amount of
funding
Relevance for MSFD
measures
(content / budget)
OSPAR
Biodiversity 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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
15
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)
EU Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)
EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020).
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 funds
EMFF 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).
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
16
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 Funds
LIFE 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
17
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 programme
The 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
18
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 strategy Integrating 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 indicators Ensuring 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 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 environment
4 3.4 Complementarity with other ESI
funds
Possibilities of multiple ESI funding
What 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?
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
19
Item Operational
Programme
section
Title Concerns
6 4.1 Specific needs of N2000 areas Marine 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 instrument
This 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 includes e.g. the use of taxes, charges, fees and other kind of financial instruments.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
20
4.1.2 KEY ELEMENTS RELATING TO MSFD
Shared management
Concerning 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
of the
competitiveness
and viability of
fisheries
enterprises,
including of
Article 27 Advisory services TO 3
Article 30 Diversification and new forms of income TO 3
Article 31 Start-up support for young fishermen TO 3
Article 32 Health and safety TO 3
Article 33 Temporary cessation of fishing activities TO 3
Article 35 Mutual funds for adverse climatic events and
environmental incidents
TO 3
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
21
Union priorities Specific
objectives
Measures Thematic
objective
small scale
coastal fleet,
and the
improvement of
safety or
working
conditions
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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
22
Union priorities Specific
objectives
Measures Thematic
objective
competitiveness
and viability of
aquaculture
enterprises,
including
improvement of
safety or
working
conditions, in
particular of
SMEs
Article 52 Encouraging new sustainable aquaculture farmers
practising sustainable aquaculture
TO 3
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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
23
Union priorities Specific
objectives
Measures Thematic
objective
3. Fostering the
implementation of
the CFP
1. Improvement
and supply of
scientific
knowledge and
collection and
management of
data
Article 77 Data collection TO 6
2. 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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
24
Union priorities Specific
objectives
Measures Thematic
objective
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 6
Article 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
Examples of MSFD measures that may be co-financed by EMFF are included in section 5.
Direct management
A 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
25
Relevant Title and
chapter in EMFF
Article + Short description
TITLE VI: MEASURES FINANCED UNDER DIRECT MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 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
Accompanying
measures for the
Common Fisheries
Policy and the
Integrated Maritime
Policy
Articles 84-90: Measures under this Chapter shall facilitate the implementation 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 management
Article 13 of the EMFF Regulation provides the budgetary resources under shared management for the
2014-2020 period. In total, € 5,749 million is available for commitments of EMFF, to be allocated as follows:
€ 4,341 million for sustainable development of fisheries, aquaculture and fisheries areas.
€ 580 million for control and enforcement measures referred to in Article 78.
€ 520 million for measures on data collection referred to in Article 79.
€ 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
26
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 aquaculture
Article 53 Support shall only be granted to
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.
Compensation is only for a maximum of 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 States
Article 79 (a) Maximum 6 % of the total amount of the
operational programme for technical assistance
and the establishment of national networks.
Direct management
Article 14 provides the budgetary resources under direct management. An amount of € 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 management
In the following scheme the structure of the shared management part of EMFF, relating to MSFD is
pictured. This is explained underneath.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
27
Approval of Operational Programme
For 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.
Concerning the requirements on the content of MSFD objectives and measures as part of the OP, we refer to section
4.1.1, where these have been explained.
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 procedure
Member 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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
28
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 procedure
Under 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 management
For 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 options
Combining 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
29
Combination with other ESI Funds
As 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.
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 Funds
Combining 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 a
guidance 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 Fund
The 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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
30
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 Fund
The 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 programme
ERDF 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:
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
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 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
31
(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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
32
Item Operational
Programme
section
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
the marine environment/MSFD?
Within the identified priority axes, are specific MSFD-relevant investment
priorities mentioned?
3 2 Technical
assistance
Is 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-funding
Reality 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?
4.2.2 KEY ELEMENTS RELATING TO MSFD
Shared management
Concerning 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.
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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
33
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.
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): € 19.5 million (1994-99 Programme)
On the DG REGIO web link more executed ERDF/CF example projects can be checked.
European Territorial Integration: INTERREG
A 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.
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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
34
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.
INTERREG projects typically focus on cooperation between regions and Member States.
Removing the threat to Baltic waters
Like 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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
35
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 management
About 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.
4.2.3 AVAILABLE BUDGET AND FUNDING CRITERIA
Shared management
The 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: INTERREG
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. 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’.
4.2.4 HOW TO APPLY FOR FUNDING
Shared management
In the following scheme the structure of the shared management part of ERDF/CF, relating to MSFD is
pictured. This is explained underneath.
10 The CEF finances projects which fill the missing links in Europe's energy, transport and digital backbone.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
36
Approval of Operational Programme
The 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 management
For 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.
Combining ERDF/CF with other funding options
There 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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
37
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 a
guidance 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.
4.3 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 projects
Project 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 projects
Financial support to the activities required to build the capacity of Member States with a view to enabling
their more effective participation in LIFE.
Integrated projects
Integrated 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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
38
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.
4.3.2 KEY ELEMENTS RELATING TO MSFD
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 MSFD
LIFE 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
39
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 topics
Projects 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;
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
40
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 engagement
The 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: Pisces
For 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
41
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 health
The 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 beds
A 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 INDEMARES
The 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,
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
42
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.
4.3.3 AVAILABLE BUDGET AND FUNDING CRITERIA
According to Article 4 of the LIFE Regulation, the overall budgetary envelope for the LIFE programme for
the period 2014-2020 is around € 3,457 million, 75 % of which is attributed to the sub-programme
Environment (€ 2,592 million), and 25% of which is attributed to the sub-programme Climate Action (€ 864
million).
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%).
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
43
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 countries
Member 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/beneficiaries
The LIFE Programme may fund public and private bodies, NGO's included.
Allocation of funding
The 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
− 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).
4.3.4 HOW TO APPLY FOR FUNDING
Time scheme
The 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
44
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 funding
Environmental 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 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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
45
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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
46
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).
4.4.2 KEY ELEMENTS RELATING TO MSFD
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.
4.4.3 AVAILABLE BUDGET AND FUNDING CRITERIA
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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
47
4.4.4 HOW TO APPLY FOR FUNDING
The current Work Programme: Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and
inland water research and the Bio economy 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)
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
48
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 funding
In 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 actions
ERA-NET actions aim at coordinating national and regional research programmes by developing joint
activities or supporting joint calls for proposals. ERA-NET Cofund under 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
49
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 Initiatives
Article 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&D
COST13 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/
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
50
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 measure
Closing 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 envisaged
Recovery of populations of species and/or recovery of habitats
MSFD descriptor / pressure
1: Biological diversity is maintained
Applicant
MS National Governments
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Fisheries industry, recreation sector, sand extraction companies
Cost of measure
The 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/1,000 km2 annually. In addition to the already existing Sea Reserve another 1,430 km
2 would
have similar restrictions. The costs may amount to € 0.3 million / 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
become 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
51
Potential co-funding
Costs 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 BIRDS
Content of measure
Action 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 envisaged
Baltic 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.
MSFD descriptor / pressure
1: Biological diversity is maintained.
Applicant
Member State, scientific or technical body.
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Fishery sector
Cost of measure
Sweden: The cost for the proposed actions is approximately € 3.9 million 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,
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
52
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 SPECIES
Content of measure
Port 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 envisaged
In 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.
MSFD descriptor / pressure
1: Biological diversity is maintained.
Applicant
Member State, scientific or technical body.
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Shipping/ports.
Cost of measure
The cost was £ 3.5 million (around € 4.3 million).
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.
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.
INSTALLATION OF MIGRATION BARRIERS FOR INVASIVE SPECIES
Content of measure
Deterrent 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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
53
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 / pressure
2: Non-indigenous species.
Applicant
Proposed in Germany by Aquatic Aliens (http://www.aquatic-aliens.de).
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Governments.
Cost of measure
Unknown, 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.
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 NATURA 2000 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.
INSTALLATION OF BREAKWATERS FOR FISH REPRODUCTION AND GROWTH
Content of measure
Presence 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 envisaged
More and larger fish for conservation or exploitation.
MSFD descriptor / pressure
3: Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish.
Applicant
Member State, scientific or technical body, NGO.
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Fishing industry, NGO, ports.
Cost of measure
The costs of this measure depend on the coastal setting at which the breakwaters will be installed.
Potential co-funding
Breakwaters 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.
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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
54
AQUACULTURE INCLUDING CONSERVATION AND BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION
Content of measure
Aquaculture 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 envisaged
Preliminary 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 / pressure
5: Human-induced eutrophication is minimized.
Applicant
Aquaculture 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 involved
Aquaculture/ 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 scepticism and negative attitudes towards mariculture and INTAQ.
Cost of measure
INTAQ 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-funding
Co-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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
55
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 FISHING
Content of measure
By 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 envisaged
There 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 / pressure
6: Sea-floor integrity.
Applicant
MS national governments, fishery sector.
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Fisheries sector, academia.
Cost of measure
This 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 measure
In 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 envisaged
Funding 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 EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
56
MSFD descriptor / pressure
6: Sea-floor integrity
Applicant
MS National Government
Target group / stakeholders involved
Aggregate extraction
Cost of measure
Since 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-funding
Costs 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. This project must promote knowledge sharing, dissemination of best practices, better compliance, and
awareness raising campaigns.
CERTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR PORTS AND MARINAS
Content of measure
The 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 envisaged
Cleaner ports, less pollution
MSFD descriptor / pressure
8: Concentrations of contaminants
Applicant
Port authorities
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Port authorities
Cost of measure
Budget for the certification system was initially funded by the Water Agency (80%) and amounted to a grant aid of
€ 120,000. 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.
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 projects 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
57
FISHING FOR LITTER PROGRAMME
Content of measure
Fishermen 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 envisaged
Less marine litter present at sea.
MSFD descriptor / pressure
10: Properties and quantities of marine litter
Applicant
The 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 involved
Fishermen, waste collection and processing industry, governments.
Cost of measure
Still 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 projects 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 measure
A 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 on board a ship including adding mineral wool to
fan rooms, cylindrical silencers, baffle silencers and noise reducing louvers.
Purpose / type of effect envisaged
To minimize exceeding the limits for above- and underwater noise.
MSFD descriptor / pressure
11: Introduction of energy, including underwater noise.
Applicant
Shipyards, ports, research institute, shipping companies.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
58
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Shipping 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 MONITORING
Content
At 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 envisaged
Alleviate present obstacles concerning data availability and its collection relating to marine environment assessment,
target setting and trends monitoring.
MSFD descriptor / pressure
All descriptors / pressures.
Applicant
MS, research institutes.
Target groups / stakeholders involved
MS, NGO’s, port and shipping companies, fisheries sector.
Cost of measure
Costs 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
59
Annex I References
EMFF
Official documents concerning EMFF can be found on:
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/index_en.htm
More information on eligibility and allocation: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/index_en.htm
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:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/indexes/project_examples_en.cfm
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)
European Commission: Enabling synergies between European Structural and Investment Funds,
Horizon 2020and other research, innovation and competitiveness-related Union programmes.
Guidance for policy-makers and implementing bodies (2014)
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
60
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 EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
61
MSFD measures
category cf.
annex VI
Clarification List of example measures [ARCADIS, 2012b]
(1) Input
controls:
management
measures that
influence the
amount of a
human activity
that is permitted.
Regulating instruments: guidelines,
bans, operating licenses,
Stricter controls on discharges of thermal energy
Ban on fishing techniques (like beam trawling, other
towed fishing gear) that are the most damaging to the
seabed, usually spatially restricted
Ban on the discharge of sewage water from passenger
ships and ferries
Ban or further regulation of deep water drilling
Designation 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 arrays
Compulsory 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 grading
Eco-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 site
Delineation 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 approach
Coastal Area Management Programmes as an
integrated sustainable management tool for planning
and development activities
Contingency plans for chemicals and oil spills in case of
accidents
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
62
MSFD measures
category cf.
annex VI
Clarification List of example measures [ARCADIS, 2012b]
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 quality
Strengthening the system of control for the movement of
hazardous substance and materials and prevention of
marine pollution by vessels
Application 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 ports
Additional harbour taxes for "polluting" ships
Aggregate taxes / levy
Agri-environmental schemes
Allocation of regional funds to promote fishing tourism in
order to reduce the fishing effort
Application of user fees for MPA, e.g. fees for scuba
diving.
Charge for emissions as a baseline-and-credit system
Charging for waste services including landfills
Voluntary competitive biddings
Water pollution charge
(7) Mitigation
and remediation
tools:
management
tools which
guide human
activities to
restore
damaged
components of
marine
Prevention, abatement and
remediation measures, technical and
R&I based.
(Marine) Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund (MALSF)
Alternatives for anti-fouling paints
Anaerobic digestion of manure (biogas) to reduce N
leaching (technical measure), biogas production from
manure
Application 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.
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
63
MSFD measures
category cf.
annex VI
Clarification List of example measures [ARCADIS, 2012b]
ecosystems.
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 public
Award-based incentives for coastal villages with
Integrated Waste Management (IWM)
Awareness programs to mitigate ALDFG (abandoned,
lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear) impacts
Certification system for ports and marinas
Clean Shipping Index
Ecolabelling for fisheries, MSC labelled fish, MAC
certification for aquarium organisms
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
64
Annex III ETC Programmes
ETC 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 Republic-Poland 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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
65
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 (Flanders)-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 ( Guyana)-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
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
66
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 -
United Kingdom
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/ )
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
67
N° Name of the Programme MS Non MS
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 - Cyprus Albania - 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 States Switzerland - Norway
2 INTERACT All Member States Switzerland - Norway
3 URBACT All Member States
4 ESPON All Member States
MSFD EU Funding Mechanisms Co-Financing Guidance
078276625:0.2 ARCADIS
68
Colophon
MSFD EU FUNDING MECHANISMS CO-FINANCING GUIDANCE
CLIENT:
European Commission
DG Environment
STATUS:
Final report
AUTHOR:
Jeroen Klooster
Lies De Meijer
Christiaan van Sluis
Maria Ferreira (EUCC)
Mike Mannaart (EUCC)
CHECKED BY:
Jeroen Klooster
RELEASED BY:
Veronique Adriaenssens
28 January 2015
078276625:0.1
ARCADIS NEDERLAND BV
Lichtenauerlaan 100
P.O. Box 4205
3006 AE Rotterdam
The Netherlands
Tel +31 10 2532 222
Fax +31 10 4341 398
www.arcadis.nl
Dutch Trade Register 09036504 ©ARCADIS. All rights reserved. Apart from certain exceptions allowed by the
law, no part of this document may be copied and/or made public by means of
printing, reprographics or digital reproduction or by any other means without the
written permission of the copyright owners