MSCG_18-2016-02

Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Common Implementation Strategy

17th Meeting of the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG)

Document: Draft Minutes: 17th meeting of the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG), Brussels, 5 November 2015 – Deadline for comments: 4 January 2016

Title Minutes of the 17th MSCG meeting

Date prepared: 12-01-2016

Prepared by: DG Environment and Milieu

DRAFT SUMMARY MINUTES

1 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

The meeting was chaired by Matjaz Malgaj, Head of the Marine, Environment and Water Industry Unit, European Commission, DG Environment. A list of participants is given in Annex 1. The papers and presentations for the meeting are listed in Annex 2, and are available on CIRCABC.

2 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND OF THE SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE 16TH MSCG MEETING

One Member State stated that it regrets that there is no draft Commission Decision text being presented to the MSCG participants. Furthermore, one Member State added that documents which require in depth discussions, feedback and approval by the Working Groups should be circulated well in advance, as participants often do not have enough time to read them ahead of these meetings. One stakeholder also commented that the MSCG should have the opportunity to discuss the licencing work being done. The Commission took note of the comments. The Commission clarified that the Commission Decision Review process has been slightly postponed because of the delays in the technical work and that it had been decided to present to the MSCG the overall approach followed for the GES Decision review, rather than technical details for only a few of the descriptors. .

As such, the meeting approved the Draft Agenda and the summary minutes of the meeting of 4-5 May 2015.

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit 1

MSCG_18-2016-02

3 PREPARATIONS FOR MARINE DIRECTORS' MEETINGJean-Paul Lickes from Luxembourg presented the Joint Directors' meeting and the workshop which is planned to take place on 25-27 November in Luxembourg.

The Luxembourg team clarified that the parallel workshops will be discussing the same topics; as such it is not necessary that Member States send additional experts to attend all four of the groups. The purpose of the proposed structure is to allow participants to focus on one group without having the need to switch to other thematic groups and to see if discussions will yield the same outcomes. The agenda and background documents will be sent to participants ASAP.

It was noted that for future meetings, the fact that in some Member States the Marine, Nature and/or Water Directors are the same person should be kept in mind when organising these back-to-back or parallel meetings, as to ensure that all Member State can have the opportunity to participate in all the meetings taking place.

The presentation can be accessed on CIRCABC.

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE

4.1 Transposition; reporting on articles 8, 9 and 10 and 11 (state of affairs)

The Commission presented the state-of play on pilots and infringements under the MSFD and on the reporting of Article 8, 9, 10 and 11.

Malta has reported on Article 11 at the end of October 2015. Poland requested that its “colour code” is changed from red to another colour to indicate that they have not replied to the Commission Recommendation because they have not received one. Belgium has also sent a reply to the Commission Recommendations on Article 8, 9 and 10 and so this should be updated in the table in the presentation.

Some Member States asked if the Programme of Measures as a whole or each one of the measures is to be subject to the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA Directive) and if the whole marine strategy or the Programmes of Measures only should be subject to the Strategic Environmental Assessment. Furthermore, a Member State asked which types of measures will have to be subjected to an SEA.

The Commission clarified that the applicability of the SEA Directive on measures should be done on a case-by-case basis, by Member States, depending on the measure itself but recalled that some information about the applicability of EIA and SEA Directives was already included in the "Recommendation on Programmes of Measures and Exceptions". The Commission will circulate information on the SEA Directive and its applicability on the MSFD PoMs.

The presentation can be accessed on CIRCABC.

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit 2

MSCG_18-2016-02

4.2 Commission Article 12 assessment of Article 11 reporting – state of play and main findings

Milieu (consultant) presented the state of play of the Article 12 assessments of the Article 11 reporting, as well as the main findings from the assessment exercise.

The Commission clarified that it will produce (1) a report on the overall situation at EU level accompanied by (2) a staff working document containing recommendations to Member States, based on the technical assessments produced by the consultant.

The Commission clarified that the Article 11 report consultation answers are being reviewed and will be taken into account in the final version of the reports. The Commission also stated that the Article 11 assessment results package will be published in the first semester of 2016.

The presentation can be accessed on CIRCABC.

4.3 Update on relevant support projectsThe Commission presented a series of updates on relevant support projects covering the Baltic Boost, ActionMed, EcApRHA and MISTIC'SEAS projects.

The Member States were also invited to take note of Experiences from the three New Knowledge pilot projects: BALSAM, IRIS-SES and JMP NS/CS, which contribute to improve coherence in the implementation of the MSFD and related international legislation. The details are presented in the following paper on CIRBABC.

In addition, WG MSCG members were asked to contribute to the ongoing project on MSFD and licencing, authorisation and permitting procedures. The consultants have sent a questionnaire to Member States and the Commission would be appreciative to receive feedback on it. There will be a workshop taking place in February 2016 on the topic, back to back with the next MSCG meeting. Finally, the Commission also announced that the results of the questionnaire, along with the desk study and the workshop results will be fed into a report mapping Member State practices.

Several Member States commented that the questionnaire which has been circulated is very heavy and detailed, requiring the input of several authorities within Member States. As such it was requested for the deadline of the input submission to be extended. Another Member State noted that the content of the questionnaire in terms of the law and regulations it is referencing is out of date and needs to be reworked.

Two Member States commented that they support this project as the results will be very useful at the EU and Member State level in understanding the state-of-play better. While the questionnaire is heavy, it asks important questions. One Member State commented that they will do their best to fill in as much as possible, and clearly indicate where the replies are not considered complete. One additional comment was that Member States should ask for the questionnaire in Word format to facilitate the process of answering it.

Some stakeholders (NAVI, IOGP) commented that it is very important for stakeholders to get involved in this work, as they have great experience in licencing. Furthermore, they added that the timeline of the questionnaires and workshop is very tight; as such the results might be partially adequate. The Commission commented that they will look into how to involve key stakeholders in this work, and ensure that it is done

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit 3

MSCG_18-2016-02

so with enough time in advance as to ensure effective input. Bulgaria requested to be added to the distribution list for the questionnaire.

The Commission also reported on the PCG meeting the previous day. Since the PCG will no longer discuss the details of the projects, the Commission plans to create an online platform to upload all the information in one central location (part of the Competence Centre of the JRC). The MSCG members are asked to review the draft repository1 and provide feedback to the Commission.

The PCG heard about programming approaches undertaken by SCAR-fish 2 and JPI Oceans. Finally, WG MSCG was informed that PCG had been consulted via email on seven questions about the experience with past support grants and preferences for future support actions. It had transpired that not everybody had received this email, so it was going to be circulated again to Member States for feedback by 18.11.2015.

The presentation can be accessed on CIRCABC.

4.4 Information from Regional Sea Convention and Member State activities

Several Member States and the RSC’s updated the WG MSCG on the activities undertaken at the regional level.

- Spain, France and Portugal have held a trilateral meeting on 22-23.09.2015 with the aim of discussing the common view of the implementation of the MSFD in the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast as well as Macaronesia. For the first cycle of the implementation of the MSFD: monitoring and PoMs were discussed and the following joint issues to address were identified: MPAs monitoring is an area to tackle in a coordinated manner (possibly agreeing on a common monitoring in these MPAs). Marine litter and noise joint monitoring is also being considered. Regarding the PoMs – the countries are at different phases in the process with Portugal having finished , France having almost finished, while Spain in the process of drafting the PoMs. For the second implementation cycle: the three Member States discussed methodological solutions for the risk assessment and agreed on taking on board the risk based approach. But criteria to identify risks are necessary at the sub-regional level (considering common risk criteria for the Bay of Biscay and Iberian coast and Macaronesia). Regarding the GES determination and targets at the sub-regional level; the agreement is that Portugal will prepare a roadmap of how to address these issues at the sub-regional level. Finally, Portugal and Spain will continue efforts to include all the Macaronesia areas under OSPAR.

- France, Italy and Spain have held a trilateral meeting on 22.10.2015 discussing MSFD implementation in the Western Mediterranean sub-region. Common actions for monitoring and PoMs were agreed: (1) action needed on recreational fisheries and guidance at EU level would be very useful; (2) there is the need for coordination of reporting with the WFD. Also, it was recognised that there is an opportunity in the WFD review to re-enforce the link with the MSFD especially in the case of marine litter; (3) Maritime Spatial Planning implementation guidance in relation with the MSFD is needed. It was clarified that more detailed conclusions will be submitted to the Commission.

1 http://mcc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects.py

2 SCAR-Fish is the fishing part of the Standing Committee on Agriculture Research (SCAR)

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit 4

MSCG_18-2016-02

- Romania informed the MSCG about the Bulgarian-Romanian cooperation efforts through the Commission project; with an outcome of 18 common measures between the two Member States and a roof report.

- HELCOM informed the MSCG about its activities focusing on the preparation of HOLAS assessment which includes a comparison of the status with the initial assessment. In addition there is a roof report for the MSFD for the Baltic Sea, with the first version planned to be ready in January 2017, and updated in early 2018. This includes work on the spatial distribution of pressures (pressure-impact indices) and proposed Commission Decision review proposals; an assessment of the status of environment based on indicators (including ICES indicators) with a workshop on assessment for biodiversity which has already taken place; the assessment of social and economic impact; and identification of ecosystems services. There has also been cooperation between HELCOM and OSPAR – with the two RSC’s having looked at their indicators to see similarities and differences (all indicators which are intended to be used for 2018 are covered). Opportunities to join forces have been identified – for example HELCOM will look into the OSPAR protocols for the hazardous substances. For some indicators, comparability is expected but for some others not.

- OSPAR informed the MSCG about its activities focusing on the production of the roof report on measures by spring 2016. Regarding the intermediate assessment in 2017 – timescales are challenging; but a structure has been agreed. A 2-page assessment sheet per descriptor and a longer paper will be produced. OSPAR is also developing an online tool to use the data in the sheets. Finally, coordination with other regional sea bodies is taking place: ICES, HELCOM and OSPAR are cooperating on mapping of data; OSPAR and HELCOM are also coordinating on noise, while efforts are being made to coordinate with UNEP/MAP and HELCOM on marine litter.

- Member States also informed that there have been UNEP/MAP efforts including; a technical meeting in Rome where EcAP adopted IMAP; and the next meeting of the contracting parties being planned in February 2016.

5 COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

5.1 A) Points for adoption (in accordance with Article 6 RoP)

5.1.1 Reporting on Programmes of Measures (Art. 13) and on exceptions (Art. 14)

The Commission presented the guidance document on the reporting of the Programme of Measures and exceptions developed in WG DIKE. The document was reviewed following the test phase of the web reporting tool that took place over the summer and the feedback from the Member States. One Member State suggested that some flexibility should be possible in order to report existing measures. Before adopting the document, the Member States asked that the following changes are made:

- The term “non-binding” was introduced on page 5 of the document, below the box on Article 13, in the sentence “This document provides non-binding guidance on reporting on MSFD PoMs and on exceptions”.

- Page 18, the sentence “This detail should cover, as far as possible, the same type of information made available for the WFD measures and the new MSFD measures, particularly a short description of the measure and the relational information on pressures, characteristics, descriptors, environmental targets and KTMs” has been shortened and becomes “This detail should cover, as

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit 5

MSCG_18-2016-02

far as possible, a short description of the measure and the relational information on pressures, characteristics, descriptors, environmental targets and KTMs” in order to better highlight the difference between what needs to be reported for existing measures and for new measures.

In addition, the Commission specified that, as with other reporting exercises, the fulfilment of Member States’ legal obligation to report under the MSFD is not dependent on the format in which they report. However, the use of the reporting tool helps with ensuring consistency in the assessment and is therefore strongly encouraged.

With these changes enacted, the document was officially adopted by the MSCG.

5.1.2 Outline structure for Art. 8 indicator reports

Participants provided comments on the document “Indicator structure and common elements for information flow” prepared by the European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastal and Marine waters.

Member States from the Mediterranean region noted that UNEP/MAP has recently approved the Draft Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the Mediterranean Sea and Coast and Related Assessment Criteria (IMAP). They asked that IMAP is referenced in the document on indicators, in particular in Table 1 (currently indicated “Not known”).

A number of specific comments were made:

- One Member State expressed concern about the potential lack of streamlining of the different data flows (national, RSC, EEA). They also expressed concerns about responsibilities for assessing GES at regional level.

- One Member State asked for a reporting field to be added for “assessment values / GES boundaries”.

- A few Member States questioned what the legal status of the document is and what part of the MSFD it facilitates. They remarked that their intention was to use the RSCs data flows and hope that this can then be transferred to the EEA system.

- A few Member States noted that the document should have been discussed in WG GES rather than in WG DIKE.

OSPAR and HELCOM both confirmed that their data structures are compatible with EU structures and that there should not be any issue of double-reporting for contracting parties who are EU Member States.

The EEA confirmed that it will revise the document to integrate the reference to IMAP and encouraged Black Sea Member States to communicate any relevant information on the topic that could be included in the document.

In response to a concern raised by Bulgaria, while acknowledging different dynamics operating across the regions, the Commission trusts that this document will help the two Member States in the region in their assessment and reassured that it will continue supporting the implementation of MSFD within the region.

Member States are invited to provide comments on the document by the end of November.

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit 6

MSCG_18-2016-02

5.2 B) Other points for discussion

5.2.1 GES review

The Commission presented the overall progress made on the revision of the Commission Decision. The current product reflects on the technical work done by ICES and the JRC in the technical review phase and the comments received from the Member States and stakeholders over the summer. The Commission started by presenting a number of general principles of the review:

- Criteria and indicators will be combined for simplification but without losing details;- The inclusion of RSC standards in the Decision needs to be carefully drafted to be legally valid;- The general structure of the Decision will change to reflect the principles of the cross-cutting paper,

the needs of the Article 8 assessment, the different descriptors and the categories of Annex 3.

The general presentation can be accessed on CIRCABC.

The Commission then presented the detailed progress made on two descriptors, D8 and D9. One of the issues to deal with, and for which the Commission is asking advice from the Member States, is the selection of contaminants and matrices to be used, based on EU and RSC standards.

A number of Member States welcomed the strong links made with RSC standards and approaches in the revision process. Some also welcomed the risk-based approach promoted. A Member State however noted that this may lead to a lower level of protection of the marine environment. A number of specific comments were made:

- One Member State enquired whether the proposed list of species for D9 would need to be prepared at regional level. It mentioned that this could be problematic as seafood contamination monitoring for health purposes is based on national consumption trends, which may not be compatible with regional trends.

- One Member State questioned whether the MSFD implementation process is mature enough to use an approach tying state, impacts and pressures, as seems to be proposed in the revised Decision.

- One Member State expressed concern regarding the timing of the revision process considering that national and regional procedures for the next reporting cycle in 2018 are planned to start already from the end of next year.

The Commission welcomed these preliminary remarks. Member States are invited to provide detailed comments on the presentations by 23 November.

The presentation on Descriptors 8 and 9 can be accessed on CIRCABC.

5.2.2 Common Understanding document, ‘cross-cutting issues’ paper and technical guidance

Most Member States recognised that some of the principles set out in the cross-cutting issues paper were helpful. Some Member States however do not fully support some of the principles set out therein and preferred that it is used as a background reference document. Therefore, they expressed their reluctance to have it formally endorsed as it would entail a detailed commenting and discussion process among Member States. Both Member States and Commission agreed that the paper will not be further revised

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit 7

MSCG_18-2016-02

before the work on a revised GES Decision text is complete. Some Member States clarified that the document could not be understood as reflecting the general position of the Member States.

Germany on behalf of the Drafting Group on GES presented a proposal for a way forward with the Common Understanding document and the associated work. The approach proposed is to keep the 2011 Common Understanding document as it is currently and to complement it with a document providing recommendations for the implementation of Articles 8-9-10 as well as a technical guidance document for Article 8 assessments. The links between the Common Understanding document and the ‘cross-cutting issues’ paper developed by the Commission need to be further clarified.

It is proposed that the technical guidance document will be developed by the drafting group with help from the support contract of the Commission. Major input will be given through a WG GES workshop to be held towards the end of March / beginning of April. WG GES will oversee the work. A first proposal will be presented at the next MSCG meeting in May 2016. It was clarified that neither the work on the update of the Common Understanding process nor the technical guidance can be finalised before a first proposal of the revised Commission Decision and Annex III is presented. The aim is to have to the technical guidance endorsed by the MSCG in November 2016.

The MSCG welcomed the proposals by the drafting group GES and agreed on the way forward.

The presentation on the Common Understanding process can be accessed on CIRCABC.

5.2.3 Article 15 requests: updated list

This agenda point was not discussed.

5.3 C) Work programme 2016-2018

5.3.1 Follow-up to WG input and main ideas

The Commission briefly presented the key elements of the new CIS Work Programme.

- The Commission wants to focus on the main issues and to be more efficient.- It wants to identify more clearly what each Working Group (WG)’s responsibilities and main areas

of work are. - It aims to improve communication between the different working groups and increasing joint work

in smaller groups. - The work currently done in the technical groups feed into WGs rather than directly to MSCG. - It aims to improve coherence and synergies with other legal frameworks, including through

alignment with the CIS WP for the WFD implementation.- It aims to better align with the work carried out in the RSCs working groups and with the RSCs’ own

work programme in order to avoid doing the same work in different fora.

The Member States and RSCs have been invited to send their comments in writing. The proposed WP will be discussed at the next Marine Directors meeting end of November but will not be formally approved yet.

The presentation on the Work Programme can be accessed on CIRCABC.

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit 8

MSCG_18-2016-02

5.4 D) Other points for informationThis agenda item was not discussed, but a document was made available to MSCG.

6 RELATIONS TO OTHER DIRECTIVES / POLICIES

6.1 Update on Ocean governanceDG MARE presented a number of key messages regarding Ocean governance and its relevance for the MSFD. After recalling a number of facts and figures about the economic and social importance of oceans, a brief overview of the main international and EU legislative mechanisms related to ocean governance was given. A number of key questions frame the current discussions around Ocean governance at EU level:

- How can the various EU legislative frameworks and processes related to oceans and the blue economy (MSFD, MSP, CFP) help improve ocean governance on an international level?

- How can we reconcile the EU’s major role in the global marine economy with the need to ensure the sustainable use of marine resources in the long-run?

o Can we improve the linkages between economic organisations (e.g. fisheries organisations) and environmental organisations (e.g. the RSCs)?

o Can there be more coherence in the decision-making process?o Can we improve standards for the use of international marine resources?

A few Member States remarked that there is a need to streamline the various processes on ocean-related issues at the international stage and to move towards integrated ecosystem-based instruments rather than single issue-instruments.

DG MARE recalled that a public consultation took place on ocean governance over the summer. Although the consultation is closed, DG MARE would still welcome contributions from MSFD colleagues. In terms of timeline, the Commission foresees to come-up with concrete ideas by the end of the first quarter of 2016.

7 INFORMATION ON RELEVANT COMMISSION ACTIVITIES

This agenda point was not discussed, but documents were made available to MSCG.

8 ANY OTHER BUSINESSThe Commission asked participants to send them any remarks they have regarding the 1-day format of the meeting and any suggestions for improvements.

9 CLOSURE OF THE MEETINGThe chair thanked all participants for their presence and contributions and closed the meeting.

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit 9

MSCG_18-2016-02

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit 11

MSCG_18-2016-02

ANNEX 1 – LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Organisation / Ministry Last name First name Member States AT Austria BE Belgium Belgian Federal Public Service - Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment Van Gaever Saskia BG Bulgaria Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water Balusheva GalinaHR Croatia Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Construction Skevin Ivosevic Barbara CY Cyprus Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment Michaelides Savvas CZ Czech Republic DK Denmark The Danish Nature Agency Olgaard Lisbet

The Danish Nature Agency Mandoe Andreasen DitteEE Estonia Ministry of Environment of Estonia Villmann Agnes FI Finland Ministry of Environment of Finland Laamanen MariaFR France Ministère de l'écologie, du développement durable et de l'énergie Schultz Ludovic Ministère de l'écologie, du développement durable et de l'énergie Terrier Isabelle Ministère de l'écologie, du développement durable et de l'énergie Quemener Jean -Marie

DE Germany Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit Narberhaus IngoEL Greece Special Secretary for the Water of the Hellenic Ministry of Reconstruction of Production, Environment and Energy Ganoulis IakovosHU Hungary IE Ireland Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG) Cronin Richard

Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG) O’Donavan PhilipIT Italy Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea Protection Montanaro Oliviero

Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea Protection Bonella GiuliaMinistry of Environment, Land and Sea Protection Maggiore Anna Maria

LV Latvia Ministry of the Environmental Protection and Regional Development Zasa BaibaLT Lithuania Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania Lukoseviciene Agnes

LUX Luxemburg Administration de la Gestion de l'Eau du Grand Duché de Luxembourg Lickes Jean-PaulAdministration de la Gestion de l'Eau du Grand Duché de Luxembourg Margue Helene

MT MaltaNL The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, DG for Spatial Issues and Water van Urk Wim

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, RWS Centre for Water Management van der Graaf Sandra

PL Poland National Water Management Authority, Planning and Water Resources Department Dembowska AdrianaPT Portugal Direcção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços Marítimos (DGRM) Simão Ana PaulaRO Romania Ministry of Environment and Climate Changes Mihail Otilia

Permanent Representation of Romania Cotucaru Fuluia

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit 12

MSCG_18-2016-02

SK Slovak Republic SI Slovenia Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia Peterlin Monika Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning Breznik Barbara

ES Spain Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment Arrieta Algarra SagrarioSE Sweden Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) Pettersson KarinUK United Kingdom DEFRA Pattison Dominic

DEFRA Moxon RichardNon-EU Member States (Observers) NO NorwayTR Turkey Regional Sea Conventions RSC Black Sea Commission Secretariat RSC Helsinki Commission Secretariat Stankiewicz Monika RSC OSPAR Commission Secretariat Campbell Darius RSC Barcelona Convention (UNEP/MAP) Secretariat Stakeholders & International organisations STH BirdLife International Campos Bruna STH BirdLife Europe STH Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB) STH Coastal and Marine Union (EUCC) INT ORG Common Wadden Sea Secretariat STH Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR) STH Eureau STH Eurelectric STH European Boating Industry STH European Bureau for Conservation and Development (EBCD) STH European Council for Maritime Applied R&D (ECMAR) STH European Marine Board (ESF) STH European Mollusc Producers Association (EMPA) Ducloy Perrine STH Europêche STH Europêche - Scottish Fishermen's Federation The Fisheries Secretariat (FISH) INT ORG General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)

Inshore & Environmental Policy CoordinatorScottish White Fish Producers Association Limited

STH International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP) Vanheule Bernard STH International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) STH Marine Strategy Navigation Group (NAVI) representative (Central Dredging Association - CEDA)

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit 13

MSCG_18-2016-02

STH Marine Strategy Navigation Group (NAVI) representative (International Council of Marine Industry Associations - ICOMIA) Willemsen Albert

STH Marine Strategy Navigation Group (NAVI) representative (International Navigation Association - PIANC) Brooke Jan STH Mediterranean Information Office for Environment, Culture and Sustainable Development (MIO-ECSDE) STH Mediterranean Protected Area Network (MedPAN) STH Oceana STH Oceancare INT ORG Regional Advisory Council, North Sea (NS RAC) -VisNed STH Seas At Risk STH Worldwide Fund for Nature (UK) STH Worldwide Fund for Nature (Germany) EU Commission / European Environment Agency / Consultants EEA European Environment Agency Christensen Trine Consultant Milieu Ltd Barsoumian Sarine Belin Alice ENV.C.2 European Commission, DG Environment, Unit C.2 "Marine Environment and Water Industry" Malgaj Matjaz Cheilari Anna Connor David Pirotta Fabio Karasszon Anna Hoermandinger Guenter Leroy Clémentine Martin-Roumegas Lydia European Commission, Joint research Centre Somma Francesca

Hanke Georg

DG Environment, Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit 14

ANNEX 2 – DOCUMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS

Documents MSCG_17-2015-05Dc_ESA-13_conclusions.ppt

 Invitation Link to DIKE_12-2015-16_DraftMinutes.doc MSCG_17-2015-01_draft_Agenda_Rev1.doc MSCG_17-2015-02_Minutes draft final_06072015.docx MSCG_17-2015-03_MSFD_Art13-14ReportingGuidance MSCG_17-2015-03rev_MSFD_Art13-14ReportingGuidance-AMENDED DURING MEETING.doc MSCG_17-2015-04_CommonStructureForIndicator-basedAssessments MSCG_17-2015-05_CommonUnderstandingArt8-9-10follow-up MSCG_17-2015-06_GESCross-cuttingIssues_v5.doc MSCG_17-2015-07_Proposal_for_assessment_guidance MSCG_17-2015-08_CIS WP orientations.doc MSCG_17-2015-09_TGs_rev1.doc MSCG_17-2015-10_Relevant_Commission_Activities.doc MSCG_17-2015-11_Draft_Guidance_Aquaculture.doc MSCG_17-2015-12_Update Art 15 requests.docx MSCG_17-2015-13_Support project_Coordinated monitoring in European sea regions.docx MSCG_17-2015-13_Support projects

Presentations ESA_13_2015_ Pres9_conclusion_action_points.ppt MSCG-17-2015-05Ba_Review GES examples_D8.ppt MSCG_17-2015-03 Presentation WMD meeting - Joint WMN meeting in Luxembourg.pptx MSCG_17-2015-04a_MSFD transposition state of play-final.ppt MSCG_17-2015-04b_Art11Assessment_28102015.pptx MSCG_17-2015-04b_Follow-up Art12 art11 MS consultation.pptx MSCG_17-2015-04c_Information support projects.ppt MSCG_17-2015-05Ba_GESDecisionOverview.ppt MSCG_17-2015-05Dc_ESA-13_conclusions.ppt MSCG_17-2015-07_Taking_forward_CUrevision_and_assessmentguidance.ppt MSCG_17-2015-08_CISWorkProgramme.ppt MSFD_17-2015-05Ba_GESreviewCriteriaList-Framework.xls

ANNEX 3 – ACTION LIST

15

Agenda Item

Action Who By when

4

COM will update the table of responses of MS on the Articles 8-9-10 recommendations and the state of play of the Articles 8-9-10-11 reporting.

COM ASAP

4COM will circulate information on the SEA Directive and its applicability on the MSFD PoMs.

COM ASAP

4MSCG invited to submit answers to PCG questionnaire (seven questions which are being re-circulated).

MSCG members 18/11

4MSCG are invited to provide comments on the document “Indicator structure and common elements for information flow”

MSCG membersEnd of

November

5MS are invited to provide comments on presentation on revision of GES Decision

MSCG members 23/11

6MS are invited to take part to the public consultation on Ocean Governance

MSCG members ASAP

7

MSCG to send comments on background document on the preliminary ideas for the CIS Work Programme, also to be discussed at Marine Directors’ meeting

MSCG membersASAP

(week of 16 November)

16