EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 16.1.2017 SWD(2017) 1 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

assessing Member States' monitoring programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

{COM(2017) 3 final}



Contents PART I - SUMMARY FINDINGS AND GUIDANCE PER MEMBER STATE ON MONITORING PROGRAMMES, REPORTED UNDER ARTICLE 11(3) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC 1. Belgium 2. Bulgaria 3. Denmark 4. Germany 20 5. Estonia 25 6. Ireland 29 7. Spain 34 8. France 38 9. Croatia 42 10. Italy 46 11. Cyprus 50 12. Latvia 55 13. Lithuania 60 14. Netherlands 64 15. Portugal 68 16. Romania 73

17. Slovenia 77 18. Finland 81 19. Sweden 85 20. United Kingdom 91 PART II – SUMMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PER MEMBER STATE ON THEIR INITIAL ASSESSMENT, GES DETERMINATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS, REPORTED UNDER ARTICLE 9(2) AND 10(2) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC 95 1. Bulgaria 96 2. Croatia 98 3. Malta 101 4. Portugal (Azores and Madeira) 106 5. United Kingdom (Gibraltar) 109 Common Fisheries Policy Regulation CFP Data Collection Framework DCF Good Environmental Status GES Marine Strategy Framework Directive MSFD Non-indigenous Species NIS Water Framework Directive WFD





PART I - SUMMARY FINDINGS AND GUIDANCE PER MEMBER STATE ON MONITORING PROGRAMMES, REPORTED UNDER ARTICLE 11(3) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC This Annex accompanying the Commission report on "Assessment of Member States' monitoring programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive" gives a summary per Member State of the Commission's findings. These summaries result from technical Member State-specific assessments , which analyse Member States' reporting of their monitoring programmes per descriptor , under Article 11(3) of Directive 2008/56/EC. It describes the conclusions of these technical assessments, the achievement so far, the aspects where improvement is needed and it provides outcome per descriptor. It highlights Member State-specific guidance. Member States are expected to take these conclusions and guidance into account when establishing and implementing the next elements of their marine strategies, and when updating their monitoring programmes under Article 17 of the MSFD, while taking into account the ongoing review process of Decision 2010/447/EU and its eventual outcome. Methodology The adequacy of the MSFD monitoring programmes has been assessed by considering whether the programmes and related sub-programmes of Member States are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) and environmental targets, as defined by each Member State. The outcome of the assessment is therefore partly dependent on the ambition level of the Member State's determination of GES and targets. The overall conclusion and guidance per Member State given at the beginning of each Member State's section is however based on an assessment of their monitoring programme with regard to coverage of progress towards GES achievement only, referring to the main objective of the MSFD. For each descriptor, the Commission assessed the monitoring programmes, in particular their purpose, spatial scope, implementation timeline, and regional coherence, and concluded overall on whether they constitute an appropriate framework to meet the requirements of the MSFD. Full coverage of monitoring needs for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) in this document should not be understood as prejudging compliance with the Data Collection Framework Regulation obligations. Coverage of monitoring needs for commercial fish and shellfish is to be understood solely for the purposes of monitoring progress towards good environmental status and targets defined by Member States as part of their marine strategies, under the MSFD. The following Member States are included under Part I of this Annex: Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The cut-off date for Member States' reporting to be assessed in this report was September 2015. The United Kingdom's report and guidance does not include waters surrounding the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar . Malta and Greece are not included in this part of the Annex as their reporting to the Commission under Article 11(3) of the MSFD did not meet the deadline of 15 October 2014 and came too late to be part of this exercise . Poland was not part of this exercise either, as it had not previously reported on its environmental targets under Article 10 of the MSFD and therefore the Commission had not assessed Poland in the previous assessment exercise (the results of which were used as the basis for this assessment exercise).

1. Belgium Overall Conclusion Overall, the monitoring programme of Belgium constitutes a partially appropriate framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). Belgium reports that its monitoring programme will mostly be in place to measure progress towards GES by 2014, but with some aspects (marine litter (Descriptor 10), energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11), mammals, seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6)) only covered as of 2018. Three out of thirteen descriptor categories are sufficiently addressed in the reported monitoring programmes. These are contaminants (Descriptor 8), contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) and marine litter (Descriptor 10). Belgium has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for the following descriptors: eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7). Plans to address monitoring gaps for the remaining descriptors (birds, mammals, fish and cephalopods, water column, seabed (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11)) are therefore still missing. Main Guidance Belgium should: (a)Ensure that the monitoring programme constitutes an appropriate framework that enables full coverage of the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards GES; (b)Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation by 15 July 2014; (c)Identify plans to address monitoring gaps where this has not been done and implement those plans. Belgium reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October 2014. In total, Belgium’s Article 11 reporting includes 30 sub-programmes covering all descriptors, apart from water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4). Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment The adequacy of the Belgian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards achieving good environmental status (GES) and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Belgium in 2013.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: -the results of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; -the Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; -whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps. Descriptor Technical assessment Timeline reported Member State plans/ justifications GES targets GES targets D1, 4 Birds 2014 2014 No D1, 4 Mammals 2018 2018 No D1, 4 Fish 2014 2014 No D1, 4 Water column 2014 2014 Yes D1, 4, 6 Seabed 2018 2018 No D2 NIS 2014 2014 No D3 Commercial fish 2014 2014 No D5 Eutrophication 2014 2014 Yes D7 Hydro. changes 2014 2014 Yes D8 Contaminants 2014 2014* No D9 Seafood contaminants 2014 2014 No D10 Marine litter 2018 2018 No D11 Energy/Noise 2018 2018 No *2 out of 11 targets for contaminants (Descriptor 8) will be achieved by 2018 Full coverage No GES GES not defined Partial coverage No targets Targets not defined No coverage No monitoring No monitoring programme reported



Achievements so far -The technical assessment shows that Belgium has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its MSFD determination of GES and targets for contaminants (Descriptor 8), contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) and marine litter (Descriptor 10). -Regional consistency: The Belgian monitoring programme shows consistency with the standards and guidelines produced by OSPAR in some descriptors (e.g. contaminants (descriptor 8) and marine litter (Descriptor 10), bringing a regional dimension to the work done by the Member State for these descriptors. -Belgium has made relatively good use of existing monitoring programmes in the context of the MSFD. At the EU level, Belgium has reported the use of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation (CFP) monitoring programmes for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), Water Framework Directive (WFD) monitoring programmes for seabed habitats (Descriptor 1, 4), eutrophication (Descriptors 5) and (contaminants Descriptor 8). Monitoring of contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) is linked to the Regulation on contaminants in foodstuffs and to the Shellfish Directive . The existing monitoring undertaken for Birds and Habitats Directives have been used for the mammals (Descriptors 1, 4) monitoring, but not for birds (Descriptors 1, 4) monitoring. Aspects where improvement is needed -According to the technical assessment, the Belgian monitoring programme shows a number of weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets for the biodiversity descriptors (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), as well as commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and eutrophication (Descriptor 5); and descriptors considered less advanced in terms of knowledge and methodologies, i.e. non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), and hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). -Belgium has not established a monitoring programme for water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4). The Member State reports that currently the pelagic environment is not considered because progress on the monitoring of eutrophication is a prerequisite for the development of such a monitoring programme. This point needs to be further clarified. -No links with any Union legislation or international agreements are reported for non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). The non-indigenous species monitoring programme does not refer to potentially overlapping programmes undertaken under the WFD and OSPAR . No reference is made to the indicator ‘rate of new introductions of non-indigenous species (NIS)’ that is currently being developed in OSPAR.

-Belgium has not fully used existing monitoring structures it already has in place in the context of other frameworks, especially of the OSPAR Convention. Belgium has only made links to OSPAR in four descriptors (eutrophication (Descriptor 5), marine litter (Descriptor 10), mammals (Descriptors D1, 4)). Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment Belgium should: In general: (a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant Union legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive, the WFD and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensure that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. (b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR. (c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. In particular: On biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): (d)develop and implement a monitoring programme for water column habitats as soon as possible. (e)further strengthen the monitoring programme for all its biodiversity monitoring programmes to ensure more appropriate spatial scope and frequency. (f)monitor additional species, as the ones for mammals appear limited and the ones for fish do not appear to cover non-commercial species. On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): (g)further develop its monitoring programmes to cover all habitats or species groups comprehensively in the context of non-indigenous species.





On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3): (h)extend its monitoring programme to include all commercially-exploited species; (i)improve monitoring and assessment of non-DCF species, and species for which analytical stock assessments are not carried out, as per GES definition. On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): (j)expand its monitoring programme to cover additional elements and parameters, as per its GES definition. On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): (k)expand its monitoring programme, to cover changes resulting from existing activities, large scale effects, impacts or changes to habitats, as per its GES definition. On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): (l)expand its monitoring programme, and monitor continuous and impulsive noise, where appropriate, beyond the limited scope of one activity (offshore wind).



2. Bulgaria Overall Conclusion Overall, the monitoring programme of Bulgaria constitutes a mostly appropriate framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). Bulgaria reports that its monitoring programme will almost completely be in place by 2018 to measure progress towards its GES, except for seabed habitats (Descriptor 1, 4, 6), only covered as of 2020. Nine out of thirteen descriptor categories are sufficiently addressed in the reported monitoring programme. These are birds, mammals, water column habitats and seabed habitats (Descriptors1, 4 and 6), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8), contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) and marine litter (Descriptor 10). Bulgaria has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for all descriptor-categories. Bulgaria has not determined any GES and targets for energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). Main Guidance Bulgaria should: (a)Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation by 15 July 2014; (b)Ensure that the monitoring programme constitutes a fully appropriate framework that enables complete coverage of the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards GES; (c)Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps. Bulgaria reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in January 2015. Bulgaria’s Article 11 reporting includes 43 sub-programmes.

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment The adequacy of the Bulgarian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) and achievement of environmental targets, as modified by Bulgaria in 2015. The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: -The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; -The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; -Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps. Descriptor Technical assessment Timeline reported Member State plans/ justifications GES Targets GES Targets D1, 4 Birds 2018 2018 Yes D1, 4 Mammals 2018 2018 Yes D1, 4 Fish 2018 2018 Yes D1, 4 Water column 2018 2018 Yes D1, 4, 6 Seabed 2020 2020 Yes D2 NIS 2018 2018 Yes D3 Commercial fish 2018 2014 Yes D5 Eutrophication 2018 2018 Yes D7 Hydro. changes 2018 2018 Yes D8 Contaminants 2018 2018 Yes D9 Seafood cont. 2018 2018 Yes D10 Marine litter 2018 2018 Yes D11 Energy/Noise No GES No targets 2018 2018 Yes Full coverage No GES GES not defined Partial coverage No targets Targets not defined No coverage No monitoring No monitoring programme reported Achievements so far -The technical assessment shows that Bulgaria has developed its monitoring programmes and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES definitions and targets for biodiversity (birds, mammals, water column and seabed habitats) (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), contaminants (Descriptor 9) and marine litter (Descriptor 10); and with its GES determination for eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7). -Bulgaria makes linkages to relevant regional and Union processes, in particular the Black Sea Commission and the Common Implementation Strategy working groups and technical subgroup, to ensure coordination at regional and Union level for the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes. -Bulgaria reports extensive bilateral cooperation with Romania in the coordinated development of its monitoring programmes, an aspect that has contributed to regional coherence in the context of the MSFD implementation. -Even though GES and targets have not yet been defined for energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11), Bulgaria reports a monitoring programme for this descriptor, which is positive. Aspects where improvement is needed -According to the technical assessment, the Bulgarian monitoring programmes and sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage of GES and targets. The main weaknesses are identified in the section below. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors except birds, mammals, water column and seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) and marine litter (Descriptor 10).

-Regarding the implementation timeline, monitoring programmes are in most cases planned to start in 2015-2016 and will in most cases only be fully in place by 2018. Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment Bulgaria should: In general: (a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant EU legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive , the Birds Directive , the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. (b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by the Black Sea Commission, in cooperation with Romania. (c)enhance, in cooperation with Romania, comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level, where such practices have been agreed and are being implemented. In particular: On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): (d)building upon point (a), adapt existing monitoring (e.g. under WFD or Habitats and Birds Directives) to meet the objectives of the MSFD of achieving GES; (e)develop more transboundary approaches and cooperation for monitoring, particularly for mobile species, which frequently move between Member States’ waters. (f)further develop the monitoring of fish biodiversity to include non-commercial fish species, as well as rare or endangered species, as per GES definition. On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): (g)develop methodologies on how non-indigenous species data will be analysed from the fish programme (as reported), developing monitoring of effects and impacts of non-indigenous species on environment, as planned;

(h)develop monitoring of mammals in the context of non-indigenous species, if relevant, as per GES definition. On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3): (i)extend monitoring in order to cover important black sea stock species; (j)develop its monitoring sub-programmes to ensure the monitoring of Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) or stock demographic data (e.g. length, age). On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): (k)further develop its monitoring sub-programmes to ensure appropriate monitoring frequency of certain elements and parameters. On contaminants (Descriptor 8): (l)further develop its monitoring sub-programmes to ensure the monitoring of biological effects, as per GES definition. On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): (m) develop GES and targets; (n)further refine its monitoring programme and ensure that it starts monitoring as soon as possible.

3. Denmark Overall Conclusion Overall, the monitoring programme of Denmark constitutes a partially appropriate framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). Denmark reports that its monitoring programme was mostly in place to measure progress towards GES by 2014, but with non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) and some aspects such as water column and seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants (Descriptor 8), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) only covered as of 2018. Two out of thirteen descriptor categories are sufficiently addressed in the reported monitoring programmes. These are contaminants (Descriptor 8) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). Denmark has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for the following descriptors: birds, mammals, seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). Plans to address monitoring gaps for the remaining descriptors (fish and cephalopods, water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and marine litter (Descriptor 10)) are therefore still missing. Denmark has not established targets for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7). Main Guidance Denmark should: (a)Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation by 15 July 2014; (b)Ensure that the monitoring programme constitutes an appropriate framework that enables full coverage of the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards GES; (c)Identify plans to address monitoring gaps where this has not been done and implement those plans. Denmark reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October 2014. The Danish Article 11 reporting consists of 54 monitoring sub-programmes for the Baltic Sea marine region and 62 monitoring sub-programmes for the Greater North Sea sub-region. The sub-programmes in both (sub)regions are similar and often have the same titles. The monitoring programmes in place addresses all descriptors in both (sub) regions.





Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment The adequacy of the Danish MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Denmark in 2013. The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: -the conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; -the Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; -whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps present as of 2014.



Descriptor Technical assessment Timeline reported Member State plans/ justifications GES Targets GES Targets D1, 4 Birds 2014 2014 Yes D1, 4 Mammals 2014 2014 Yes D1, 4 Fish 2014 2014 No D1, 4 Water column 2014*, 2018** 2014*, 2018** No D1, 4, 6 Seabed 2014*, 2018** 2014*, 2018** Yes D2 NIS 2018 2018 Yes D3 Commercial fish 2014 2014 No D5 Eutrophication 2014*, 2018** 2018*, 2018** No D7 Hydro. changes No targets 2014 No targets No D8 Contaminants 2014*, 2018** 2014*, 2018** No D9 Seafood cont. 2014 2014 No D10 Marine litter 2018 2018 No D11 Energy/Noise 2018 2018 Yes *Baltic, ** North East Atlantic region Full coverage No GES GES not defined Partial coverage No targets Targets not defined No coverage No monitoring No monitoring programme reported Achievements so far -The technical assessment shows that Denmark has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner in relation to its GES definitions and targets for contaminants (Descriptor 8) and contaminants in seafoood (Descriptor 9). -Denmark has reported on the use of existing monitoring programmes in the context of the MSFD. Denmark has referred to relevant monitoring done as part of various EU Directives such as the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation (CFP), Water Framework Directive (WFD), Habitats Directive , Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and others. The Danish monitoring programme is however based mostly on the national monitoring of the aquatic environment (NOVANA) Nature Agency's catchment models and marine models and the Danish surveillance under the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (in the case of commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) mostly). -Denmark reports on its coordination at regional and Union level for the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes. Firstly, Denmark’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes are linked to monitoring activities carried out by both HELCOM and OSPAR . The Member State often refers to elements from both Regional Sea Conventions being applied to its monitoring programmes in both regions at the same time, thus cross-referencing information throughout its descriptor-specific programmes. The Member State also links to other regional processes such as the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation. Secondly, Denmark’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes also contain links to relevant Union processes, in particular the Common Implementation Strategy working groups and technical groups for the MSFD. Aspects where improvement is needed

-According to the technical assessment, the Danish monitoring programmes and sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage in relation to the data needed for the assessment of progress towards GES and targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors except contaminants (Descriptor 8) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). For several of these, fish, water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4), commercial fish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and marine litter (Descriptor 10) there is a lack of plans provided for one or both subregions on how these weaknesses will be addressed. -In particular in relation to energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11), the technical assessment shows that the Danish targets are not yet adequately covered by the current monitoring programmes and sub-programmes. Denmark acknowledges that more work is needed on their energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) programmes. Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment Denmark should: In general: (a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant EU legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive , the WFD and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored; (b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR and HELCOM; (c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region or subregion, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level; In particular: On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): (d)expand its monitoring programme for seabed habitats to habitats and associated species outside of areas under the remit of the Habitats Directive and WFD. (e)develop transboundary approaches and cooperation for monitoring, particularly for mobile species, which frequently move between Member States’ waters. Such cooperation may also help to reduce financial costs of monitoring. On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): (f)ensure that the NIS monitoring programme starts collecting data as soon as possible.

(g)monitor a greater number of hotspots and pathways of introduction. On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3): (h)improve monitoring and assessment of non-Data Collection Framework species, and species for which analytical stock assessments are not carried out. On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): (i)expand its monitoring programme to cover additional elements and parameters as per its GES definition (e.g. macroalgal colonisation depth along transects from shore). On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): (j)develop targets; (k)expand its monitoring programme to cover additional activities, where appropriate, as per GES definition. On marine litter (Descriptor 10): (l)expand its programmes to cover monitoring of micro-litter and, where necessary, impacts on marine biota, as per GES definition; On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): (m)develop a permanent monitoring programme for diffuse noise for both regions, based where appropriate on the results of the BIAS project . (n)set up a noise registry for impulsive sounds, in coordination with HELCOM and OSPAR, for both regions.

4. Germany Overall Conclusion Overall, the monitoring programme of Germany constitutes a partially appropriate framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). Germany reports that its monitoring programme will mostly be in place to measure progress towards GES by 2018, but with some aspects such as hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8) and marine litter (Descriptor 10) only covered as of 2020. None of the descriptor categories are sufficiently addressed in the reported monitoring programmes. Germany has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for all descriptors. Main Guidance Germany should: (a)Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation by 15 July 2014; (b)Ensure that the monitoring programme constitutes an appropriate framework that enables full coverage of the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards GES; (c)Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps.

Germany reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October-November 2014. The German Article 11 reporting consists of 28 monitoring sub-programmes for the Baltic Sea marine region and 31 monitoring sub-programmes for the North Sea sub-region. The monitoring programme in place addresses all descriptors in both the marine region and sub-region, apart from contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment The adequacy of the German MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Germany in 2012-2013. The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: -The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; -The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; -Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps. Descriptor Technical assessment Timeline reported Member State plans/ justifications GES Targets GES Targets D1, 4 Birds 2018 2018 Yes D1, 4 Mammals 2018 2018 Yes D1, 4 Fish 2018 2018 Yes D1, 4 Water column 2018 2018 Yes D1, 4, 6 Seabed 2018 2018 Yes D2 NIS 2018 2018 Yes D3 Commercial fish 2018 2018 Yes D5 Eutrophication 2018 2018 Yes D7 Hydro. changes 2020 2020 Yes D8 Contaminants 2020 2018 Yes D9 Seafood cont. No monitoring* No monitoring* 2014 2014 Yes D10 Marine litter 2020 2020 Yes D11 Energy/Noise No monitoring** No monitoring** 2018 2018 Yes * DE reports that existing food monitoring is used but that there is no separate MSFD monitoring for contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) and that the monitoring data was not yet available, at the time of reporting, for MSFD purposes. Nevertheless, Germany reported that monitoring on contaminants in seafood was adequate as of 2014 to cover GES and targets data needs. ** DE did not report a monitoring sub-programme for 'Energy including underwater noise' (Descriptor 11) but expects that monitoring will be in place by 2018. Full coverage No GES GES not defined Partial coverage No targets Targets not defined No coverage No monitoring No monitoring programme reported Achievements so far -The technical assessment shows that Germany has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its targets for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and eutrophication (Descriptor 5).

-Germany has reported on the use of existing monitoring programmes in the context of the MSFD. Germany has referred to relevant monitoring undertaken as part of various EU Directives such as the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation , Water Framework Directive (in the case of non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8), seabed and water column (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) monitoring), the Habitats Directive (birds, fish and seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), as well as hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) monitoring), the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (in the case of eutrophication (Descriptor 5) monitoring) and others. -Germany has identified existing coordination at regional and Union level for the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes. Firstly, Germany’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes are linked to monitoring activities carried out by both HELCOM and OSPAR . The Member State sometimes uses standards/guidelines from either Regional Sea Convention for both regions, thus ensuring consistency in their national approach. The Member State also links to other regional processes such as the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation. Secondly, Germany’s monitoring programmes and sub-programmes also contain links to relevant EU processes, in particular the Common Implementation Strategy working groups and technical subgroup. -Germany links its monitoring programmes to monitoring done under international conventions and agreements, such as the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention), the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD – in the case of birds monitoring) and the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS – in the case of mammals monitoring). -Germany systematically reports plans to address the gaps in its monitoring programmes. Aspects where improvement is needed -According to the technical assessment, the German monitoring programmes and sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage of GES and targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors. -While acknowledging that Germany has existing food monitoring for the purposes of other legislation, it has not reported these for MSFD purposes under contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). In addition, Germany has not reported monitoring for energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). As such it is unclear whether Germany is monitoring progress towards GES and targets for these descriptors. However, plans and justifications are provided. Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment Germany should: In general: (a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant Union legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive , the Water Framework Directive and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. (b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR and HELCOM. (c)continue to enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine (sub-)regions, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. In particular:

On biodiversity (particularly Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): (d)finalise and implement the ‘concept’ monitoring programmes that are confirmed by research and development projects . On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): (e)ensure that its monitoring programme covers fish, as per its GES definition. (f)strengthen its monitoring programmes to ensure that the assessment of changes in the ecosystem can be undertaken through the data collected. On commercial fish (Descriptor 3): (g)ensure that its monitoring programme covers shellfish, as per its GES definition. On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): (h)further develop its monitoring programme to address the gaps it has identified, e.g. in relation to the monitoring cyanobacteria blooms or of atmospheric nutrient deposition, in coordination with the work done in HELCOM and OSPAR. On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): (i)extend its monitoring programme to cover impacts on habitats, as per its GES definition. On contaminants (Descriptor 8): (j)strengthen its monitoring programme to monitor effects of contaminants on marine biota, as per its GES definition.

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): (k)report a monitoring programme for MSFD purposes. On marine litter (Descriptor 10): (l)further develop its programme to monitor micro-litter and beach litter. On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): (m) develop and establish a monitoring programme.



5. Estonia Overall Conclusion Overall, the monitoring programme of Estonia constitutes a partially appropriate framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress towards achievement of good environmental status (GES). Estonia reports that its monitoring programme was mostly in place to measure progress towards GES by 2014, but with some aspects only covered as of 2018, or even 2020 for contaminants (Descriptor 8). Seven out of thirteen descriptor categories are sufficiently addressed in the reported monitoring programmes. These are birds, mammals, fish and cephalopods, water column habitats and seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). Estonia has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address these, for all descriptors except eutrophication (Descriptor 5). Estonia has not determined GES for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). Main Guidance Estonia should: (a)Ensure immediate implementation of the monitoring programme pursuant to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation by 15 July 2014; (b)Ensure that the monitoring programme constitutes an appropriate framework that enables full coverage of the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards GES; (c)Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps. Estonia reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October 2014. Estonia's Article 11 reporting includes 38 sub-programmes covering all descriptors. Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment The adequacy of the Estonian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Estonia in 2012-2013. The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: -The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; -The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps. Descriptor Technical assessment Timeline reported Member State plans/ justifications GES Targets GES Targets D1, 4 Birds 2014 2018 Yes D1, 4 Mammals 2014 2018 Yes D1, 4 Fish 2014 2018 Yes D1, 4 Water column 2014 2014 Yes D1, 4, 6 Seabed 2018 2018 Yes D2 NIS 2014 2018 Yes D3 Commercial fish 2014 2018 Yes D5 Eutrophication 2014 2018 No D7 Hydro. changes No GES 2018 2018 Yes D8 Contaminants 2020 2018 Yes D9 Seafood cont. 2014 2014 Yes D10 Marine litter No GES 2018 2018 Yes D11 Energy/Noise No GES 2018 2018 Yes Full coverage No GES GES not defined Partial coverage No targets Targets not defined No coverage No monitoring No monitoring programme reported Achievements so far -The technical assessment shows that Estonia has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES determinations and environmental targets. The Estonian monitoring programme is considered sufficient to assess progress towards biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), eutrophication and contaminants in seafood GES and targets. -Although the Member State has not yet defined GES for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) it has nevertheless reported monitoring programmes, which is positive as it indicates that some monitoring for these descriptors is already taking place in view of a future GES definition. -Regional cooperation is systematically been referenced by the Member State, with HELCOM being linked to monitoring activities under almost all descriptors. The HELCOM Monitoring Manual is linked to all sub-programmes, apart from birds, fish and mammals, where Union Directives are referenced (Birds and Habitats, Common Fisheries Policy). -Estonia has provided plans for future work for a number of descriptors, even though it considers that its monitoring is, for the most part, already adequate to measure progress towards its GES and targets. This approach is in line with the principle of adaptive management. Aspects where improvement is needed -According to the technical assessment, the Estonian monitoring programme shows a number of weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets for non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). -Estonia reports limited amount of information on transboundary impacts, major environmental changes and emerging issues. To describe these, the Member State only refers to the HELCOM Monitoring Manual. Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

Estonia should: In general: (a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant Union legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive , the Birds, Directive , the Water Framework Directive and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. (b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by HELCOM. (c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. In particular: On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): (d)further develop its monitoring programme to monitor more hotspots and pathways of introduction, as per GES definition. On commercial fish (Descriptor 3): (e)further strengthen its monitoring programme by bringing in data from DCF in relation to additional relevant parameters, including fishing mortality for herring and sprat and length/age data for salmon and trout.. On contaminants (Descriptor 8): (f)further strengthen the monitoring programme by monitoring biological impacts, as per GES definition. On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7):

(g)develop GES. On marine litter (Descriptor 10): (h)develop GES; (i)strengthen its monitoring programme by monitoring, where necessary, seabed litter and impact on biota. On energy, including underwater noise underwater noise (Descriptor 11): (j)develop GES; (k)strengthen its monitoring programme by monitoring impulsive noise.



6. Ireland Overall Conclusion Overall, the monitoring programme of Ireland constitutes a partially appropriate framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). Ireland reports that its monitoring programme will mostly be in place by 2020 to measure progress towards GES, but with some aspects already in place in 2014. Two out of thirteen descriptor categories are sufficiently addressed in the reported monitoring programme. These are eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). Ireland has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for all descriptors. Ireland has not established targets for birds, mammals and water column (Descriptors 1, 4). Main Guidance Ireland should: (a)Ensure that the monitoring programme constitutes an appropriate framework that enables full coverage of the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards GES; (b)Ensure immediate implementation of the monitoring programme pursuant to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation by 15 July 2014; (c)Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps. Ireland reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in April 2015. The Irish Article 11 reporting consists of 70 sub-programmes covering all descriptors, apart from birds (Descriptors 1, 4), for which a sub-programme is not defined yet. It should also be noted that the reported sub-programme for non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), is not a monitoring programme as such, but rather a risk assessment study. Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment The adequacy of the Irish MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Ireland in 2013 and partially revised in 2015. The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; -The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; -Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps present as of 2014. Descriptor Technical assessment Timeline reported Member State plans/ justifications GES Targets GES Targets D1, 4 Birds No targets 2020 After Yes D1, 4 Mammals No targets 2020 After Yes D1, 4 Fish 2020 After 2020 Yes D1, 4 Water column No targets 2020 After 2020 Yes D1, 4, 6 Seabed 2018 After 2020 Yes D2 NIS 2020 2020 Yes D3 Commercial fish 2014 Target 1 : 2018 Target 2 : 2020 Yes D5 Eutrophication 2014 2014 Yes D7 Hydro. changes 2018 2018 Yes D8 Contaminants 2018 2018 Yes D9 Seafood cont. 2014 2014 Yes D10 Marine litter Water column: 2018 Litter in biota: 2020 2014 Yes D11 Energy/Noise 2020 2018 Yes Full coverage No GES GES not defined Partial coverage No targets Targets not defined No coverage No monitoring No monitoring programme reported Achievements so far -The technical assessment shows that Ireland has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES definitions and targets for eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9); and with its targets only for fish and cephalopods, seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). -Even though targets are not yet been defined by Ireland for mammals and water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4), the Member State reports monitoring programmes for these descriptors, which is positive. -Ireland reports on its cooperation in relevant regional and Union processes, in particular OSPAR and the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy working groups and technical subgroup, to ensure coordination at regional and Union level for the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes. -Ireland has clearly used existing monitoring programmes from other Union policies as part of its MSFD monitoring programme. The link to the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is prominent in its monitoring programmes on seabed and water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrological changes (Descriptor 7) and contaminants (Descriptor 8). The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) forms the basis of the monitoring programmes for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and fish and cephalopod (descriptors 1, 4 and 6). The Habitats Directive has been linked with the monitoring of cetaceans, seals and reptiles, seabed habitats, hydrographical changes and marine litter; while the eutrophication programme is based on existing monitoring programmes for the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the Nitrates Directive. Finally, while no sub-programmes have been reported for the monitoring of birds, the Member State has highlighted monitoring activities it undertakes within the framework of the Birds Directive. Aspects where improvement is needed -According to the technical assessment, the Irish monitoring programmes and sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage in relation to the data needed for the assessment of progress towards GES and targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors except eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). -In particular, in relation to birds (Descriptors 1, 4) non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) and hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), the technical assessment shows that the GES definition (and the targets for non-indigenous species) is not adequately covered by the current monitoring programmes and sub-programmes. In all cases, Ireland acknowledges that more work is needed on their monitoring programmes. -Even though Ireland reported a bird monitoring programme, it did not define sub-programmes for birds, therefore it is considered that monitoring of birds is not appropriate and as such monitoring to assess progress in achieving GES is currently not addressed under the MSFD. However, Ireland reports that the bird monitoring sub-programme is under development and would be in place by 2020.

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment Ireland should: In general: (a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant EU legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive , the Birds Directive , the Water Framework Directive and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. (b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR. (c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. In particular: On biodiversity (in particular for Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): (d)develop targets for birds, mammals and water column; (e)develop monitoring sub-programmes for birds as soon as possible; (f)further develop its mammals monitoring programme to ensure coverage of cetaceans; (g)further develop its fish biodiversity monitoring programme to ensure coverage of non-commercial species; (h)further develop its water column monitoring programme to ensure coverage of phytoplankton and zooplankton communities; (i)ensure that its monitoring programmes are adaptive in view of any future changes to an environmental target (i.e. birds, mammals and water column habitats).

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): (j)develop a monitoring programme to cover all relevant habitats or species groups using a risk-based approach, going beyond the risk assessment study currently in place. On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3): (k)extend monitoring programme to include all commercially-exploited species of fish and in particular of shellfish. On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): (l)develop and implement an MSFD-specific monitoring sub-programme. On contaminants (Descriptor 8): (m)expand its monitoring programme to measure adverse impacts on biota, as per its GES definition. On marine litter (Descriptor 10): (n)expand its monitoring programme to monitor litter and micro-litter, where necessary, in the water column and in biota, according to its GES definition. On energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11): (o) develop a sub-programme on the monitoring of continuous low-frequency sounds, according to its GES definition.



7. Spain

Overall Conclusion Overall, the monitoring programme of Spain constitutes a mostly appropriate framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). Spain reports that its monitoring programme will be fully in place by 2020 to measure progress towards GES, but with some aspects already addressed by 2014 (eutrophication (Descriptor 5), contaminants (Descriptor 8), contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) and marine litter (Descriptor 10)). Eleven out of thirteen descriptor categories are sufficiently addressed in the reported monitoring programme. The two descriptors not sufficiently addressed are marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). Spain has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for: birds, mammals, fish and cephalopods, seabed habitats, water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). A plan to address monitoring gaps for marine litter (Descriptor 10) is therefore still missing. Main Guidance Spain should: (a)Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation by 15 July 2014; (b)Ensure that the monitoring programme constitutes a fully appropriate framework that enables complete coverage of the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards GES; (b)Identify plans to address monitoring gaps where this has not been done and implement those plans. Spain reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) by March 2015. Spain has developed 273 sub-programmes covering all five Spanish sub-divisions (Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast North and South, Macaronesia, and Western Mediterranean Sea (Levantine Balearic Sea and Estrecho and Alboran)). Although they have reported a different set of sub-programmes for each sub-division, the content of the sub-programmes for the same descriptor is very similar from one sub-division to the next. Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment The adequacy of the Spanish MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Spain in 2012. The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: -The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State's monitoring programme and sub-programmes; -The Member State's own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; -Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps. Descriptor Technical assessment Timeline reported Member State plans/ justifications GES Targets GES Targets D1, 4 Birds 2020 2014 Yes D1, 4 Mammals 2020 2014 Yes D1, 4 Fish 2020 2014 Yes D1, 4 Water column 2020 2014 Yes D1, 4, 6 Seabed 2020 2014 Yes D2 NIS 2020 2014 Yes D3 Commercial fish 2020 2014 Yes D5 Eutrophication 2014 2014 No D7 Hydro. changes 2020 2014 Yes D8 Contaminants 2014 2014 No D9 Seafood cont. 2014 2014 No D10 Marine litter 2014 2014 No D11 Energy/Noise 2020 2014 Yes Full coverage No GES GES not defined Partial coverage No targets Targets not defined No coverage No monitoring No monitoring programme reported Achievements so far -The technical assessment shows that Spain has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES definitions and targets including commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8); with its GES definitions for biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9); and with its targets for marine litter (Descriptor 10). -Spain reports to be an active member of the relevant regional and Union processes, in particular OSPAR and the United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP) and the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy working groups and technical subgroup, to ensure coordination at regional and Union level for the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes.

-As part of its Article 11 reporting Spain has done a detailed inventory and a detailed analysis of existing monitoring programmes in place in the context of other international, European, regional and national obligations and commitments, to which its monitoring programmes link to extensively. -Spain reports that all sub-programmes have been designed based on the concept of adaptive management. Proposed indicators can be redesigned or re-adapted in the light of improved knowledge of developments in the regional coordination or simply based on the increase of information. Aspects where improvement is needed -According to the technical assessment, the Spanish monitoring programme shows a few weaknesses that affect the complete coverage of its GES and targets for the biodiversity descriptors (although relatively minor) and descriptors considered less advanced in terms of knowledge and methodologies, i.e. non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment Spain should: In general: (a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant EU legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive , the Birds, Directive , the Water Framework Directive and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD- specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. (b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR and UNEP/MAP. (c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. In particular: On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptor 1, 4 and 6): (d)further develop its biodiversity monitoring sub-programmes to address some of the minor weaknesses identified (e.g. coverage of relevant monitoring parameters such as mortality through bycatch and other human activities, as per GES definition). On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(e)ensure that its monitoring sub-programmes cover trends, as per GES definition. On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): (f)ensure that its monitoring sub-programmes use appropriate temporal frequency and spatial scope, as per targets definitions. On marine litter (Descriptor 10): (g)further develop its monitoring sub-programmes to ensure that, where necessary, impact on biota is monitored, as per GES definition.



8. France Overall Conclusion Overall, the monitoring programme of France constitutes a partially appropriate framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). France reports that its monitoring programme was almost completely in place to measure progress towards GES by 2014, except for non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), only covered as of 2020. Five out of thirteen descriptor categories are sufficiently addressed in the reported monitoring programmes. These are: commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), contaminants (Descriptor 8), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). France has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address these, for nearly all the biodiversity descriptors (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), with the exception of birds, marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). Plans to address monitoring gaps for birds (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) are therefore still missing. Main Guidance France should: (a)Ensure that the monitoring programme constitutes an appropriate framework that enables full coverage of the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards GES; (b)Identify plans to address monitoring gaps where this has not been done and implement those plans. France reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in July-August 2015. The French Article 11 reporting consists of 194 sub-programmes covering the four sub-regions (the Celtic Seas, the Greater North Sea, the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast, and the Western Mediterranean Sea). Although they have reported a different set of sub-programmes for each subdivision, the content of the sub-programmes for the same descriptor is very similar from one sub-region to the next. Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment The adequacy of the French MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by France in 2013. The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: -The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State's monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-The Member State's own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; -Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps. Descriptor Technical assessment Timeline reported Member State plans/ justifications GES Targets GES Targets D1, 4 Birds 2014 2014 No D1, 4 Mammals 2014 2014 Yes D1, 4 Fish 2014 2014 Yes D1, 4 Water column 2014 2014 Yes D1, 4, 6 Seabed 2014 2014 Yes D2 NIS 2020 2020 No D3 Commercial fish 2014 2014 No D5 Eutrophication 2014 2014 No D7 Hydro. changes 2014 2014 No D8 Contaminants 2014 2014 No D9 Seafood cont. 2014 2014 No D10 Marine litter 2014 2014 Yes D11 Energy/Noise 2014 2014 Yes Full coverage No GES GES not defined Partial coverage No targets Targets not defined No coverage No monitoring No monitoring programme reported



Achievements so far -The technical assessment shows that France has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES definitions and targets for marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11), with its GES determination for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants (Descriptor 8), and with its targets only, for contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). -France reports to be an active member of the relevant regional and Union processes, in particular OSPAR and the United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP) and the EU Common Implementation Strategy working groups and technical subgroup, to ensure coordination at regional and Union level for the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes. Aspects where improvement is needed -According to the technical assessment, the French monitoring programmes and sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage of GES and targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors except marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). -In particular, in relation to non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), the technical assessment shows that the French GES definition and targets are not covered by the current monitoring programmes and sub-programmes. France acknowledges that more work is needed on their non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2). -France has not reported on the links between its monitoring programmes and the monitoring undertaken for the Habitats and Birds Directive. In addition, for a number of descriptors, France has not systematically reported on the links between its monitoring and work carried out under relevant Union processes, in particular eutrophication (Descriptor 5) (Urban Water Waste Treatment Directive or Nitrates Directive), and contaminants (Descriptor 8) (Environmental Quality Standards Directive). Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment France should:

In general: (a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant EU legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive , the Birds, Directive , the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. (b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR and United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP). (c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. In particular: On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): (d)building upon point (a), adapt existing monitoring (e.g. under WFD or Habitats and Birds Directive) to meet the objectives of the MSFD of achieving GES; (e)develop more transboundary approaches and cooperation for monitoring, particularly for mobile species, which frequently move between Member States’ waters. (f)further develop the monitoring of fish biodiversity to include non-commercial fish species. On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): (g)develop monitoring of effects and impacts of non-indigenous species on environment, as planned; (h)develop a programme that generates information on the risk of introduction of non-indigenous species, as per the targets. On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3): (i)consider how to address deficiencies related to the under-sampling of some species;

(j)clearly define the temporal scope of recreational fisheries monitoring. On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): (k)develop relevant monitoring programmes for the North-East Atlantic targets on the abundance of opportunistic macroalgae and the abundance of perennial seaweeds and seagrasses not currently covered. On contaminants (Descriptor 8): (l)develop a programme for the monitoring of atmospheric deposition and of hazardous air contaminants, as per the GES definition. On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): (m)ensure that the selection of species for contaminants monitoring in biota under contaminants (Descriptor 8) are appropriate for the purpose of contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) monitoring, if the two programmes are grouped.



9. Croatia Overall Conclusion Overall, the monitoring programme of Croatia constitutes a partially appropriate framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). Croatia reports that its monitoring of GES were supposed to be in place by 2014. One of the thirteen descriptor categories is sufficiently addressed in the reported monitoring programmes, this is contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). Croatia has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for all descriptors. MAIN GUIDANCE Croatia should: (a)Ensure that the monitoring programme constitutes an appropriate framework that enables full coverage of the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards GES; (b)Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps. Croatia reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October 2014. Croatia's Article 11 reporting includes 42 sub-programmes covering all descriptors. Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment The adequacy of the Croatian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards Good Environmental Status (GES) and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Croatia in 2014.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: -The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State's monitoring programme and sub-programmes; -The Member State's own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; -Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps. Descriptor Technical assessment Timeline reported Member State plans/ justifications GES Targets GES Targets D1, 4 Birds 2014 2018 - 2020 Yes D1, 4 Mammals 2014 2018 - 2020 Yes D1, 4 Fish 2014 2020 Yes D1, 4 Water column 2014 2018 Yes D1, 4, 6 Seabed 2014 2018 - 2020 Yes D2 NIS 2014 2018 Yes D3 Commercial fish 2014 2018 Yes D5 Eutrophication 2014 2018 Yes D7 Hydro. changes 2014 2018 Yes D8 Contaminants 2014 2018 Yes D9 Seafood cont. 2014 2018 Yes D10 Marine litter 2014 2018 Yes D11 Energy/Noise 2014 2018 Yes Full coverage No GES GES not defined Partial coverage No targets Targets not defined No coverage No monitoring No monitoring programme reported Achievements so far -The technical assessment shows that Croatia has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES determination for contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). -Croatia has systematically reported on the use of existing monitoring programmes in the context of the MSFD. At Union level, a link to the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is made for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8) and marine litter (Descriptor 10); as well as for fish, seabed habitats and water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4, 6). -Croatia has systematically made use of existing UNEP/MAP standards; i.e. in eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8) and marine litter (Descriptor 10) and seabed monitoring (Descriptors 1, 4, 6). -Croatia has provided plans for future work for all descriptors, even though it considers that its monitoring programme is, for the most part, already adequate to measure progress towards its GES and targets. This is in line with the principle of adaptive management. Aspects where improvement is needed -Even though Croatia reports that its monitoring of GES will be in place by 2014, it reports that monitoring of targets will not be in place until 2018 or 2020. This should be further clarified.

-According to the technical assessment, the Croatian monitoring programmes and sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage of GES and targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors including descriptors considered less advanced in terms of knowledge and methodologies, i.e. non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), marine litter (Descriptor 10), energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). -It was difficult to assess the monitoring programme and sub-programmes for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) with regard to the achievement of targets: Croatia's monitoring programme only monitors long-term large scale changes, while the targets defined by Croatia concern the impact of human activities, which the reported monitoring programme does not cover. -Croatia reports limited information on monitoring transboundary impacts or any other major environmental changes or emerging issues. Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment Croatia should: In general: (a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant Union legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive , the Birds, Directive , the Water Framework Directive and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. (b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP). (c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. In particular: On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptor 1, 4 and 6): (d)strengthen its monitoring programmes by extending the geographical coverage (in the case of birds, mammals and reptiles) and adjusting the frequency of monitoring (mammals, reptiles and water column habitats), as per GES definition. (e)further develop its monitoring programme to cover additional relevant species (e.g. sardine and tuna species (as part of fish), as per GES definition. On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(f)further develop its monitoring programme to ensure the coverage of all relevant elements and parameters (i.e. fish abundance), as per the targets definition; (g)further develop its monitoring programme to ensure the monitoring of impacts, as per GES definition. On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): (h)further develop its monitoring programme by adopting either an improved method of monitoring submerged aquatic vegetation to incorporate a method of assessing ecological health and species abundance, and an increased monitoring frequency for nutrients and organic matter loads calculations, as per GES definition. On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): (i)strengthen monitoring programme On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): (j)strengthen its monitoring programme to ensure adequate spatial and temporal coverage, as per GES definition. (k)strengthen its monitoring programme to ensure the traceability of its D9 biota samples to the location of the contamination. On marine litter (Descriptor 10): (l)further develop its monitoring programme to measure impacts of marine litter on biota, where necessary, as per GES definition.



10. Italy Overall Conclusion Overall, the monitoring programme of Italy constitutes a partially appropriate framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). Italy reports that its monitoring programme will be in place to measure progress towards GES by 2018. Some timelines have nevertheless not been reported. Four out of thirteen descriptor categories are sufficiently addressed in the reported monitoring programmes. These are commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). Italy has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address these, for the following descriptors: commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), contaminants (Descriptor 8), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). Plans to address monitoring gaps for the remaining descriptors, namely birds, mammals, fish and cephalopods, water column habitats and seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9), are therefore still missing. Main Guidance Italy should: (a)Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation by 15 July 2014; (b)Ensure that the monitoring programme constitutes an appropriate framework that enables full coverage of the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards GES; (c)Identify plans to address monitoring gaps where this has not been done and implement those plans.

Italy reported Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October 2014. Italy’s Article 11 reporting includes 62 sub-programmes covering all descriptors, in all its sub-divisions (Adriatic Sea, the Ionian Sea and the Central Mediterranean Sea and the Western Mediterranean Sea). Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment The adequacy of the Italian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Italy in 2012-2013, and modified in 2014. The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: -The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; -The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; -Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps. Descriptor Technical assessment Timeline reported Member State plans/ justifications GES Targets GES Targets D1, 4 Birds 2018 2014 No D1, 4 Mammals 2018 2014 No D1, 4 Fish * * No D1, 4 Water column 2018 2014 No D1, 4, 6 Seabed 2018 2014 No D2 NIS 2018 2014 No D3 Commercial fish * * Yes D5 Eutrophication 2018 2014 Yes D7 Hydro. Changes 2018 2014 No D8 Contaminants 2018 2014 Yes D9 Seafood cont. 2018 2014 No D10 Marine litter 2018 2014 Yes D11 Energy/Noise * * Yes * Timeline of coverage is not reported on by Italy for these descriptors Full coverage No GES GES not defined Partial coverage No targets Targets not defined No coverage No monitoring No monitoring programme reported Achievements so far

-The technical assessment shows that Italy has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its MSFD GES and targets for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and marine litter (Descriptor 10); and with its GES determination for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). -Italy’s monitoring sub-programmes show relative consistency with Union level standards, mainly in the context of non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and contaminants (Descriptor 8) as well as in the monitoring sub-programmes for water column habitats (Descriptors1, 4 and 6). The Common Fisheries Policy forms the basis of commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) sub-programmes, and Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 forms the basis of contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) sub-programmes. The Habitats Directive is linked to seabed, mammals and fish biodiversity monitoring, while the Birds Directive contributes to the birds MSFD monitoring. -Italy’s monitoring programme shows consistency with United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP) monitoring programmes, which form the basis of many monitoring programmes of the MSFD; namely in the case of biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) in relation to the management and the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), as well as monitoring for seabed habitats, mammals and reptiles, birds (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) and contaminants (Descriptor 8). Aspects where improvement is needed -According to the technical assessment, the Italian monitoring programme shows a number of weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets, in particular for the biodiversity descriptors, and pressure descriptors commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), contaminants (Descriptor 8), contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9); and descriptors considered less advanced in terms of knowledge and methodologies such as non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). -Italy reports limited information on monitoring transboundary impacts or any other major environmental changes or emerging issues. To describe these, the Member State refers to its efforts in the context of UNEP/MAP and regional cooperation, but does not elaborate further. Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment Italy should: In general: (a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant Union legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive , the Birds, Directive , the Water Framework Directive and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD- specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. (b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by UNEP/MAP. (c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. In particular: On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptor 1, 4 and 6):

(d)ensure that all necessary elements and parameters are monitored to ensure that its monitoring needs are covered, in particular on food webs and ecosystem indicators of the programme concerning species exploited by commercial fisheries. On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): (e)ensure that results from multiple survey schemes are analysed appropriately to draw conclusions on MSFD GES. On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3): (f)improve monitoring and assessment of non-'Data Collection Framework' species and of data-limited stocks; (g)ensure appropriate geographical scope . On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): (h)develop its monitoring programme and cover chlorophyll levels and phytoplankton community composition and abundance, as per GES definition. On contaminants (Descriptor 8): (i)ensure that all relevant contaminants, as well as significant acute pollution event, if they occur, and their effects are monitored, as per GES definition. On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): (j)strengthen its monitoring programme to ensure the traceability of its biota samples to the location of the contamination.

11. Cyprus OVERALL CONCLUSION Overall, the monitoring programme of Cyprus constitutes a partially appropriate framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). Cyprus reports that its monitoring programme was mostly in place to measure progress towards GES by 2014, but with birds and mammals (Descriptors 1, 4) only addressed by 2020. Three out of thirteen descriptor categories are sufficiently addressed in the reported monitoring programmes. These are commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). Cyprus has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for all descriptors in a very general manner. Cyprus had not established targets for birds and mammals (Descriptors 1 and 4), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). MAIN GUIDANCE Cyprus should: (a)Ensure that the monitoring programme constitutes an appropriate framework that enables full coverage of the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards GES; (b)Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps.

Cyprus reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October 2014. In total, Cyprus’ Article 11 reporting consists of 25 sub-programmes covering all descriptors. Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment The adequacy of the Cypriot MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by the Member State in 2013, and revised and re-submitted on 15 April 2015. The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: -The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; -The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; -Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address (any) gaps. Descriptor Technical assessment Timeline reported Member State plans/ justifications GES Targets GES Targets D1, 4 Birds No targets 2020 * Yes D1, 4 Mammals No targets 2020 * Yes D1, 4 Fish 2014 2014 Yes D1, 4 Water column 2014 2014 Yes D1, 4, 6 Seabed 2014 2014 Yes D2 NIS No targets 2014 2014 Yes D3 Commercial fish 2014 2014 Yes D5 Eutrophication 2014 2014 Yes D7 Hydro. changes No targets 2014 * Yes D8 Contaminants 2014 2014 Yes D9 Seafood cont. 2014 2014 Yes D10 Marine litter 2014 2014 Yes D11 Energy/Noise No targets 2014 * Yes *Timeline not reported Full coverage No GES GES not defined Partial coverage No targets Targets not defined No coverage No monitoring No monitoring programme reported Achievements so far -The technical assessment shows that Cyprus has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES determinations and targets for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), with its GES determinations for eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9); and with its targets for marine litter (Descriptor 10). -The technical assessment also shows that even though targets have not yet been defined for birds, mammals, non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11), the Member State has already designed monitoring sub-programmes for these descriptors, which is positive.

-The Cypriot monitoring programme shows consistency with the standards and guidelines produced by the United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP), bringing in a regional dimension to the work done by the Member State. Furthermore, the modified GES indicators make the direct link with UNEP/MAP guidance indicators in all descriptors. -Cyprus has provided plans for future work for all descriptors, even though it considers that its monitoring programme is, for the most part, already adequate to measure progress towards its GES and targets. This is in line with the principle of adaptive management. Aspects where improvement is needed -According to the technical assessment, the Cypriot monitoring programme shows a number of weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets for the biodiversity descriptors (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) as well as contaminants (Descriptor 8); and descriptors considered less advanced in terms of knowledge and methodologies, i.e. non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). -A number of descriptors have no targets. The establishment of these targets would help inform the development of the monitoring programme for these descriptors. -Cyprus has not reported on the links between its monitoring and the relevant Regional Sea Convention and EU work for eutrophication (Descriptor 5) (Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) (MSFD technical group on underwater noise). -Cyprus does not elaborate on monitoring transboundary impacts or any other major environmental changes or emerging issues, but refers to the impacts and features it monitors as part of its monitoring sub-programmes. Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment Cyprus should: In general: (a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant EU legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive , the Birds, Directive , the Water Framework Directive and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD- specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements (habitats and species) and parameters monitored. (b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by UNEP/MAP. (c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. In particular:

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): (d)develop targets for birds and mammals; (e)building upon point (a), adapt existing monitoring (e.g. under HBD or WFD) to meet the objectives of the MSFD of achieving GES; (f)develop the monitoring programme to cover offshore areas, where appropriate, and cover terrestrial habitats in the case of birds; (g)develop the monitoring programme for fish biodiversity to include non-commercial fish species and coastal fish; (h)develop the monitoring programme for seabed habitats to ensure a wider spatial scope is monitored, where appropriate. On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): (i)develop targets; (j)extend monitoring to other key species groups and habitat types such as phytoplankton and zooplanktonic species; macrobenthos (sediments) and pelagic fish. On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): (k)extend its monitoring sub-programmes to cover additional geographic areas beyond coastal waters, where necessary based on a risk assessment. On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): (l)develop targets; (m)strengthen the monitoring programme to assess hydrographical significant and permanent changes. On contaminants (Descriptor 8): (n)develop a monitoring programme of contamination effects on biota, where necessary, as per GES definition.

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): (o)develop a monitoring programme that covers all seafood for consumption, as per GES definition. On marine litter (Descriptor 10): (p)develop monitoring of micro-litter. On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): (q)develop targets ; (r)develop, as appropriate, monitoring on impulsive noise.



12. Latvia Overall Conclusion Overall, the monitoring programme of Latvia does not constitute an appropriate framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). Latvia reports that its monitoring programme to measure progress towards its GES will not be fully in place until after 2020. Latvia has not reported monitoring for mammals (Descriptors 1, 4). None of the thirteen descriptor categories have been sufficiently addressed. Latvia has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address these, for the following descriptors: birds, water column habitats, seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8) and marine litter (Descriptor 10). Plans to address monitoring gaps for the remaining descriptors, i.e. mammals, fish and cephalopods (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11), are therefore still missing. Latvia has not determined GES and targets for birds, mammals and fish (Descriptors 1 and 4), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminant (Descriptor 8), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). MAIN GUIDANCE Latvia should: (a)Ensure immediate implementation of the monitoring programme pursuant to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation by 15 July 2014; (b)Address all descriptors in the monitoring programme; (c)Ensure that the monitoring programme constitutes an appropriate framework that enables full coverage of the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards GES; (d)Identify plans to address monitoring gaps where this has not been done and implement those plans. Latvia reported under Article 11 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in December 2014. In total, Latvia’s Article 11 reporting includes consists of 22 sub-programmes covering all descriptors, apart from mammals and fish (D1, 4). Latvia has not defined good environmental status (GES) and targets for birds, mammals and fish (Descriptors 1, 4), as well as hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment The adequacy of the Latvian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Latvia in 2013. The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; -The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; -Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.



Descriptor Technical assessment Timeline reported Member State plans/ justifications GES Targets GES Targets D1, 4 Birds No GES No targets After 2020 After 2020 Yes D1, 4 Mammals No GES No monitoring No targets No monitoring * * No D1, 4 Fish No GES No targets * * No D1, 4 Water column After 2020 After 2020 Yes D1, 4, 6 Seabed After 2020 After 2020 Yes D2 NIS After 2020 After 2020 Yes D3 Commercial fish 2014 After 2020 No D5 Eutrophication 2020 2020 Yes D7 Hydro. changes No GES No targets 2020 2020 Yes D8 Contaminants No GES No targets 2020 2020 Yes D9 Seafood cont. 2018 2014 No D10 Marine litter No GES No targets 2020 After 2020 Yes D11 Energy/Noise No GES No targets After 2020 After 2020 No *Timeline of coverage is not reported by Latvia Full coverage No GES GES not defined Partial coverage No targets Targets not defined No coverage No monitoring No monitoring programme reported Achievements so far -Although Latvia has not yet defined GES and targets for birds (Descriptors 1, 4) hydrographical changes