EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 31.7.2018 COM(2018) 562 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL assessing Member States' programmes of measures under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive {SWD(2018) 393 final}



REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL assessing Member States’ programmes of measures under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Marine life and resources: a lifeline for our planet The importance of the seas and oceans to the well-being of our planet is by now an undisputed fact. Human activities exert pressures that affect marine life and their habitats and the essential functions of our oceans. Recent initiatives have raised awareness on the health and state of our seas and oceans. These include the adoption of Sustainable Development Goal 14 to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources; the joint Communication on International Ocean Governance; ‘The Ocean Conference’ on Sustainable Development Goal 14; and the Our Ocean conference series, of which the most recent was hosted by the Union in October 2017. Over the past 6 years, EU Member States have been developing marine strategies to comply with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The Directive requires them to assess the quality status of the marine environment, determine good environmental status, set appropriate environmental targets and draw up adequate monitoring programmes and implement measures to achieve the Directive’s key goal of securing the ‘good environmental status’ of all EU marine waters by 2020. The concept of ‘good environmental status’ is defined by the Directive through descriptors, such as conserving biodiversity or tackling anthropogenic pressures that include fisheries, seabed damage, marine litter and contaminants. A new Commission Decision, in force since June 2017, requires Member States to abide by common criteria and methodological standards when defining the concept of ‘good environmental status’ in quantitative terms for the marine waters under their territorial competence. Importantly, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive explicitly requires Member States to work with their neighbours in each marine region or sub-region. This report builds on the Commission's 2014 and 2017 assessments of Member States’ marine strategies and assesses the programmes of measures, which all Member States had to report to the Commission by 31 March 2016. Generally applicable guidance on modifications necessary to improve the coherence and effectiveness of their measures is included as a set of recommendations to Member States at the end of this assessment. Country specific recommendations are included in the staff working document accompanying this report. Regretfully, only 6 Member States reported their national programme of measures on time. Thus, the Commission launched the appropriate infringement procedures. By the cut-off date of February 2017, a total of 16 out of the 23 marine EU Member States had eventually reported their national programmes. Programmes submitted by the other 7 Member States beyond that cut-off date could not be assessed in time for this report. The Commission's 2014 assessment had concluded that the definitions and targets linked to the ‘good environmental status’ goal varied considerably among the Member States. Therefore, the present assessment also looks at the extent to which Member States’ measures allow for a better comparability of their efforts in tackling relevant pressures on the marine environment. It also assesses for each relevant descriptor to what extent Member States are likely to achieve good environmental status by 2020, as required by the Directive. Which measures have Member States so far taken to achieve good environmental status? In their programmes of measures, Member States often present existing initiatives or ongoing policy implementation as measures. This, for example, includes actions taken under EU environmental legislation or other laws such as the Waste Framework Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Birds Directive, the Habitats Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, or the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation. Existing international commitments, such as those under the International Maritime Organisation, have also been included in Member States’ programmes. Additionally, Member States frequently refer to initiatives taken under the Regional Sea Conventions. It is positive to see Member States refer, in a few instances, to measures specifically agreed with neighbours within an EU marine region, notably through the relevant Regional Sea Conventions, or within a sub-region. Around 25 % of the measures have been defined as ‘new’ measures, meaning they were put into place specifically for the purposes of the Directive. It is also positive to see that, thanks to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Member States have progressively moved from a piecemeal approach to protecting the marine environment to a more strategic approach, by bringing together various work-strands. Exceptions The Directive also allows Member States, in well-defined circumstances, to apply exceptions to the achievement in every aspect, or within the relevant timeline, of the envisaged environmental targets or good environmental status. Such well-defined circumstances include the fact that achieving such goals is related to action or inaction which is beyond their responsibility, force majeure events, or the fact that natural conditions do not allow for a timely improvement in the status of their marine waters. Eight of the 16 Member States at stake report exceptions. Other Member States declare not having applied exceptions because gaps in knowledge and data do not allow them to conclude whether or not an exception is required at this stage of implementation. Types of measures Member States have mainly devised measures which, through a legal or technical intervention, directly help to reduce the pressure (referred to as ‘direct measures’ in Figure 1). These entail, for example, technical solutions (e.g. less noisy ship engines) or restrictions to the spatial scope of certain activities (e.g. through licensing procedures). However, some Member States have also reported measures which would indirectly help to address the pressure in question (referred to as ‘indirect measures’ in Figure 1). These include governance actions, awareness-raising or communication campaigns (e.g. to reduce littering). Where Member States do not have sufficient knowledge about a particular pressure (e.g. non-indigenous species, underwater noise), they have identified the need for further research to better inform future measures and/or put in place further monitoring. Such measures would have been more appropriately reported as part of their monitoring programmes. In compliance with what is required by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, all Member States report, in their programmes of measures, on the use of spatial protection measures. These are measures meant to create coherent and representative networks of marine protected areas, such as special areas of conservation in line with the Habitats Directive, special protection areas in line with the Birds Directives or other protected areas agreed within regional or international agreements. Such spatial measures were often reported in connection with fisheries, or the protection of certain habitats; they are dealt with in the relevant sections below and further described in the technical assessments. While 2 Member States clearly list new marine protected areas, another 8 reported they were planning or designating new marine protected areas as measures. The overall coverage has increased significantly through the Birds and Habitats legislation and international conventions. Figure 1 Share of direct and indirect measures in the programmes of measures across the EU

Measures taken to address pressures on the marine environment This section looks at measures put in place to address the descriptors of the Directive specifically dealing with such anthropogenic pressures. Non-indigenous species Non-indigenous species can threaten marine biodiversity when they become ‘invasive’. In Union waters, Member States identify shipping and aquaculture as the two main activities that can lead to the introduction and spread of non-indigenous species. Ballast water management is used by 13 Member States to tackle species introduced through shipping. Additional measures, such as adherence to the International Maritime Organisation’s Biofouling guidelines, may, however, better address the pressure as it limits fouling through a ship’s hull. Measures mentioned by the 16 Member States in their programmes of measures often draw on regional work and existing EU law, such as the EU regulations on invasive alien species and alien species in aquaculture. Some Member States have already introduced targeted measures to reduce the risk of introducing non-indigenous species through aquaculture farms, while several others report that they still need to do further research to better understand the pressure. The newly-introduced measures range from the direct targeting of non-indigenous species by fishermen to providing incentives for ‘eco-friendly’ ships and/or carrying out awareness-raising initiatives, mostly targeting recreational activities. That Member States will achieve good environmental status by 2020 for pressures from non-indigenous species, as required by the Directive, cannot be answered given that Member States either could not or did not report on this. Poland, Cyprus and Malta have reported justified exceptions to achieving good environmental status, stating that the introduction of non-indigenous species is due to situations beyond their control (e.g. in the case of the Mediterranean Sea, such species may enter through the Suez Canal). Measure → Sweden: national warning and response system for early detection, handling and emergency plans Sweden has set up a national warning and response system in its waters that will immediately alert authorities when a new non-indigenous species is spotted. This will trigger rapid response measures for their eradication, control or any other action deemed appropriate, linked to contingency plans. The system will be connected to Sweden’s monitoring programme. Exploitation of commercial fish and shellfish Overfishing can have serious consequences leading to the progressive depletion and eventual collapse of stocks. All 16 Member States whose programmes are assessed in this report have introduced measures to minimise the pressure from commercial fisheries. Fourteen Member States also included specific measures to reduce impacts from recreational fishing. Fishing pressure affects all EU marine regions, although it is particularly acute in the Mediterranean Sea. In their national programmes, Member States consistently refer to the measures they have taken to comply with the common fisheries policy, which requires that a maximum sustainable yield for fishing stocks be achieved by 2020, thus contributing to the good environmental status goal set by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Such national measures include reducing the size of the fishing fleet, reducing the total catch, banning fishing or some types of fishing practices (e.g. trawling) in certain areas. Most Member States have also introduced new measures to reduce the pressure on over-exploited stocks, e.g. by requiring the use of specific fishing gear, or by introducing targeted temporal/spatial restrictions or bans. Most Member States have put in place spatial protection measures, either within the Natura 2000 network or by strengthening the management plans for existing marine protected areas. Several Member States have also introduced measures to raise awareness of destructive fishing practices. Many of them explicitly link the measures taken to agreements made at regional and international level, such as within the context of the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations in the Mediterranean Sea or the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Actions undertaken through Regional Sea Conventions, notably HELCOM and the Barcelona Convention, also feature in the programmes. Although the Directive requires Member States to achieve good environmental status for pressure from fishing by 2020, there must also be a good synergy with the requirements of the common fishery policy in their national programmes, and most Member States have not yet determined when such a goal will be achieved. Three Member States have reported exceptions, justifiably declaring that good environmental status will be achieved after 2020: Finland and the United Kingdom state that good environmental status for the exploitation of commercial fish and shellfish will not be achieved due to natural conditions, while Malta cites the need for transboundary and regional efforts to achieve the objective. Measure → Belgium: better control and monitoring of recreational fishing Belgium has recently introduced a legal measure that makes it easier to monitor recreational fishing, an activity which can have a significant impact on the marine environment but is often not regulated by Member States. This national measure, which goes beyond the requirements of the common fisheries policy, will improve data collection, crucial not only to understand the state of fish stocks but also to regulate, if needed and in a more targeted manner, certain fishing activities. Nutrient input Excessive inputs of nutrients and organic substances into the sea promote algal blooming, leading to eutrophication. This pressure can stifle marine life, especially around coastal areas and in deeper waters. While it affects all marine waters in the EU to some extent, its impacts are most notable in the Baltic Sea. Nutrient enrichment has mainly been attributed to agriculture, industry, urban discharge, aquaculture and, to a lesser extent, shipping. The problem is compounded by the accumulation of such nutrients in the seabed. In their national programmes, all Member States have referred to measures taken in their river basin management plans to achieve compliance with the ‘good ecological status’ goal laid down by the Water Framework Directive and to comply with the parameters laid down by other water-related legislation. Some Member States have also included more specific measures in their marine strategies, such as promoting sustainable aquaculture and agricultural practices, establishing Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emissions control areas for shipping, constructing appropriate port infrastructure for liquefied natural gas and controlling the discharge of untreated sewage from ships.

The outlook for Member States to achieve good environmental status for the management of nutrient inputs by 2020 is coherent within the individual marine regions. For example, most Member States in the Baltic Sea do not expect to achieve this by 2020, while in the Mediterranean Sea most Member States have indicated that it has already been achieved. No less than 5 Member States have invoked exceptions for pressure from nutrient input. However, different reasons have been cited, showing a less consistent regional approach despite the transboundary nature of the pressure. In the Baltic Sea, Finland, Latvia and Poland referred to justified situations beyond their control, with Poland invoking natural conditions as an additional justification, just like Sweden. For the North-east Atlantic, Sweden and the Netherlands use arguments similar to those invoked to justify exceptions in the Baltic Sea. Measure → Finland: reducing nutrient inputs to the environment By spreading gypsum in fields, this direct measure aims to reduce the concentration in the soil of phosphorus — a nutrient used in agriculture that can lead to eutrophication. Using gypsum reduces leaching of phosphorus into freshwater systems and therefore into the marine environment. It has the advantage of improving the properties of soil and as a result reduces erosion. Hydrographical changes Human activities such as coastal infrastructural development, dredging, sand extraction and desalination can impact on the physical properties of marine waters. Impacts can be seen in changes to sea currents or wave action, tidal regimes, temperature, pH levels, salinity or turbidity and can all adversely affect marine species and habitats. Most of the measures reported by Member States relate to existing regulatory frameworks, such as the Water Framework Directive, the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and licencing procedures that should generally cover all possible pressures and impacts. However, it is not always clear how Member States plan to apply the measures taken under these Directives in the marine context. Some Member States have also reported that they are in the process of developing guidance for relevant infrastructure projects as part of their measures. Only two Member States, however, clearly address the cumulative impacts of such infrastructures. For anthropogenic pressures leading to hydrographical changes, Member States did not invoke any of the Article 14 exceptions to achieving good environmental status. Of the 16 Member States whose national programmes are assessed in this report, 4 Member States have stated that good environmental status has already been achieved, while 2 Member States claim that it will be reached by 2020. Other Member States have either not specified when good environmental status will be achieved or cannot estimate it. Measure → France: assessment of cumulative impacts France is currently developing a guidance document to help the relevant authorities and stakeholders assess the cumulative impacts of human activities, especially for those projects that would require an environmental impact or a strategic environmental assessment. This will be particularly relevant for hydrological pressures for which cumulative impacts have until now rarely been addressed. Contaminants in the sea and in seafood Most contaminants, mainly from agricultural pesticides, ship anti-foulants, pharmaceuticals, industry and urban effluents, including heavy metals, end up in the sea. This discharge turns seas and oceans into an environment that is likely to harm marine life, and ultimately contaminate seafood for human consumption. It is therefore important for both environmental and human health reasons to ensure that the levels of contaminants in the marine environment remain low and within safe limits. Of all the sources of contaminants, atmospheric deposition in the marine environment is the source least addressed in the national programmes reported by the Member States. Their programmes also contain very few measures directly targeting contaminants in seafood intended for human consumption as measures taken for contaminants in general are argued to be likely to also reduce any negative impact on seafood. Among the measures reported in this context, Member States refer to those needed to secure compliance with EU food safety legislation and other regulatory standards applicable to fished and aquaculture products, notably on traceability, health quality requirements, breeding and farming conditions, risk assessments and management measures. For actions more generally aimed at reducing the presence of contaminants in the sea, a number of Member States report several measures which stem from EU requirements, such as those needed to achieve compliance with the Directives on nitrates, urban waste water, air emissions, ship source pollution, and the REACH regulation,. International commitments either under MARPOL or the Regional Sea Conventions are also referred to, although the national programmes are often unclear as to which concrete actions are specifically planned for such international commitments. In addition to these existing EU or international requirements, 10 Member States have introduced some direct measures, such as further regulating the discharge of contaminants, reducing the use of pesticides, improving aquaculture and dredging practices, and some indirect measures, such as awareness-raising and research activities. Exceptions to achieving good environmental status for contaminants have been requested by Poland and Sweden in the Baltic and by the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Sweden in the North-east Atlantic Ocean region. The justifications invoked to benefit from such exceptions do not always appear to be technically convincing, for example when it comes to citing disproportionate costs without providing sufficient justification, including a cost-benefit analysis and an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of alternative remediation actions. In addition to this, timelines for achieving good environmental status vary across the regions, which is worrying for such a well-referenced pressure —subject to a long list of laws and policy initiatives at both EU and international level. Two Member States justify their exceptions to achieving good environmental status for contaminants in seafood on the grounds that the relevant polluting sources are also found outside their marine waters. Most of the North-east Atlantic Member States seem to agree that good environmental status will be achieved by 2020, while in the other three regional seas this either cannot be estimated or is expected to happen only after 2020. Measure → Poland: targeting different sources of contaminants Poland has adopted a mix of measures to target different contaminants that find their way into its marine waters. Its programme includes measures that regulate contaminants such as dredged materials, paraffin and their derivatives. It is also embarking on reconstructing its storm water and sewage systems, while introducing measures to reduce contaminants from water discharged from the exhaust treatment systems. It also reports new actions to reduce risks from oil pollution and other harmful substances. Other measures include plans to modernise its inland waterway fleet, permitting provisions for discharging industrial waste water and improving the water management of seven river basins. Marine litter Litter is a pressure on the marine environment that eventually finds its way to the seafloor and onto beaches. Implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive has led to an improved understanding of macro- and micro-litter, notably from plastics. Sources of marine litter have been mostly attributed to the following human activities: tourism and recreational activities, urban waste, industrial activities, shipping and commercial fishing. To fight marine litter, Member States draw on a number of existing EU laws, notably on waste management, urban waste water or port reception facilities, as well as on international agreements and the action plans of Regional Sea Conventions. Based on their national programmes, it appears that all 16 Member States are taking, or plan to take, measures to improve waste management in the fisheries sector. The most common measures notified are beach clean-ups, ‘fishing for litter’ and communication initiatives. While these have a modest impact on reducing the pressure, they help to raise awareness and thus to prevent future pollution. However, targeted measures for beach litter, such as limiting the proliferation of single-use plastics or reducing microplastics and litter from aquaculture, appear to be underdeveloped. For example, only five Member Statesspecifically addressed aquaculture.

Measure → France: marine waste reduction & shellfish farming France has two noteworthy measures for marine litter. The first one is part of the national waste prevention programme and consists of four actions: (1) extending producers’ responsibility; (2) limiting certain products, such as single-use plastic bags; (3) promoting voluntary actions to reduce and recycle marine litter; and (4) aligning regional litter prevention and management plans with the water and marine policy tools, the port waste reception and treatment plans. The second measure tackles shellfish aquaculture, an activity which can be a significant source of litter, but which is only rarely addressed in other Member States’ programmes of measures. France plans to limit the degradation of the impacted habitats by limiting access to the relevant marine culture plots in tidal areas, and by collecting and recycling litter generated by them. The programmes of measures for marine litter have to be seen in the wider context of developments at EU level, which led to the adoption of the Circular Economy Package, the European Strategy for Plastics and a legislative proposal on marine litter and single-use plastics. Of the 16 Member States, only 6 expect to achieve good environmental status for litter by 2020. Malta is the only Member State having applied for an exception on the grounds that actions from neighbouring countries would allegedly hamper its efforts; however, such proposed justification does not appear to be fully substantiated and no alternative timeline is reported. Energy, including underwater noise Energy use, for example in the form of heating and electricity systems, noise, electromagnetic radiations, radio waves or vibrations, can also be a pressure on the marine environment. So far, most Member States have focused their efforts on underwater noise, whose effects are complex and not yet fully understood. Noise may, for example, chase away marine species from their breeding grounds, impact their hearing and therefore make them more vulnerable. The effect also depends on the type of noise, continuous or impulsive, and the frequency. Noise may come from shipping, marine research, offshore energy platforms, construction operations and defence activities. Member States have yet again drawn on EU legislation such as the Habitats Directive and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. Again, international agreements and initiatives taken through the Regional Sea Conventions are also featured in their programmes of measures. Measures include protecting specific areas from both impulsive and continuous noise; developing ‘eco-friendly’ ships; limiting the use of certain types of lights on oil and gas platforms; and raising awareness, carrying out research and developing guidelines for noise assessments. While most pressures are addressed, these are often covered indirectly through research which Member States have reported together with their measures. Six Member States, mostly from the North-east Atlantic Ocean region, expect to achieve good environmental status by 2020. However, given the current knowledge gaps, some cannot estimate when it will be achieved or have not specified a date for when it is to be achieved. No Member State has applied for an exception. Measure → Cyprus: noise from hydrocarbon exploration Cyprus reports a measure that addresses impulsive underwater noise, by requiring ‘soft-start/slow-start’ conditions in the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons. This includes seismic surveys at sea, as defined in the Strategic Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment Directives and in the Offshore Protocol of the Barcelona Convention. Measures taken to address the state of marine biodiversity Curbing the negative impacts of pressures on the marine environment should improve conditions for marine species and habitats. Therefore, the measures described in the previous sections should help maintain or improve the state of marine biodiversity. Most Member States, however, do not make sufficient links between the two, which limits the effectiveness of the programmes. Member States have, nevertheless, earmarked measures that deal with various marine habitats, such as spatial protection measures, although these are limited in spatial scope and may not be targeting areas where pressures are most predominant (e.g. seabed trawling outside protected areas). Birds Incidental by-catch from commercial fishing activities was the predominant pressure that Member States reported was affecting birds. Other pressures they reported included marine litter, non-indigenous species, oil pollution and visual light disturbance. Despite the prevalence of habitat loss due to human activity, contaminants in the sea and hunting, Member States cited them less often as pressures. It is not surprising that most measures relate to implementation of the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive, and therefore to the creation of special protection areas and special areas of conservation to protect bird habitats, breeding, nesting and feeding grounds. Member States also report that they are applying the rules of the common fisheries policy to address by-catch, which means restricting the use of certain fishing gear, for example, to reduce the chance of birds being caught or promoting sustainable fishing tools and techniques. Member States only occasionally refer to the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive, which could help to designate areas for fishing while reducing the impacts on birds. All North-east Atlantic Member States also link their measures to OSPAR recommendations on conservation, whereas some of the Baltic Sea Member States refer to HELCOM’s ‘Baltic Sea Action Plan’. In the Mediterranean, most Member States generally refer to the Barcelona Convention’s action plans for bird species and marine protected areas. Ten Member States do not report when they will reach good environmental status, citing either gaps in knowledge as the reason or providing no further justification. No exceptions have been reported. Measure → Malta: protecting birds from predators Malta is applying a measure to protect the Yelkouan shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan) from predator rats. Food litter from human recreational activities in a special protection area has led to an increased presence of rats, which cause significant predation pressures on birds. To more effectively protect the bird species and their habitats, the project aims at increasing people's awareness of the problem and therefore changing their behaviour in protected sites to reduce littering and the presence of pests. The measure goes beyond what is already addressed under the Birds Directive. Fish and cephalopods In addition to the obvious pressure from fishing for commercial species, by-catch is one of the most important pressures, followed by contaminants. Habitat loss and damage, litter and underwater noise are less often cited by Member States in their programmes. Commercial species are generally well addressed through the measures for commercial fish and shellfish, as discussed above. These measures include fishing bans in certain areas and/or banning fishing practices like trawling. However, non-commercial species are not always covered. Thirteen Member States also restrict the use of certain fishing techniques, therefore also targeting by-catch. Most Member States report using spatial protection measures based on the Habitats Directive’s Natura 2000 network to protect some fish species and to a lesser extent, the Water Framework Directive to protect migratory pathways for fish. Spatial measures have also been used to protect certain seabed habitats which act as fish breeding and nursery grounds. In addition to linking their measures to Regional Sea Conventions, like in the case of birds, Mediterranean Member States, in particular, also refer to initiatives with regional fisheries management organisations. Awareness-raising campaigns, such as those informing consumers about sustainable fishing practices or targeting professional and recreational fishermen, provide added value to the other, more direct measures. Some Member States mention the need for more research, especially to understand what impacts the pressures affecting this species group are having. Poland has claimed an exception to achieving good environmental status, as it maintains that other environmental factors, such as climate change and salinity, prevent it from doing so. This is only partially justifiable with the information provided (without evidence for changing trends in indicators linked to predictable changes in temperature and salinity). The United Kingdom reports a justified exception due to the time needed for fish populations (biomass) to react to changes in fishing rates, coupled with other biological and climatic conditions. Three Member States report that they will achieve good environmental status by 2020.

Measure → Germany: raising consumer awareness of sustainable fishing A new measure in Germany consists of an information campaign targeting a variety of seafood consumers to raise their awareness of ‘sustainable and ecosystem-friendly fisheries’. The campaign will develop teaching and information material based on the best scientific data available and on the current state of research. The aim is consumer behaviour that is more environmentally friendly and supportive of sustainable fishing techniques. Indirectly, it aims to use consumer demand as an incentive for the fishing industry to adopt more sustainable fishing practices. Mammals and reptiles Marine mammals and reptiles, such as whales, seals and turtles, are affected by incidental by-catch from commercial fishing activities, and by habitat loss, contaminants, marine litter, collisions with vessels and underwater noise. Most Member States report they have taken spatial protection measures through the Habitats Directive to protect habitats, including breeding, feeding, and nesting sites. In fact, most new measures focus on spatial protection, including those to reduce underwater noise. Incidental by-catch is regulated through the common fisheries policy with new measures on using more selective fishing gear. However, few Member States make the link between marine litter and mammals and turtles, even though these species are likely to be ingesting litter or getting entangled in lost or abandoned fishing gear. Several Member States have also linked measures to the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. In addition to linking their measures to Regional Sea Conventions, most Member States link measures to the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS) and the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area (ASCOBAMS). Other measures include reducing the impact from lost fishing gear and mitigating measures in case of oil pollution. Awareness-raising activities such as informing fishermen of the impact of aggressive fishing techniques on mammals and turtles or encouraging tourists to opt for sustainable tourist activities are also among the measures reported. Only a handful of Member States claim that they will achieve good environmental status by 2020. Poland reported an exception stating that it will not achieve good environmental status by 2020 for harbour porpoises given the migratory nature of the species and the fact that most by-catch occurs outside its marine waters, a justification that does not appear grounded as the issue of by-catch from outside its waters can be adequately controlled through cross-border partnership processes. Measure → Italy: reducing collisions with ships Vessels are responsible for a significant number of mortalities of cetaceans in the Mediterranean. Through the REPCET project, Italy aims to place software on board all vessels to help identify the presence and location of cetaceans underwater, thus reducing the number of collisions and the mortality rate. The measure will also train vessel operators to use such software. Water column habitats Species living in water column habitats face multiple pressures, such as contaminants, eutrophication, non-indigenous species, fish extraction, by-catch and litter. Member States’ programmes rarely link the measures for these pressures to water column habitats, making it difficult for Member States to determine how good environmental status will be achieved for these habitats. Very few specific measures have therefore been reported. Nevertheless, management plans for marine protected areas, the implementation of the Habitats Directive’s Natura 2000 Network and the adoption of other national spatial protection measures contribute to the well-being of these habitats. The Water Framework Directive also plays a role by reducing the concentration of nutrients and contaminants and improving hydrological conditions, thus reducing eutrophic conditions and the pollution of marine waters. Regional links were also drawn for other habitat types. Again, only 3 Member States report they will achieve good environmental status by 2020, but no Member State has applied for an exception. Measure → Sweden: pressure-state relationships for the water column habitats Sweden has strongly linked its biodiversity measures to measures tackling specific pressures in water column habitats, therefore looking at pressures cumulatively to safeguard marine biodiversity. This thorough approach in achieving good environmental status for biodiversity also follows the rationale behind Decision 2017/848/EU. These measures address: •commercial fish and shellfish through fishing regulations and management, marine protected areas and seasonal closure areas; •eutrophication by reducing long-term nutrient load locally in eutrophic bays and in the Baltic Sea; •contaminants by managing the discharge of hazardous substances, such as antifouling substances and sewage; •non-indigenous species through indirect measures that include awareness-raising, management plans and risk-reduction measures. Seabed habitats There are various human activities that impact the seabed, particularly through physical disturbance, the most widespread being bottom-trawl commercial fishing. Over time, this has led to a significant loss of sensitive seabed habitats and caused long-lasting widespread damage to seabed habitats. Other potentially harmful activities include land claim, port operations, solid waste disposal (including dredged material), marine mining of sand and gravel, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines and renewable energy operations. Regulatory approaches were included in the programmes of measures to address most of these activities. For example, spatial protection measures are the primary tool of choice, including those under the Habitats Directive. All 16 Member States reported on initiatives to protect vulnerable habitats from fishing activities which are harmonised with measures for sustainable fishing (mostly drawing on the common fisheries policy such as banning certain types of fishing, including bottom-trawl fishing, and introducing less seabed-destructive fishing gear). Other regulatory tools referred to include environmental impact assessments for other pressures such as nutrient levels from aquaculture. For other pollution effects, Member States cite measures under the Water Framework Directive. Regional links were also drawn for other habitat types. Seabed damage may also occur through recreational activities, such as the anchoring of recreational boats or recreational fishing, for which 4 Member States have reported measures. However, these measures were often confined to specific areas. As a result, a significant proportion of seabed habitats occurring outside of spatial protection areas and which are impacted by human activities, will likely remain largely unaddressed by Member States. Several Member States also pursued activities to raise awareness of the destructiveness of certain commercial fishing methods on seabed habitats and performed research that included, for example, mapping seabed habitats. Five Member States reported that they will achieve good environmental status by 2020, with Poland requesting an exception and linking this to natural conditions such as slow recovery of the marine environment, non-indigenous which have spread significantly in Polish waters and areas with naturally occurring seasonal low oxygen levels. However, the justification only partly supports the exception as no efforts are made to identify specific habitats affected by the non-indigenous species and the fact that vast majority of oxygen depletion in the Baltic is considered to be due to nutrient enrichment.

Measure → Spain: guidelines for recreational marine activities The anchoring of boats physically damages the seabed and may even lead to seabed habitat loss given its vulnerable state. These impacts are most severe in seagrass beds (Posidonia oceanica and Cymodocea nodosa) and on certain species included in the Spanish catalogue of threatened species, such as the noble pen shell (Pinna nobilis) and the cushion sea star (Asterina pancerii). For this reason, Spain embarked on guidelines for authorities to regulate this activity in protected seabed habitats. It goes beyond activities that are usually addressed under the Habitats Directive. How do Member States perform? Measures against pressures In their programmes of measures, Member States have at least partially addressed a number of pressures: the introduction of non-indigenous species, commercial fisheries, nutrient input, pressures on seabed habitats, hydrographical changes, contaminants and marine litter. Figure 2 shows how many of the pressures Member States reported in their Article 8 assessments have been appropriately addressed by measures. Figure 2 Appropriateness of Member State measures against pressures (Member States are presented in geographical order per marine region) For each Member State, the number of times the descriptor-specific measures have been assessed as addressing (green), partially addressing (orange) and not addressing (red) what the Member State reported in Article 8 (e.g. 100 % ‘addressing pressures’ means that the programme addresses the reported pressures for all descriptors). Timelines, implementation of measures and their effectiveness The timelines reported by Member States provide a mixed picture for when good environmental status will be achieved, as explained in the relevant sections above and summarised in Figure 3. This may in part be because Member States report that some measures were not operational by 2016 as required by the Directive. It should also be noted that the measures reported are not always directly linked to the determinations of good environmental status and the environmental targets. Furthermore, the lack of consistency at a (sub)regional level in defining their good environmental status and the varying level of ambition by Member States, adds to the uncertainty over whether measures are sufficient to achieve good environmental status by 2020. The full implementation of Decision 2017/848/EU is expected to provide for a more comparable and coherent approach to subsequent updates of these determinations and thereby support the assessment of the sufficiency of the measures. The second observation relates to the likelihood these measures will be implemented, especially the new measures (given that other measures were reported to be ongoing, for example, through other policy frameworks). Three groups of Member States are observed. Highly likely Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom These Member States made a cost-benefit analysis when introducing new measures and have indicated those entities that would be responsible for implementing them. They also reported that implementation had already started in 2016, though some measures were slightly delayed (2017 or 2018). Likely Bulgaria, Latvia, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal The cost-benefit analysis as reported does not cover all new measures and not all timelines have been indicated by these Member States. Of those reported, a large number are expected to be implemented after 2018, with some going beyond 2020. Member States have generally indicated the entities responsible for implementing these measures. No conclusion Cyprus, Ireland Information provided by these Member States does not allow for a conclusion to be reached. Table 1 — Likelihood of implementation of new measures However, the cost-benefit assessments, where these were done, do not tell the whole story. Also, the implementing authority, the funding and the budgetary allocations were not always indicated, casting doubt on the likelihood the measures in question will be implemented. The potential impacts of the measures were not quantified either and at best were described in a qualitative manner. Reporting at an appropriate level of detail would have allowed for a better understanding of what the measure was striving to achieve. Also, the effects of ongoing measures on the marine environment could not be gauged. Therefore, quantifying how much of the pressure will be reduced and whether the measures themselves are sufficient to achieve good environmental status was not possible. While acknowledging that this could not be done for some measures due to, for example, gaps in knowledge, it would have strengthened the assessment if Member States’ efforts could be translated into a tangible assessment of the positive effects they will have on the marine environment. Another observation is that while most Member States refer to their respective Regional Sea Conventions and to international agreements, some Member States cite regional action plans and regional or international commitments only in general terms without specifying what kind of measures are being implemented. Yet again, what such measures are meant to achieve could not be pinned down. In most cases, measures do not look at a region or sub-region but are limited to a geographical scope within national waters. Conclusions and recommendations