REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) The European Commission's assessment and guidance
Date: 2014-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: coastal protection, marine ecosystem, marine environment, marine pollution, prevention of pollution, water protection













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0097 - EN











|



52014DC0097

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) The European Commission's assessment and guidance /* COM/2014/097 final */









REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
The first phase of implementation of the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC)
The European Commission's assessment
and guidance
Just over five years after the entry into force
of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), this report marks the end of
the first, ambition-setting phase of its implementation. An unprecedented
data-collection and analysis exercise has been undertaken, during which Member
States have provided an assessment of the state of their seas (the initial
assessment), have defined what they consider to be "good environmental
status" (GES) of their marine waters and have established a series of
targets to bridge the gap between the current situation, and where they want to
be in 2020, the date by which GES must be achieved. The exercise has provided
an opportunity for a broad public debate on the protection of the marine
environment, has brought together a vast amount of knowledge about our seas and
oceans and triggered further regional collaboration, in particular through
Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs). At the same time, the Commission's assessment
of Member States’ reports gives rise to concern: Member States’ definition of
good environmental status and the path they set out to achieve it shows overall
limited ambition, often fails to take into account existing obligations and
standards and lacks coherence across the Union, even between neighbouring
countries within the same marine region. 
By December 2013, all but a few of the
Member States concerned had reported to the European Commission.[1] The present report
reflects the fact that data is only partially available for some Member States,
and that one Member State has not reported at all. The European Commission has
launched infringement procedures whenever relevant. In parallel to legal
action, it will consider how to communicate its assessment and guidance to the
Member States not included in this report, after they have reported fully. 
Based on this analysis, the present report
presents guidance[2]
in the form of recommendations to be implemented at the EU, regional, and
national levels. Rather than advising to re-start the reporting exercise where
shortcomings have been identified, the Commission outlines in this report and
in the attached Staff Working Document, a pro-active, future-oriented approach.
The aim is to provide concrete guidance on how to address the challenges
identified, making the process of further implementation less costly and more
efficient. 
The Staff Working Document[3] accompanying this
report contains a more detailed analysis of Member States' reporting on the
Directive’s set of 11 qualitative descriptors of the marine environment (e.g. biodiversity,
non-indigenous species, fish, health of food webs, contaminants, litter,
underwater noise), together with more detailed recommendations and specific
country-based assessments and recommendations. Later in 2014, the European
Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) will develop in-depth assessments of more
technical aspects of the Member States’ reporting. The European Environmental
Agency (EEA) will also draw conclusions on the overall state of the marine
environment in Europe.
1.           The State of the European Seas
Together, Europe's seas exceed its land territory, hosting a rich, fragile
and unique marine life, on which a lot is still unknown. Marine ecosystems face
increasing pressure from human activities both on land and at sea, as 41% of
the European population live in coastal regions and economic activities
depending on the marine environment are growing. Member States' reports confirm
that European Seas are not in "good environmental status". 
There are a number of different reasons for
such results, in particular:
·                        
39% of stocks in the Northeast Atlantic and 88%
in the Mediterranean and Black Seas are still overfished and the situation is
improving only slowly, [4]
·                        
Pollution in the marine environment has
decreased in some places but levels of nutrients and certain hazardous
substances are overall still above acceptable limits. Oxygen depletion, as a
result of nutrient pollution, is particularly serious in the Baltic and Black
seas.
·                        
Marine litter, mostly plastic, is a growing
issue globally and in the EU. In the North Sea, over 90% of Fulmar sea birds
have plastic in their stomach and on average 712 items of litter are found on
100m stretch of beach on the Atlantic Coast. The impacts of this increasing problem are manifold and their
magnitude not yet fully known. 
·                        
Climate change, though not directly assessed
under the MSFD, also contributes to the further degradation of marine
ecosystems.
More efforts need to be
made to meet the 2020 objective of reaching good environmental status as part of
a complete, adequate, consistent and coherent implementation of the MSFD.
2.           Key Principles of the
Assessment 
The Commission has applied a set of
principles to assess whether the information reported by Member States is a complete,
adequate, consistent and coherent framework[5]
as required under article 8 (initial assessment), 9 (determination of good
environmental status) and 10 (environmental targets) of the Directive. In
particular, it considered whether:
–              
 all relevant descriptors and all marine waters
were covered by Member States’ reports for all relevant provisions
–              
 the determination of good environmental status
(GES) was specific and quantified, making it possible to assess progress
towards its realisation
–              
 GES definitions in the same marine region or
subregion were coherent with each other
–              
 the initial assessment reflected the scientific
knowledge available in the fields covered by the Directive and enabled the
setting of a baseline for future reference
–              
 targets set reflected the findings of the
initial assessment and the GES definition, to enable Member States to
realistically achieve GES by 2020 
–              
 Member States took into account existing EU
regulations and policies relevant to the marine environment, as well as the
relevant standards set in Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs) when no EU standard
was available. 
A series of questionnaires have detailed
these principles[6].
Failing to meet one or several of them has led to an evaluation as
"partially adequate", or "inadequate", as "not
consistent" and/or as "low" or "medium" with regard to
coherence. Meeting them all, even at minimum level, has led to an assessment as
"adequate", ''consistent'' and ''coherent''. 
Only if these latter criteria are met by
all Member States, can it be determined whether policies in place are putting the
EU as a whole on track to achieve "ecologically diverse and dynamic
oceans which are clean, healthy and productive"[7] by 2020. This is at
present not the case. A few examples illustrate the issue: 
–              
Member States reported on different species and
habitats lists, some of them ignoring those set by the Habitats Directive, some
ignoring habitats present in their waters. 
–              
Member States identified different contaminants
set out on the list of priority substances under the Water Framework Directive,
focussing on some and ignoring others. 
–              
Only a few Member States clearly stated that all
fish stocks should be exploited at or below maximum sustainable yield levels. 
The Commission’s assessment should not,
however, primarily be interpreted in terms of compliance with the Directive. Rather
its purpose is to enable the Commission to provide guidance to Member States
for the Directive’s objectives to be attained and a snapshot of its
implementation. Finally, while recognising that reporting is a significant
undertaking for Member States, especially in view of tight deadlines, the
Commission's assessment is as accurate as the information it received. There
are examples of very good quality reporting, but also cases where reporting
contains gaps or contradictions. 
3.           Main findings
(1)                   
A comprehensive assessment
The assessment on the state of marine
waters in the EU is holistic and integrates socio-economic considerations. It
allows a better understanding of pressures and impacts from human activities on
marine life, bringing together a wealth of information. In particular,
biodiversity, non-indigenous species, marine litter and underwater noise have
been addressed more systematically than ever before. Most Member States have
reported on most articles and most descriptors, providing a very broad overview
of the marine environment in Europe. However, the quality of reporting varies
widely from country to country, and within individual Member States, from one
descriptor to another.
Greater consideration has been given to
instruments such as the Water Framework Directive, the Common Fisheries Policy
and EU biodiversity policy in the marine field. This is an important
contribution to policy coherence which has led to more cross-sectoral
cooperation and dialogue across the EU.
Work on the MSFD has triggered and accompanied
new developments in RSCs, demonstrating the complementarity of work at EU and
regional sea level and providing mutual benefit to all parties concerned. The
RSCs have worked, to varying degrees, on reports on the state of their seas in
order to feed into Member States’ own initial assessments. They also developed
new regional-level indicators, targets and methods and agreed on the need for
improved regional coordination.
Finally, public consultations were
organised in Member States[8],
prompting debate with stakeholders on the level of ambition of marine policies
across the EU and beyond. 
Overall, the first phase of the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive has therefore brought the EU one step closer to
the concrete implementation of the ecosystem approach with regard to the
management of human activities impacting our seas, a concept at the heart of
the Directive. Valuable lessons have been learnt at the EU level, in Member
States and in Regional Sea Conventions alike. 
(2)                   
Adequacy 
Despite these positive aspects, the
European Commission also found inadequacies in Member States’ submissions, with
even the best-performing Member States still having to address specific shortcomings.
The Member States’ initial assessment under
article 8 provides the evidence base on which the implementation of the
Directive relies. Yet, the initial assessment reports often give only a
fragmented overview of the state of the marine environment, not always
reflecting the available knowledge in its entirety. 
The presence of data gaps in Member States'
reports is inevitable, as there are still significant gaps in knowledge on
marine issues, and the scope of the assessment required by article 8 of the
MSFD is very comprehensive. Yet, only a few Member States put forward a strategy
on how to close the existing data gaps before the next reporting cycle, for
instance through future plans for monitoring at national or regional level. The
results of research projects specifically addressing gaps in knowledge on
marine issues relevant to the 11 descriptors of the MSFD have not always been
made best use of. Finally, Member States did not use the initial assessment to
establish a baseline: a missed opportunity which makes it difficult, and in
some cases impossible to assess the distance to target. 
Furthermore, an adequate determination of GES
under article 9 is particularly important in this first phase of
implementation, as it sets the level of ambition which Member States commit to
achieve by 2020. 
Most Member States reported on GES for all
descriptors and some set ambitious benchmarks through its definition.
Nevertheless, a majority failed to go beyond the basic GES delineation as set
out in the Directive. For instance, many did not include qualitative or
explanatory elements that would illustrate the concept and provide added value,
ambition and clearly defined goals. GES has also often not been set in a
measurable way, making it impossible to assess in practice to what extent it is
achieved. High qualitative ambitions in GES determination, when they do exist,
often remain of an aspirational kind. 
In addition, Member States have in some
instances not systematically built on existing EU legislation and RSC
standards. This could stem from the fact that the relationship between the MSFD
and other relevant legislation may not be clear enough for all. Mostly,
however, a “pick and choose” approach has been adopted by certain Member
States, which only take partial account of existing rules, objectives and limit
values. If left unchanged, attaining GES as currently defined would only lead
to a modest improvement in the quality of our oceans.
The same conclusions can be drawn in
relation to the targets set according to article 10 of the MSFD. Member States
have set a wide variety of targets, which differ in their level of ambition and
specificity. Most importantly, the environmental targets set are in some cases not
sufficient to achieve good environmental status. 
(3)                   
Consistency  
Another general concern is the lack of
consistency in Member States’ implementation. In particular the logical link
between the initial assessment (the point of departure), the determination of
GES (the final objective) and the targets (the effort needed to reach the
objective, starting from the point of departure) has not been recognised by
all. Some Member States did not distinguish clearly between the determination
of GES and the targets themselves, or did not take into account their initial
assessment in developing targets, turning a comprehensive, holistic process in
a series of unrelated reporting exercises. 
(4)                   
Coherence 
Regional cooperation through the RSCs
protecting the EU’s marine waters is well-developed. Significant commitments were
made by all RSCs to implement the ecosystem approach and support MSFD
implementation. Unfortunately, Member States’ use of the results of regional
cooperation within their marine strategies varies. Sometimes, the relevant work
developed under RSCs came too late, but when it was on time, it has not always
been used in national reports. 
This has resulted in a lack of coherence
within the EU, and also within the same marine region or subregion (required by
Article 3(5)b and 5(2) MSFD). While coherence varies widely across the EU and
is high in some regions and for some descriptors, overall levels are moderate
to low. Member States in the North East Atlantic show the highest level of
coherence (nevertheless with significant room for improvement) while coherence
is lowest in the Mediterranean and in particular in the Black Sea (although the
latter could only be partially assessed).
Thus, there is no shared EU understanding
of GES, even at a (sub-)regional level. There are over 20 different GES
determinations across the EU, and therefore no common or comparable goals. 
4.           Recommendations and next
steps
The analysis of the first phase of
implementation of the MSFD clearly shows that much more progress needs to be
made to avoid an insufficient, inefficient, piecemeal and unnecessarily costly
approach to the protection of the marine environment. 
Comparability of the reporting of Member
States is low and makes coordinated action and analysis difficult. Therefore,
it will be challenging not only to achieve GES by 2020, but even to know how
far we are from meeting the objective. It will also deprive economic operators
of a level playing field across the EU and its marine regions. It jeopardizes
an important resource base, without which Blue Growth will not be sustainable
in the long term. 
A window of opportunity is now open to
improve this situation ahead of the development of Monitoring Programmes and
Programmes of Measures planned for 2014 and 2015 respectively. These will
deliver better results at lower cost if they are coordinated or developed
jointly across Member States.
(1)                   
The lessons learnt so far
Anticipating the results of the present
assessment, a number of lessons have already been learnt by the Commission and
the Member States and translated into concrete initiatives:
–                        
The Common Implementation Strategy for the MSFD[9] has been adapted to new
challenges and a new work programme for implementing the MSFD[10] has been developed for
2014-2018, jointly with Member States, RSCs and other relevant actors. The
joint programme identifies key milestones, strengthens cooperation with RSCs
and foresees the development of guidance aimed at improving the joint
understanding of MSFD requirements. 
–                        
Additional support for implementation has been
made available to Member States, through tailor-made and hands-on projects
funded under the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy. These projects are, for
instance, dedicated to improving the directive's implementation in the
Mediterranean and in the Black Sea.
–                        
Steps have been taken to streamline and simplify
the reporting obligations of Member States, as well as to draw on existing reporting
under relevant legislation, based on the principle of "report once, use
many times". 
(2)                   
Way forward
Beyond these lessons learnt much more needs
to be done within the present implementation cycle and before the reporting
exercise is repeated in 2018. This will require not only a number of specific
actions and a higher ambition level, but also a different way of thinking about
how to implement the MSFD, in order to remedy the identified shortcomings. 
In the short term, and in accordance with
article 12 of the MFSD, it is essential to ensure that the most positive
aspects of implementation so far are capitalised upon, and that the weaknesses
identified do not adversely affect the future implementation of the MSFD. In
order to do so, Member States should give swift and serious consideration to
the following recommendations including when preparing the monitoring
programmes and programmes of measures. In particular Member States should:
–                        
use the monitoring programmes to address the
shortcomings and gaps identified in the initial assessment;
–                        
systematically use standards stemming from EU
legislation (such as the Common Fisheries Policies, the Water Framework
Directive, the Habitats Directive, etc. and the proposed  directive on Maritime
Spatial Planning (MSP) and Integrated Coastal Management (ICM)[11] as soon
as it enters into force) as minimum requirements. If such standards do
not exist, Member States should use region-specific common indicators developed
by the relevant RSCs in their monitoring programmes and programmes of measures;

–                        
review and, where possible, update their GES and
targets in preparation for the monitoring and measures programmes to allow for
a consistent approach within and among regions and between the different
provisions;
In addition, where the Commission has found
shortcomings, Member States should, as soon as possible and by 2018 at the
latest, significantly improve the quality and coherence of their determinations
of GES, their initial assessments and their environmental targets, to ensure
that the second round of implementation yields greater benefits. In particular,
the following actions should be taken:
–                        
revise, strengthen and improve the current GES
Decision 2010/477/EU by 2015, aiming at a clearer, simpler, more concise, more
coherent and comparable set of GES criteria and methodological standards; this
review could also factor in the impacts of climate change on the GES assessment[12]; 
–                        
review Annex III of the MSFD, and if necessary
revise, and develop specific guidance to ensure a more coherent and consistent
approach for assessments in the next implementation cycle;
implement a modern and
effective data and information sharing system between the EU (EEA) and RSCs
(“WISE-Marine”), taking full advantage of the ongoing developments to improve
accessibility and interoperability of marine data through the "Marine
Knowledge 2020" initiative;
–                        
systematically use assessments carried out for
other relevant EU legislation or under RSCs by Member States, with preparatory
work starting immediately; 
–                        
develop action plans, coordinated at (sub-)regional
level to rectify the shortcomings identified at the latest by 2018[13].
Last but not least, regional cooperation
must be at the very heart of MSFD implementation, and influence national
implementation processes, rather than the other way around. At the regional
level, the Commission and the Member States should cooperate with other
Contracting Parties in the context of the RSCs, to stimulate further
coordination at regional or sub-regional level, bearing in mind that each RSC
has its specificities. Member States should then use the results systematically
in national implementation processes. The Commission and the Member States should continue discussion on how best to foster regional cooperation and further
strengthen cooperation with the RSCs, in particular to further align work
programmes. 
These recommendations aim at providing a
clear framework for a gradually improving the cooperative approach to MSFD
implementation, with gradual steps and objectives to be met at all relevant
levels. This way forward, if implemented fully and rapidly by all, well before
2018, will help achieve the required urgent policy step-change, and will improve
the way we jointly address the protection of our oceans and seas in the little
time left before 2020. 
The European Commission intends to reassess
in 2016, as part of its report on the programmes of measures[14], whether the
collaborative approach described above has been implemented and has delivered
results, or whether additional action is needed in order to ensure the proper
implementation of the MSFD. The revision of the GES decision in 2015 and the
strengthening of regional cooperation are key elements of this approach. In
parallel, the European Commission may avail itself of the possibility to launch
further infringement procedures to ensure the proper implementation of the MSFD,
whenever necessary.
5.           Conclusion
The very fragile marine ecosystems of the
EU are facing increasing pressures from human activities. Implementing the MSFD
and translating the ecosystem approach into a scientifically sound reality in the
marine environment, while working jointly with the EU's neighbours, is a very
challenging, but crucial task. In the first phase of the MSFD, important
milestones have been established at the European, regional and national levels,
representing an important effort. Nevertheless, the EU is still very far from
enjoying healthy oceans and seas. Meeting this objective by 2020, in less than
seven years, implies renewed and intensified efforts and rapid and important
change in the way Member States, the European Commission, RSCs and other
relevant organisations work together, focusing on joint action and planning, as
well as policy coherence across sectors. Greater coordination of monitoring
programmes and programmes of measures, more ambitious regional cooperation and
a clearer understanding of the roles, responsibilities and obligations of all
parties will facilitate less costly and more effective protection of the marine
environment as will the full implementation of the EU’s legislative framework
dealing with land-based sources of pollution as well as more systematic efforts
to achieve Integrated Coastal Zone Management.  These actions represent the minimum
necessary if the EU is to be successful in implementing the MSFD, protecting
its oceans and seas, and to ensure its marine waters will provide a sustainable
source of development for the generations to come. 
[1]               See Commission Staff Working Document: "First
steps in the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive -
Assessment in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2008/56/EC" for
a state of play on the reporting from Member States. Member States with no
coastline did not have to report under the MSFD.
[2]               As mandated by article 12 of the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive.
[3]               Commission Staff Working Document: "First
steps in the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive -
Assessment in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2008/56/EC".
[4]               Communication from the Commission to the Council
concerning a consultation on Fishing Opportunities for 2014 COM(2013) 319
final.
[5]               According to Article 12 MSFD: " On the basis of
all the notifications made pursuant to Articles 9(2), 10(2) and 11(3) in
respect of each marine region or subregion, the Commission shall assess
whether, in the case of each Member State, the elements notified constitute an
appropriate framework to meet the requirements of this Directive and may ask
the Member State concerned to provide any additional information that is
available and necessary. In drawing up those assessments, the Commission shall
consider the coherence of frameworks within the different marine regions or
subregions and across the Community".
[6]               See Staff Working Document, ibid. 
[7]               MSFD, article 3.5.
[8]               The European Commission has received information from
17 Member States on public consultation processes required by article 19 of the
MSFD. See Staff Working Document for more information. 
[9]               The Directive requires from Member States detailed
and coordinated input. In order to facilitate this work, Member States and the European Commission have set up an informal programme of coordination, the Common
Implementation Strategy (CIS).
[10]             Work Programme agreed as part of the CIS:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/index_en.htm

[11]             Proposal for a Directive establishing a Framework for
Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Management, COM (2013)133
final.
[12]             As outlined in SWD (2013) 133 final (as part of the
Commission's "EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change").
[13]             These action plans could be inspired by the Structured
Implementation and Information Framework approach and defining the various
steps to be undertaken by a Member States to improve implementation (see
COM(2012) 95).
[14]             Article
16 MSFD.