REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL assessing Member States' monitoring programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Date: 2017-01-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU environmental policy, application of EU law, biodiversity, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, marine ecosystem, marine environment, marine pollution, prevention of pollution

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.1.2017  COM(2017) 3 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL assessing Member States' monitoring programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive {SWD(2017) 1 final}  
 
 
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 

assessing Member States’ monitoring programmes under the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) 

1. INTRODUCTION  
The  EU  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive1 (MSFD)  provides  a  framework  in  which 
Member States must take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain 'good environmental 
status' in all of the EU’s marine waters by 2020. Achieving this objective means that the EU’s 
seas are clean, healthy and productive and the use of the marine environment is sustainable. 
The MSFD includes eleven qualitative "descriptors"2 describing what the environment should 
look  like  when  good  environmental  status  has  been  achieved.  Commission  Decision 
2010/477/EU  on  criteria  and  methodological  standards  on  good  environmental  status  of 
marine waters3 guides Member States on how this objective is to be achieved.  

In practice, Member  States  are required to develop and implement  marine strategies. These 
include:  

  an initial assessment of their marine waters, 

 

the determination of the good environmental status of their marine waters, 

 

the setting of environmental targets, 

 

the establishment and implementation of coordinated monitoring programmes, and  

 

the identification of measures or actions that need to be taken in order to achieve or 
maintain good environmental status.  

The Commission has to assess whether these different elements meet the requirements of the 
Directive  for  each  Member  State.  When  necessary,  the  Commission  can  also  ask  for 
additional information and provide guidance on any changes needed. 

Member  States  reported  in  2012  after  the  first  implementation  phase  covering  the  initial 
assessment,  the  determination  of  good  environmental  status  and  the  identification  of 
environmental  targets.  The  Commission  published  an  assessment 4  of  these  elements, 
concluding  that  Member  States  showed  limited  ambition  in  setting  environmental  targets. 
This  assessment  also  highlighted  a  lack  of  coherence  and  consistency  in  implementation 
across marine sub-regions and marine regions. 

1 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in 
the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19). 
2 The 11 qualitative descriptors are defined in Annex I of the  MSFD and include D1–  Biodiversity, D2 –  Non indigenous species,  D3 – 
Commercial  fish  and  shellfish,  D4  –  Food  webs,  D5  –  Eutrophication,  D6  –  Sea-floor  integrity,  D7  –  Hydrographical  changes,  D8  – 
Contaminants, D9 –  Contaminants in seafood, D10 –  Litter, D11 –  Energy, including underwater noise. For the purpose of this report the 
Biodiversity  descriptors  (D1,  4  and  6)  have  been  grouped  according  to  the  main  species  groups  and  habitat  types,  as  follows:  birds, 
mammals and  reptiles, fish and cephalopods, seabed habitats and water  column habitats.  This additional grouping results in a  total of 13 
descriptor categories.   
3 Commission  Decision  2010/477/EU  of  1  September  2010  on  criteria  and  methodological  standards  on  good  environmental  status  of 
marine water (OJ L 232, 2.9.2010, p. 14). 
4 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 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
In the next stage of implementation, Member States were required to establish and implement 
monitoring  programmes  by  July  20145 and  to  notify  them  to  the  Commission  within  three 
months of their establishment. The monitoring programmes aim to assess the environmental 
status of marine waters and progress towards the achievement of environmental targets. 
Twenty  Member  States6 reported  their  monitoring  programmes  to  the  Commission  in  time7 
for this evaluation: Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, 
Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Finland, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom.8 Three Member States (Malta, Greece and Poland) had not 
yet submitted their reports.9  

This  report  complements  the  2014  Commission  report  and  aims  to  set  out  Member  States’ 
progress  towards  more  consistent  and  coherent  implementation  of  the  MSFD  in  order  to 
achieve good environmental status in the EU's marine waters by 2020. 

The  Commission  presents  its  assessment  of  the  monitoring  programmes  submitted  by  the 
Member States listed above. The report assesses the consistency and appropriateness of each 
Member State’s monitoring programme, as well as looking at regional coherence. The report 
also provides guidance on any changes the Commission considers necessary. 

The  first  part  of  the  report  analyses  Member  States’  monitoring  programmes  in  relation  to 
their  determination  of  good  environmental  status  and  associated  environmental  targets.  The 
second  part  considers  further  steps  on  monitoring  to  be  taken  at  national  and  EU  level  to 
achieve and maintain good environmental status of the EU’s marine waters by 2020. 
The  accompanying  staff  working  document10 to  this  report  contains  a  detailed  analysis  of 
each Member State’s monitoring programme in light of the eleven qualitative descriptors in 
the MSFD, as well as providing specific guidance to each Member State. 

The  accompanying  staff  working  document  also  includes  an  assessment  of  some  elements 
reported under the first implementation phase of the MSFD for those Member States having 
reported late –  Bulgaria, Croatia, Malta, the Macaronesia sub-region of Portugal (Azores and 
Madeira)  and  the  Western  Mediterranean  sub-region  for  the  United  Kingdom  (the  waters 
surrounding Gibraltar).11 

2. MAIN FINDINGS 

In  order  to  assess  if  Member  State  monitoring  programmes  constitute  an  appropriate 
framework  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  MSFD,  the  programmes  were  assessed  by 
considering their purpose, spatial scope, coverage of descriptor categories and environmental 
targets,  implementation  timeline,  adequacy  in  relation  to  the  obligations  of  the  MSFD  and 
other relevant legislation, and regional coherence.  

The twenty Member States reported over 200 monitoring programmes, including nearly 1 000 
sub-programmes. 

5 This requirement is provided for in Articles 5(2)(a)(iv) and 11 of MSFD. 
6 This obligation in the Directive applies only to the 23 coastal Member States, and not to the 5 land-locked Member States. 
7 For the purposes of this report, September 2015 was used as a cut-off date. 
8 The UK report excluded waters surrounding the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar. 
9 Malta  and  Poland  have  since  submitted  their  reports,  but  given  the  late  submission,  an  assessment  of  these  could  not  be  made  for  the 
purposes of this report. To date (October 2016) Greece has not yet submitted its report. The Commission will, at a later stage, communicate 
and make public its assessment and guidance to the Member States not included in this report. 
10 SWD(2017)1 final 
11 For Portugal and the United Kingdom, the Commission’s initial recommendations in its 2014 report were updated to reflect the data on 
Macaronesia for Portugal and on Gibraltar for the UK.  

3 

 
 
 
                                                 
Purpose 

As shown in Figure 1 the majority of monitoring activities (73 %) are focused on assessing 
the environmental state of Member States’ marine waters and impacts from human activities. 
41 % of activities are related to monitoring pressures from human activity (e.g. presence of 
suspended  particulate  matter  in the water  column  decreasing  water  transparency  or nutrient 
enrichment causing eutrophication; or marine litter accumulated on beaches), 19 % focus on 
human  activities  causing  the  pressure  (e.g.  dredging  activities  in  ports,  or  agricultural 
activities and urban waste water discharges, or inappropriate solid waste management), while 
only 12 % focus on the effectiveness of measures to mitigate these pressures and their impact 
(e.g. effects of measures to reduce nutrient loss, or to improve solid waste management). This 
lack  of  emphasis  on  assessing  measures  can  be  partly  explained  by  the  fact  that  Member 
States were not required to have their measures operational before the end of 2016 (Article 
5(2) of the MSFD).  

As  there  is  overlap  between  programmes  and  their  function,  the  sum  of  the  different 
monitoring activities is greater than 100 %. 

Figure 1: Purpose of monitoring of Member States12 

The monitoring of biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) accounts for 41 % of the effort.13 The 
focus  on  biodiversity  could  be  explained  by  the  work  already  being  done  on  monitoring  to 
implement  other  EU  legislation,  such  as  the  Birds  Directive,14 the  Habitats  Directive,15 the 

12 This  graph  does  not  include  data  from  Latvia,  Italy  and  Portugal  as  their  reports  were  submitted  in  a  non-standardised  structure.  The 
monitoring programmes cover several spatial areas, therefore could refer to coastal and territorial waters. 
13 Percentages are calculated based on total number of monitoring sub-programmes reported. 
14 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20, 
26.1.2010, p. 7) 

4 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Environmentalstate and impactsPressuresHuman activitiescausing thepressuresEffectiveness ofmeasuresShare of Member  States' monitoring programmes in each category  (%)  What is the purpose of monitoring? (based on Member State self-assessment) 
 
 
 
                                                 
Water Framework Directive,16 the Bathing Water Directive,17 the Nitrates Directive18 and the 
Common  Fisheries  Policy  Regulation. 19  These  include  monitoring  requirements  directly 
linked  with  the  MSFD  descriptors.  For  instance,  under  the  Birds  Directive,  Member  States 
have to take into account trends and variations in populations of wild bird species that benefit 
from special conservation  measures. Member States' monitoring  of the population, size  and 
abundance of sea birds therefore serve requirements stemming from both the Birds Directive 
and MSFD. 

59 %  of  the  monitoring  activities  are  linked  with  the  remaining  eight  descriptors,  with 
relatively  limited  monitoring  of  energy  including  underwater  noise20 and  contaminants  in 
seafood (Descriptors 11 and 9) (4 % each), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) (5 %), and 
marine litter and hydrographic changes (Descriptors 10 and 7) (6 % each). Contaminants in 
waters  (Descriptor  8),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5)  and  commercial  fish  (Descriptor  3)  are 
better covered (13 %, 11 % and 9 % respectively of the monitoring efforts). 

Spatial scope 

Member  States  have  reported  on  the  spatial  distribution  of  their  monitoring  programmes, 
using the following geographic zones:  

 

 

terrestrial (land-based), 
transitional waters, 21 

  coastal waters,  

 

 

 

territorial waters,  
the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),22  
the continental shelf area beyond the EEZ,23 and  

beyond Member States marine waters. 

As shown in Figure 2, the highest proportion (68 %) of Member State monitoring takes place 
in coastal waters, while a high proportion also occurs in territorial waters (57 %) and in the 
EEZ (51 %). The lowest proportion (6 %) takes place in continental waters beyond the EEZ. 

15 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 
7) 
16 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action 
in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1) 
17 Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water 
quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC (OJ L 64, 4.3.2006, p. 37) 
18 Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution  caused  by  nitrates  from 
agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1) 
19 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, 
amending  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  1954/2003  and  (EC)  No  1224/2009  and  repealing  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  2371/2002  and 
(EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22) 
20 This  descriptor  refers  to  the  introduction  of  energy  in  the  marine  environment,  including  underwater  noise.  Given  the  scientific  and 
technical  development  behind  this  descriptor  is  still  maturing,  Member  States  have  exclusively  concentrated  their  efforts  on  underwater 
noise, and the descriptor will be referred to as such for the purposes of this report . 
21 Transitional  waters  are  bodies  of  surface  water  in  the  vicinity  of  river  mouths  which  are  partly  saline  in  character  as  a  result  of  their 
proximity to coastal waters but which are substantially influenced by freshwater flows as defined by Directive 2000/60/EC. Coastal waters 
extend to 1 nautical mile from the baseline, as defined by Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. 
22 Territorial waters (out to 12 nautical miles), Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (up to 200 nautical miles), Continental Shelf beyond EEZ as 
defined under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 
23 'Beyond Member States’ marine waters’ refers to areas outside the jurisdiction of the Member State (including in waters of neighbouring 
States). 

5 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
As  explained  above,  Member  States  have  generally  linked  their  monitoring  programmes  to 
existing programmes required under other EU legislation, which could explain the prevalence 
of  monitoring  in  coastal  waters.  Monitoring  programmes  beyond  Member  States’  territorial 
waters are limited. This may be explained by a number of  factors, such as the cost of such 
monitoring and the need to focus on key pressures and impacts, which occur closer to shore. 

Figure 2: Spatial scope of monitoring of Member States24 

Implementation timeline  

Member States were required to develop and implement their monitoring programmes by 15 
July 2014. Figure 3 shows the proportion, by descriptor category, of monitoring programmes 
expected  to  be  in  place  by  2014,  2018,  2020  and  after  2020.  In  2014,  the  descriptors  most 
monitored by Member States were contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9), commercial fish 
(Descriptor  3)  and  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5).  By  2020,  based  on  Member  States’  self-
assessment, the monitoring programmes for eutrophication (Descriptor 5), mammals, reptiles, 
fish and cephalopods (Descriptors 1 and 4) and contaminants (Descriptor 8) will be in place. 
For  commercial  fish  (Descriptor  3),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  marine  litter 
(Descriptor 10) and seabed and water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), nearly 90% of 
the monitoring programmes are expected to be in place by 2020.   

24 The sum of the different monitoring activities is greater than 100%, as programmes and their functions overlap. No data from Latvia, Italy 
or Portugal are included in this chart, as their reports were submitted in a non-standardised structure. 

6 

15%19%68%57%51%6%15%Where does monitoring take place?(based on Member State self-assessment)Terrestrial part ofMember StateTransitional waters (WFD)Coastal waters (WFD)Territorial watersExclusive economic zone -EEZ (or similar)Continental shelf (beyondEEZ)Beyond Member State'swaters 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 3: Date by when Member States expect their monitoring programmes, per descriptor category, to be in place 
to cover their good environmental status needs2526 

Monitoring  programmes  for  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2)  and  underwater  noise 
(Descriptor 11) will require a clear acceleration to ensure proper coverage given the MSFD 
deadlines  for  the  update  of  marine  strategies  by  2018,  and  achieving  good  environmental 
status by 2020. Additional effort is also needed for the biodiversity descriptors (Descriptors 
1, 4 and 6) and in particular for those not covered by existing legislation. 

25 ‘Not reported’: timeline of coverage of good environmental status not reported. 
26 As explained in footnote 2 above, 13 categories of descriptors have been defined. 

7 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%D11 - Energy/Noise D2 - NISD1, 4, 6 - Seabed habitatsD10 - Marine litterD1, 4 - Mammals and reptilesD1, 4 -Water column habitats D1, 4 - BirdsD1, 4 - Fish and cephalopodsD8 - ContaminantsD7 - Hydrographical changes D5 - EutrophicationD3 - Commercial fishD9 - Contaminants in seafoodBy 2014By 2018By 2020After 2020Not reportedWhen will descriptor-categories be monitored?(based on Member State self-assessment) 
 
 
                                                 
Figure  4:  Date  by  when  Member  States  expect  their  monitoring  programmes  to  be  in  place  to  cover  their  good 
environmental status needs. 

Figure 4 shows the proportion, by Member State, of monitoring programmes expected to be 
in place to assess progress towards good environmental status by 2014, 2018, 2020 and after 
2020.  

Five Member States reported their monitoring programmes were in place for most categories 
of  descriptors  as  of  2014.  Four  Member  States  had  no  monitoring  programmes  in  place  in 
2014.  Overall,  the  monitoring  programmes  were  only  partially  adequate  by  July  2014,  the 
date  at  which  they  should  have  been  created  and  implemented  in  accordance  with 
Article 5(2)(a)(iv) of the MSFD. As a consequence, Member States will have significant gaps 
in  the  data  available  for  assessing  progress  towards  good  environmental  status  and 
environmental targets as required for the 2018 assessment. 

According to Member States' reports, the situation is expected to improve progressively over 
time: by 2018, nine Member States are expected to have a full (or nearly full) coverage of the 
descriptor  categories  and  by  2020  a  total  of  fifteen  Member  States  will  have  their 
programmes in place. Overall, Member States have for the most part identified 2020 as the 
point by which most of their monitoring programmes will be fully in place. This is reassuring 
only  insofar  as  it  means  that  MSFD  monitoring  is  expected  to  be  fully  operational  by  that 
date. 

8 

012345678910111213Number of descriptor categories When is monitoring expected to be in place?(based on Member State self-assessment)By 2014By 2018By 2020After 2020Not reported 
 
 
Nevertheless,  five  Member  States  have  either  not  reported  on  their  intentions  or  have 
announced that their monitoring programmes will not be fully in place even after 2020 – the 
year by when Member States are required to achieve good environmental status. 

Similar  observations  can  be  made  for  the  coverage  of  environmental  targets  by  Member 
States’  monitoring  programmes, 27  although  the  timelines  reported  indicate  that  Member 
States generally expect that monitoring needs will be adequately covered before 2020 – see 
Figure 5.  

Figure 5: Date by when Member States expect their monitoring programmes for environmental targets to be in place 

Twelve  Member  States  are  expected  to  have  monitoring  activities  in  place  to  measure  the 
environmental targets they have defined. Ireland plans to cover all targets but will only do so 
after 2020, by when good environmental status should have already been achieved. The other 
seven Member States do not plan to monitor part of the targets they have defined.   

As  explained  above,  targets related  to  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  species  (Descriptor  3), 
eutrophication  (Descriptor  5)  and  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  will  benefit  from 
the  monitoring  programmes  set  up  under  other  EU  legislation.  Most  of  them  are  either 
already covered or likely to be covered by 2018. 

Additional  work  is  needed  in  order  to  ensure  Member  States  collect  the  necessary  data  to 
assess progress towards good environmental status and targets. Member States are expected 

27 In  line  with  Article  10  of  the  MSFD,  Member  States  had  to  define  environmental  targets    in  order  to  meet  the  Good 
environmental status of their marine waters  

9 

024681012BelgiumNetherlandsFinlandCyprusUKSloveniaDenmarkSwedenGermanyCroatiaRomaniaEstoniaBulgariaLatviaItalyPortugalIrelandLithuaniaSpainFranceNumber of descriptor categoriesWhen will environmental targets be monitored?(based on Member State  self-assessment)By 2020After 2020Specific target not defined or no monitoring programmes reported 
 
 
                                                 
to  report  on  these  in  2018,  especially  for  those  descriptors  where  progress  has  not  been 
sufficient  such  as  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10), 
underwater  noise  (Descriptor  11)  and  biodiversity  descriptors  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6)  not 
covered by existing legislation. 

Coverage and overall appropriateness 

The adequacy of Member States’ monitoring programmes in relation to the requirements of 
the MSFD was assessed. Detailed findings on each Member State’s monitoring programme 
are  available  in  the  accompanying  staff  working  document.  This  technical  assessment  has 
been made on the basis of the main components of Member States’ monitoring programmes, 
in particular the aspects and the parameters monitored, the frequency and the spatial scope.  

The results show Member States’ monitoring programmes to be either ‘appropriate’, ‘mostly 
appropriate’, or ‘partially appropriate’ in meeting the requirements of the MSFD in terms of 
assessing environmental status.  

The combined contribution of each Member State's monitoring programme to each descriptor 
category is shown in Figure 6. The information presented in this figure was used to assess the 
number of descriptor categories that are considered to be covered (or not) by each Member 
State.  On  that  basis,  conclusions  are  drawn  on  whether  the  Member  State's  monitoring 
programme is considered to be mostly, partially or not appropriate (Figure 7).  

Figure 6: Coverage of good environmental status by MSFD monitoring programmes based on technical assessment 

10 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%D1, 4 - Mammals and reptilesD3 - Commercial fishD9 - Contaminants in seafood D2 - NIS D5 - EutrophicationD8 - ContaminantsD7 - Hydrographical changesD1, 4 - Fish and cephalopodsD10 - Marine litter D1, 4 - BirdsD1, 4 -Water column habitatsD1, 4, 6 - Seabed habitatsD11 - Energy/NoiseFull coveragePartial coverageNo coverageGES not defined or no monitoring programmes reportedShare of monitoring programmereported (%)How well does monitoring cover good environmental status per descriptor category? 
 
 
 
The shortcomings identified in the 2014 Commission report in terms of lack of consistency 
and comparability in applying Decision 2010/477/EU amongst Member States is confirmed 
in this assessment. Therefore only an indicative comparative assessment was possible in the 
context of this report. 

Most Member States have identified gaps in their programmes and are aware of the key areas 
that  need  further  work.  Gaps  have  generally  been  noted  in  monitoring  methodologies  and 
methodological  standards  (e.g.  for  seabed  habitats  and  water  column  habitats  and 
contaminants),  lack  of  monitoring  data  and  knowledge  (e.g.  for  non-  indigenous  species 
(Descriptor  2),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  and 
underwater noise (Descriptor 11)).  

Some pressures and impacts will only be monitored effectively once a regional approach is in 
place, given their inherent transboundary nature (for instance those related to mobile species, 
non-indigenous species and underwater noise). 

Figure 7: Coverage of good environmental status by MSFD monitoring programmes based on technical assessment 

Overall, on the basis of the technical assessment, the Commission considers that none of the 
Member  States'  monitoring  programmes  are  fully  appropriate  and  meet the  requirements  of 
the MSFD, in particular on monitoring progress towards achievement of good environmental 
status.  Four  Member  States’  monitoring  programmes  could  be  considered  as  mostly 
appropriate,  thirteen  others  as  partially  appropriate  and  three  Member  States’  monitoring 
programmes are not appropriate. 

Consistency with other EU legislation 

Most  Member  States  have  based  their  monitoring  programmes  on  existing  monitoring 
undertaken under other EU legislation or through their respective Regional Sea Conventions. 

11 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percentage (%) coverage of GESHow appropriate is each Member State's monitoring  programme?  GES is not defined, or no monitoring programme reportedGES is not covered by monitoring programmeGES is partially covered by monitoring programmeGES is covered by monitoring programmemost appropriatepartially appropriatemostly appropriateMonitoring :    not appropriate 
 
 
 
The  Water  Framework  Directive,  the  Habitats  Directive  and  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy 
Regulation are the pieces of EU legislation most commonly linked to the MSFD monitoring 
programmes.  In  that  sense,  it  can  be  considered  that  monitoring  programmes  are  generally 
consistent with other relevant legal obligations.  

Marine litter  (Descriptor  10)  and  underwater  noise  (Descriptor  11)  monitoring  programmes 
are  the  only  monitoring  programmes  that  are  being  put  in  place  exclusively  because  of  the 
MSFD. 

Focus: Monitoring programme for marine litter 

Almost  all  reporting  Member  States  have  developed  programmes  to  monitor  marine  litter, 
which is encouraging.  

There is appropriate spatial coverage and frequency of monitoring litter on the beach. In the 
North-East  Atlantic  Ocean,  ingested  litter  is  also  monitored  systematically  in  seabird 
strandings. A satisfactory degree of consistency in monitoring programmes is found in most 
marine  regions,  and  links  to  international  and  regional  standards  are  clear.  Most  Member 
States refer to the monitoring guidance developed by the MSFD Technical Group on Marine 
Litter, which provides the necessary harmonisation. 

Nevertheless,  there  are  several  areas 28 that  need  urgent  improvement.  For  instance,  litter 
monitoring  in  the  seabed  and  water  surface  and  monitoring  of  micro-litter  is  far  from 
adequate. There is no systematic and comparable monitoring of the impact of litter on marine 
animals and  nature.  Localisation and the  extent of human activities  generating marine litter 
are often not covered by the monitoring programmes in place.  

Last but not least, there are no agreed baselines or thresholds for litter and micro-litter, which 
makes the monitoring of progress towards good environmental status difficult. This will also 
affect the EU's ability to meet internal (7th Environment Action Programme to 2020, Circular 
Economy action plan29) and international commitments.30  

Regional coherence and coordination 

Member  States’  monitoring  programmes  were  also  assessed  in  terms  of  their  regional 
coherence,  within  the  regions  defined  in  Article  4  of  the  Directive.  Member  States  have 
generally referred to regional coordination in their monitoring programmes, in particular by 
using  indicators  and  standards  agreed  by  the  Regional  Sea  Conventions  to  assess 
environmental status under the MSFD. 

The assessment revealed a moderate to high degree of coherence within the Member States of 
the  Black  Sea,  North-East  Atlantic  Ocean  and  Baltic  Sea  regions  respectively  and  a  low  to 
moderate degree in the Mediterranean Sea region. 

28 Some of these issues such a as marine litter are already being considered in the framework of the common implementation strategy of the 
MSFD. 
29 Communication  from  the  Commission  to  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
Committee of the Regions Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy COM/2015/0614 final 
30 International commitments include the Rio+20 process (United Nations conference on sustainable development) and the 17 sustainable 
development goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted in September 2015. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
For Member States in the Black Sea, North-East Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea regions, the 
assessment shows high levels of coherence in some specific cases such as in terms of spatial 
scope,  or  the  monitored  elements.  This  is  the  case,  for  example,  for  monitoring  of 
contaminants  (Descriptors  8  and  9)  and  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and 
Black Sea regions. Overall, monitoring across the sea-basin appears more harmonised in the 
case of the Baltic Sea and the North-East Atlantic Ocean (including non-EU Member States). 

Member States whose waters are part of the North-East Atlantic Ocean region have created 
monitoring  programmes  at  regional  level  for  all  descriptors;  however,  further  work  is 
required to make  these more consistent, for  example with  regard to  non-indigenous species 
(Descriptor  2)  where  coverage  is  limited  as  only  five  Member  States  have  reported 
monitoring programmes for this descriptor.  

Member States in the Mediterranean Sea region need to develop more consistent monitoring 
through  regional  efforts  for  a  number  of  descriptors,  such  as  in  the  case  of  non-indigenous 
species (Descriptor 2) and underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

Other findings 

Transboundary issues of concern 

In addition to transboundary issues covered by some descriptors of the MSFD (such as non-
indigenous  species,  marine  litter  and  underwater  noise)  some  Member  States  have 
highlighted the pressures and impacts caused by climate change, ocean acidification, as key 
issues  of  a  transboundary  nature  that  are  directly  or  indirectly  addressed  through  MSFD 
monitoring programmes. 

An improved knowledge base 

Member  States’  monitoring  programmes  will  help  build  an  improved  knowledge  base, 
especially regarding the underwater noise and sea-floor integrity descriptors (Descriptors 11 
and 6). This should improve the next assessment by Member States of their marine waters, 
which is due in 2018. 

Adaptive monitoring programmes 

Some  Member  States  have  put  in  place  adaptive  monitoring  programmes,  which  should 
ensure  they  remain  appropriate  if  their  good  environmental  status  or  target  indicators  are 
redesigned  in  the  light  of  improved  knowledge  or  new  standards  and  practices  at  regional 
level,  or  to  reflect  changing  pressures.  Although  flexibility  is  a  positive  feature,  care  is 
needed  to  ensure  that  these  adaptive  monitoring  programmes  do  not  lead  to  monitoring 
coverage being negatively affected in the longer term.  

3. OVERALL CONCLUSION 

The analysis of the monitoring programmes launched under the first MSFD implementation 
cycle shows that, even though considerable efforts have been made or will be accomplished 
in the near future, in most Member States additional action is needed to ensure an appropriate 
and  timely  coverage  of  the  monitoring  programmes.  More  progress  needs  to  be  made  to 
ensure  that  approaches  are  comparable  across  Member  States  and  to  make  sure  the 
monitoring programmes are improved so they constitute an appropriate framework that meets 
the MSFD requirements. 

13 

 
 
 
 
An improved coverage should be ensured for descriptors that are not covered, or only partly, 
by  existing  legislations.  For  eight  Member  States,  particular  attention  should  be  given  to 
ensure a full and timely monitoring coverage of the targets fixed according to Article 10 of 
the MSFD. Member States should consider using their monitoring programmes to gauge the 
effectiveness  of  their  measures,  thereby  helping  them  assess  the  distance  to  meeting  the 
targets they have set themselves, when updating them as required by the MSFD. 

In  terms  of  spatial  coverage,  the  analysis  shows  that  monitoring  programmes  seem  to  be 
located where pressure and impacts are likely to be the highest. This should nevertheless be 
confirmed by an appropriate analysis of the risks so that priorities in terms of monitoring are 
identified on a technical and scientific basis. 

Only a few Member States had operational monitoring programmes in place in 2014, while 
many are only expected to be fully in place by 2018 or even 2020. Therefore urgent progress 
on monitoring is needed to meet the requirements of the MSFD including the 2018 updates of 
the initial assessment of their marine waters and good environmental status, and importantly 
the achievement of good environmental status by 2020.  

Monitoring  programmes  are  not  always  adequate  to  ensure  the  effective  monitoring  of  the 
status  of  the  EU’s  marine  waters,  towards  achieving  good  environmental  status  and  the 
associated  targets,  set  by  Member  States.  This  is  particularly  the  case  for  non-indigenous 
species, marine litter, underwater noise and biodiversity descriptors not covered by existing 
legislation. 

Further coordination among Member States, particularly through action at regional and sub-
regional level, is essential to deliver consistent and comparable data and improve the spatial 
scope of monitoring programmes. This could potentially reduce costs, through more effective 
monitoring across disciplines and among Member States. 

4. RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS 

The Commission considers that Member States should: 

  address  as  soon  as  possible  the  shortcomings  identified,  at  regional  or  sub-regional 
level,  to  ensure  that  the  monitoring  programmes  are  appropriate  to  meet  the 
requirements set by the MSFD, 

  step up efforts to fully implement their monitoring programmes to avoid any gaps in 
assessing  their  marine  waters,  due  in  2018,  while  taking  into  account  the  ongoing 
review of Decision 2010/447/EU and its eventual outcome, 

  ensure  that  the  monitoring  programmes  adequately  cover  the  spatial  scope  of  the 
MSFD, in particular by taking into account the location of the predominant pressures 
and impacts, consistent with a risk-based approach, 

  adapt  monitoring  programmes  to  take  into  account  future  MSFD  obligations, 
including  updated  to  Member  States'  determination  of  good  environmental  status. 
Where  good  environmental  status  and  environmental  targets  have  not  yet  been 
identified as part of the first phase of implementation, Member States are urged to do 
so without delay, 

14 

 
 
 
  seek further coherence at regional or sub-regional level through further coordination 
of  monitoring  programmes,  notably  through  Regional  Sea  Conventions,  including 
common approaches to data collection and assessment methods, 

 

take  into  account  their  programmes  of  measures  when  updating  these  monitoring 
programmes in accordance with Article 17 of the MSFD, so as to be able to measure 
their effectiveness in meeting the Directive's objectives. 

The Commission will: 

  seek  further  consistency  in  implementing  the  different  pieces  of  EU  legislation  that 
impact  the  marine  environment.  It  will  do  so  in  particular  through  reviewing  the 
Decision  that  sets  the  criteria  and  methodological  standards  on  good  environmental 
status  and  through  Commission  initiatives  to  streamline  monitoring  and  reporting 
obligations in environmental policy,31 

  continue  joint  work  with  Member  States,  as  part  of  the  Common  Implementation 
Strategy for the MSFD,32 to ensure that the second cycle of implementing the MSFD 
(2018 and beyond) yields greater benefits and more efficiency, 

  consider  the  need  for  further  funding  for  strategic  projects  and  support  actions  to 
facilitate regional and EU-wide consistency in Member States’ implementation of the 
MSFD, in particular where Regional Sea Convention work is less prominent, 

  on  the  basis  of  the  Member  States'  individual  assessments  (available  in  the 
accompanying staff working document), launch a specific and focused dialogue with 
Member  States  at  significant  risk  of  not  meeting  the  requirements  of  the  MSFD  in 
order to ensure their compliance with the Directive. 

31  Roadmap  on  the  Fitness  Check  of  monitoring  and  reporting  obligations  in  environment  policy,  http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/roadmaps/index_en.htm. 
32 The MSFD 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). 

15