COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council assessing Member States' monitoring programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
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  SWD(2017) 1 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council  assessing Member States' monitoring programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive   {COM(2017) 3 final}  
 
 
Contents 
PART I - SUMMARY FINDINGS AND GUIDANCE PER MEMBER STATE ON MONITORING PROGRAMMES, 
REPORTED UNDER ARTICLE 11(3) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC ................................................................ 3 

1. Belgium ................................................................................................................................................ 5 

2. Bulgaria .............................................................................................................................................. 10 

3. Denmark ............................................................................................................................................ 14 

4. Germany ............................................................................................................................................ 20 

5. Estonia ............................................................................................................................................... 25 

6. Ireland ................................................................................................................................................ 29 

7. Spain .................................................................................................................................................. 34 

8. France ................................................................................................................................................ 38 

9. Croatia ............................................................................................................................................... 42 

10. Italy .................................................................................................................................................. 46 

11. Cyprus .............................................................................................................................................. 50 

12. Latvia ............................................................................................................................................... 55 

13. Lithuania .......................................................................................................................................... 60 

14. Netherlands ..................................................................................................................................... 64 

15. Portugal ........................................................................................................................................... 68 

16. Romania ........................................................................................................................................... 73 

17. Slovenia ........................................................................................................................................... 77 

18. Finland ............................................................................................................................................. 81 

19. Sweden ............................................................................................................................................ 85 

20. United Kingdom ............................................................................................................................... 91 

PART II – SUMMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PER MEMBER STATE ON THEIR INITIAL 
ASSESSMENT, GES DETERMINATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS, REPORTED UNDER ARTICLE 
9(2) AND 10(2) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC ........................................................................................... 95 

1. Bulgaria .............................................................................................................................................. 96 

2. Croatia ............................................................................................................................................... 98 

3. Malta ............................................................................................................................................... 101 

4. Portugal (Azores and Madeira) ....................................................................................................... 106 

5. United Kingdom (Gibraltar) ............................................................................................................. 109 

2 

 
 
 
 
Common Fisheries Policy Regulation 

Data Collection Framework1   

Good Environmental Status 

Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

Non-indigenous Species  

Water Framework Directive   

CFP 

DCF 

GES 

MSFD 

NIS 

WFD 

1 Data Collection Framework as referred to under Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the 
establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support 
for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy and Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 of 14 July 2008 
laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 concerning the establishment of a 
Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice 
regarding the Common Fisheries Policy. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
PART  I  -  SUMMARY  FINDINGS  AND  GUIDANCE  PER  MEMBER 
STATE  ON  MONITORING  PROGRAMMES,  REPORTED  UNDER 
ARTICLE 11(3) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC2 

This  Annex  accompanying  the  Commission  report  on  "Assessment  of  Member  States' 
monitoring programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive"3 gives a summary 
per  Member  State  of  the  Commission's  findings.  These  summaries  result  from  technical 
Member  State-specific  assessments 4 ,  which  analyse  Member  States'  reporting  of  their 
monitoring  programmes  per  descriptor 5,  under  Article  11(3)  of  Directive  2008/56/EC.  It 
describes the conclusions of these technical assessments, the achievement so far, the aspects 
where improvement is needed and it provides outcome per descriptor. It highlights Member 
State-specific guidance.  

Member  States  are  expected  to  take  these  conclusions  and  guidance  into  account  when 
establishing  and  implementing  the  next  elements  of  their  marine  strategies,  and  when 
updating  their  monitoring  programmes  under  Article  17  of  the  MSFD,  while  taking  into 
account the ongoing review process of Decision 2010/447/EU and its eventual outcome. 

Methodology 

The  adequacy  of  the  MSFD  monitoring  programmes  has  been  assessed  by  considering 
whether  the  programmes  and  related  sub-programmes  of  Member  States  are  sufficient  to 
cover  the  monitoring  needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  achieving  Good 
Environmental  Status  (GES)  and  environmental  targets,  as  defined  by  each  Member  State. 
The  outcome  of  the  assessment  is  therefore  partly  dependent  on  the  ambition  level  of  the 
Member State's determination of GES and targets.  

The  overall  conclusion  and  guidance  per  Member  State  given  at  the  beginning  of  each 
Member  State's  section  is  however  based  on  an  assessment  of  their  monitoring  programme 
with  regard  to  coverage  of  progress  towards  GES  achievement  only,  referring  to  the  main 
objective  of  the  MSFD.  For  each  descriptor,  the  Commission  assessed  the  monitoring 

at 

2 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), hereafter referred to as Marine Strategy Framework Directive or MSFD. 
3
 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council, "Commission's assessment of Member States 
monitoring programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive". 
4
 The  technical  Member  State-specific  assessments  were  prepared  for  the  Commission  by  an  external  consultant  and  are 
found 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/marine-strategy-framework-
directive/index_en.htm 
5
 The  11  qualitative  descriptors  are  defined  in  Annex  I  of  Directive  2008/56/EC  and  are  further  specified  in  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), hereafter referred to as "descriptors" and associated to a number between 1 and 11. 
The  numbers  refer  to  the  respective  numbered  points  in  Annex  I  of  the  MSFD  (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  reporting  on  monitoring  programmes  ‘Biodiversity’  descriptors  (D1,  4 and  6)  have 
been  grouped according to  the main  species  groups  and  habitat  types :  D1,  4 and  6  –  Birds,  D1,  4 and  6  –  Mammals  and 
reptiles, D1, 4 and 6 – Fish and cephalopods, D1, 4 and 6 – Seabed habitats, D1, 4 and 6– Water column habitats. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
programmes, in particular their purpose, spatial scope, implementation timeline, and regional 
coherence,  and  concluded  overall  on  whether  they  constitute  an  appropriate  framework  to 
meet the requirements of the MSFD. 

Full  coverage  of  monitoring  needs  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3)  in  this 
document  should  not  be  understood  as  prejudging  compliance  with  the  Data  Collection 
Framework  Regulation6 obligations.  Coverage  of  monitoring  needs  for  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish  is  to  be  understood  solely  for  the  purposes  of  monitoring  progress  towards  good 
environmental status and targets defined by Member States as part of their marine strategies, 
under the MSFD. 

The  following  Member  States  are  included  under  Part  I  of  this  Annex:  Belgium,  Bulgaria, 
Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.  

The  cut-off  date  for  Member  States'  reporting  to  be  assessed  in  this  report  was  September 
2015. 

The  United  Kingdom's  report  and  guidance  does  not  include  waters  surrounding  the  British 
Overseas Territory of Gibraltar7. 

Malta  and  Greece  are  not  included  in  this  part  of  the  Annex  as  their  reporting  to  the 
Commission under Article 11(3) of the MSFD did not meet the deadline of 15 October 2014 
and came too late to be part of this exercise8. Poland was not part of this exercise either, as it 
had not previously reported on its environmental targets under Article 10 of the MSFD9 and 
therefore  the  Commission  had  not  assessed  Poland  in  the  previous  assessment  exercise  (the 
results of which were used as the basis for this assessment exercise). 

6 Data Collection Framework as referred to under Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the 
establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support 
for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy and Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 of 14 July 2008 
laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 concerning the establishment of a 
Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice 
regarding the Common Fisheries Policy 
7
 The  monitoring  programme  for  the  waters  surrounding  Gibraltar  was  reported  in  March  2016  to  the  Commission  by  the 
United Kingdom, which was too late for it to be assessed under this report.  
8
 Malta reported on its monitoring programme under Article 11(3) on 30 October 2015 and to date (20 June 2016) Greece has 
not yet reported on its monitoring programme.  
9
 Poland  reported  on  its  environmental  targets  under  Article  10  in  November  2015.  The  Commission  intends  to  assess 
Poland's  environmental  targets,  along  with  the  other  elements  of  its  marine  strategy  already  reported,  as  part  of  its  next 
assessment exercise (along with other Member States' programmes of measures).  

5 

 
 
 
                                                 
1. Belgium 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Belgium  constitutes  a  partially  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Belgium reports that its monitoring programme will mostly be in place to measure progress 
towards GES by 2014, but with some aspects (marine litter (Descriptor 10), energy, including 
underwater  noise  (Descriptor  11),  mammals,  seabed  habitats  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6))  only 
covered as of 2018. 

Three  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programmes.  These  are  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  contaminants  in  seafood 
(Descriptor 9) and marine litter (Descriptor 10).  

Belgium  has  identified  monitoring  gaps,  and  plans  to  address  them,  for  the  following 
descriptors: eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7).  
Plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  for  the  remaining  descriptors  (birds,  mammals,  fish  and 
cephalopods,  water  column,  seabed  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6),  non-indigenous  species 
(Descriptor 2), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and energy, including underwater 
noise (Descriptor 11)) are therefore still missing. 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Belgium should: 

(a) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES; 

(b) Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant 
to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation 
by 15 July 2014; 

(c) Identify  plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  where  this  has  not  been  done  and 

implement those plans. 

Belgium reported  under Article  11 of the  Marine  Strategy  Framework Directive (MSFD) in 
October 2014. In total, Belgium’s Article 11 reporting includes 30 sub-programmes covering 
all descriptors, apart from water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4).  

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The adequacy of the Belgian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  achieving  good  environmental  status  (GES)10 
and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Belgium in 2013. 

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

- 

- 

the results of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets 
by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

the Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 
is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed  

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood contaminants   

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

targets 

GES 

2014 

2018 

2014 

2014 

2018 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2018 

2018 

targets 

2014 

2018 

2014 

2014 

2018 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014* 

2014 

2018 

2018 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

*2 out of 11 targets for contaminants (Descriptor 8) will be achieved by 2018 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

10

 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 

descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The  technical  assessment  shows  that  Belgium  has  developed  its  monitoring 
programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its MSFD determination 
of  GES  and  targets  for  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  contaminants  in  seafood 
(Descriptor 9) and marine litter (Descriptor 10). 

-  Regional consistency: The Belgian monitoring programme shows consistency with the 
standards and guidelines produced by OSPAR in some descriptors (e.g. contaminants 
(descriptor 8)  and  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10),  bringing  a regional  dimension  to the 
work done by the Member State for these descriptors.  

-  Belgium  has  made  relatively  good  use  of  existing  monitoring  programmes  in  the 
context of the MSFD. At the EU level, Belgium has reported the use of the Common 
Fisheries Policy Regulation (CFP)11 monitoring programmes for commercial fish and 
shellfish (Descriptor 3), Water Framework Directive (WFD)12 monitoring programmes 
for seabed habitats (Descriptor 1, 4), eutrophication (Descriptors 5) and (contaminants  
Descriptor  8).  Monitoring  of  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  is  linked  to  the 
Regulation  on  contaminants  in  foodstuffs 13  and  to  the  Shellfish  Directive 14 .  The 
existing  monitoring  undertaken  for  Birds15 and  Habitats16 Directives  have  been  used 
for  the  mammals  (Descriptors  1,  4)  monitoring,  but  not  for  birds  (Descriptors  1,  4) 
monitoring. 

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED  

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Belgian  monitoring  programme  shows  a 
number of weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets for the biodiversity 
descriptors  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6),  as  well  as  commercial  fish  and  shellfish 
(Descriptor  3)  and  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5);  and  descriptors  considered  less 
advanced  in  terms  of  knowledge  and  methodologies,  i.e.  non-indigenous  species 
(Descriptor  2),  and  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7)  and  energy,  including 
underwater noise (Descriptor 11).  

-  Belgium  has  not  established  a  monitoring  programme  for  water  column  habitats 
(Descriptors 1, 4). The Member State reports that currently the pelagic environment is 
not considered because progress on the monitoring of eutrophication is a prerequisite 
for the development of such a monitoring programme. This point needs to be further 
clarified. 

-  No links with any Union legislation or international agreements are reported for non-
indigenous species (Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and energy, 

11 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) 
12 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) 
13 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in 
foodstuffs (OJ L 364, 20.12.2006, p. 5) 
14 Directive 2006/113/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the quality required of 
shellfish waters (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 14) 
15 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) 
16 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) 

8 

 
 
                                                 
including  underwater  noise  (Descriptor  11).  The  non-indigenous  species  monitoring 
programme does not refer to potentially overlapping programmes undertaken under the 
WFD and OSPAR17. No reference is made to the indicator ‘rate of new introductions 
of non-indigenous species (NIS)’ that is currently being developed in OSPAR.  

-  Belgium has not fully used existing monitoring structures it already has in place in the 
context of other frameworks, especially of the OSPAR Convention. Belgium has only 
made links to OSPAR in four descriptors (eutrophication (Descriptor 5), marine litter 
(Descriptor 10), mammals (Descriptors D1, 4)).  

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Belgium should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  Union 
legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive, the 
Birds  Directive,  the  WFD  and  the  Invasive  Alien  Species  Regulation18 with  MSFD 
monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensure that MSFD-specific monitoring 
needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, 
habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

joint  monitoring 

programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR.  

(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6):   

(d) develop and implement a monitoring programme for water column habitats as soon as 

possible.  

(e) further  strengthen  the  monitoring  programme  for  all  its  biodiversity  monitoring 

programmes to ensure more appropriate spatial scope and frequency.  

(f) monitor additional species, as the ones for  mammals appear limited and the ones for 

fish do not appear to cover non-commercial species.  

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(g) further  develop  its  monitoring  programmes  to  cover  all  habitats  or  species  groups 

comprehensively in the context of non-indigenous species. 

17 Oslo-Paris Conventions of 1972 and 1974 to which the EU is party. The MSFD requires in its Article 5(2) and Article 6 
that Member States sharing a marine region or subregion cooperate.  
18 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3): 

(h) extend its monitoring programme to include all commercially-exploited species;  

(i)  improve  monitoring  and  assessment  of  non-DCF  species,  and  species  for  which 

analytical stock assessments are not carried out, as per GES definition.  

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): 

(j)  expand its monitoring programme to cover additional elements and parameters, as per 

its GES definition.  

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 

(k) expand its monitoring programme, to cover changes resulting from existing activities, 

large scale effects, impacts or changes to habitats, as per its GES definition.  

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 

(l)  expand its monitoring programme, and monitor continuous and impulsive noise, where 

appropriate, beyond the limited scope of one activity (offshore wind).   

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Bulgaria 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Bulgaria  constitutes  a  mostly  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Bulgaria reports that its monitoring programme will almost completely be in place by 2018  to 
measure  progress  towards  its  GES,  except  for  seabed  habitats  (Descriptor  1,  4,  6),  only 
covered as of 2020. 

Nine  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programme.  These  are  birds,  mammals,  water  column  habitats  and  seabed 
habitats  (Descriptors1,  4  and  6),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  hydrographical  changes 
(Descriptor  7),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  and 
marine litter (Descriptor 10). 

Bulgaria  has  identified  monitoring  gaps,  and  plans  to  address  them,  for  all  descriptor-
categories. 

Bulgaria  has  not  determined  any  GES  and  targets  for  energy,  including  underwater  noise 
(Descriptor 11). 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Bulgaria should: 

(a)  Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant 
to  point  (iv)  of  Article  5(2)(a)  of  Directive  2008/56/EC  which  required 
implementation by 15 July 2014; 

(b) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  a  fully  appropriate 
framework  that  enables  complete  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs  for  the 
assessment of progress towards GES;  

(c)  Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps. 

Bulgaria reported  under Article  11 of the  Marine  Strategy  Framework Directive (MSFD) in 
January 2015. Bulgaria’s Article 11 reporting includes 43 sub-programmes.  

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT  

The  adequacy  of  the  Bulgarian  MSFD  monitoring  programme  has  been  assessed  by 
considering  whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the 
monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES)19 
and achievement of environmental targets, as modified by Bulgaria in 2015.  

19

 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 

descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

GES 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2020 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

Targets 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2020 

2018 

2014 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

D11 Energy/Noise 

No GES 

No targets 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The  technical  assessment  shows  that  Bulgaria  has  developed  its  monitoring 
programmes and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES definitions and 
targets  for  biodiversity  (birds,  mammals,  water  column  and  seabed  habitats) 
(Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), contaminants (Descriptor 9) and marine litter (Descriptor 10); 
and with its GES determination for eutrophication  (Descriptor 5) and  hydrographical 
changes (Descriptor 7).   

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  Bulgaria  makes  linkages  to  relevant  regional  and  Union  processes,  in  particular  the 
Black  Sea  Commission20 and  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  working  groups 
and  technical  subgroup,  to  ensure  coordination  at  regional  and  Union  level  for  the 
implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes.  

-  Bulgaria  reports  extensive  bilateral  cooperation  with  Romania  in  the  coordinated 
development of its monitoring programmes, an aspect that has contributed to regional 
coherence in the context of the MSFD implementation.  

-  Even  though  GES  and  targets  have  not  yet  been  defined  for  energy,  including 
underwater  noise  (Descriptor  11),  Bulgaria  reports  a  monitoring  programme  for  this 
descriptor, which is positive. 

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED 

-  According to the technical assessment, the Bulgarian monitoring programmes and sub-
programmes  show  a  number  of  weaknesses  that  affect  their  coverage  of  GES  and 
targets. The main weaknesses are identified in the section below. This is applicable, to 
various  extents,  to  all  descriptors  except  birds,  mammals,  water  column  and  seabed 
habitats  (Descriptors  1, 4  and  6),  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  and  marine 
litter (Descriptor 10). 

-  Regarding  the  implementation  timeline,  monitoring  programmes  are  in  most  cases 
planned to start in 2015-2016 and will in most cases only be fully in place by 2018.  

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Bulgaria should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  EU 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive21, 
the Birds Directive22, the Water Framework Directive (WFD)23 and the Invasive Alien 
Species  Regulation24 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  MSFD-specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 
spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

joint  monitoring 
programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by the Black Sea 
Commission, in cooperation with Romania.  

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

20 Established by the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution, signed in Bucharest in April 1992. The 
EU is not party to that Convention. 
21 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
22 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
23 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
24 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(c) enhance,  in  cooperation  with  Romania,  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring 
methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, 
coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level, where 
such practices have been agreed and are being implemented. 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) building  upon  point  (a),  adapt  existing  monitoring  (e.g.  under  WFD  or  Habitats  and 

Birds Directives) to meet the objectives of the MSFD of achieving GES; 

(e) develop  more  transboundary  approaches  and  cooperation  for  monitoring,  particularly 

for mobile species, which frequently move between Member States’ waters.  

(f) further  develop  the  monitoring  of  fish  biodiversity  to  include  non-commercial  fish 

species, as well as rare or endangered species, as per GES definition. 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(g) develop methodologies on how non-indigenous species data will be analysed from the 
fish  programme  (as  reported),  developing  monitoring  of  effects  and  impacts  of  non-
indigenous species on environment, as planned; 

(h) develop monitoring of mammals in the context of non-indigenous species, if relevant, 

as per GES definition. 

On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3): 

(i)  extend monitoring in order to cover important black sea stock species; 

(j)  develop its monitoring sub-programmes to  ensure the monitoring  of Spawning Stock 

Biomass (SSB) or stock demographic data (e.g. length, age). 

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): 

(k) further  develop  its  monitoring  sub-programmes  to  ensure  appropriate  monitoring 

frequency of certain elements and parameters.  

On contaminants (Descriptor 8): 

(l)  further develop its monitoring sub-programmes to ensure the monitoring of biological 

effects, as per GES definition. 

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 
(m)  develop GES and targets;  

(n) further refine its monitoring programme and ensure that it starts monitoring as soon as 

possible. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Denmark 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Denmark  constitutes  a  partially  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Denmark  reports  that  its  monitoring  programme  was  mostly  in  place  to  measure  progress 
towards GES by 2014, but with non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) and some aspects such 
as water column  and  seabed  habitats  (Descriptors  1, 4 and  6), eutrophication (Descriptor 5) 
and  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  and  energy,  including 
underwater noise (Descriptor 11) only covered as of 2018. 

Two  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programmes.  These  are  contaminants  (Descriptor  8)  and  contaminants  in 
seafood (Descriptor 9).  

Denmark  has  identified  monitoring  gaps,  and  plans  to  address  them,  for  the  following 
descriptors: birds, mammals, seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), non-indigenous species 
(Descriptor 2) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).  
Plans to address monitoring gaps for the remaining descriptors (fish and cephalopods, water 
column  habitats  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3), 
eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7)  and  marine  litter 
(Descriptor 10)) are therefore still missing. 

Denmark has not established targets for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7). 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Denmark should: 

(a) Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant 
to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation 
by 15 July 2014; 

(b) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES; 

(c) Identify  plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  where  this  has  not  been  done  and 

implement those plans. 

Denmark reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in 
October 2014. The Danish Article 11 reporting consists of 54 monitoring sub-programmes for 
the  Baltic  Sea  marine  region  and  62  monitoring  sub-programmes  for  the  Greater North  Sea 
sub-region.  The  sub-programmes  in  both  (sub)regions  are  similar  and  often  have  the  same 
titles. The monitoring programmes in place addresses all descriptors in both (sub) regions. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The adequacy of the Danish MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 
needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  good  environmental  status  (GES) 25  and 
achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Denmark in 2013.  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

- 

- 

the  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 
targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

the Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 
is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  whether  the  Member  State  has  provided  justifications  and/or  plans  to  address  gaps 

present as of 2014.  

25

 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 

descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

GES 

2014 

2014 

2014 

Targets 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014*, 2018** 

2014*, 2018** 

2014*, 2018** 

2014*, 2018** 

2018 

2014 

2018 

2014 

2014*, 2018** 

2018*, 2018** 

No targets 

2014 

No targets 

2014*, 2018** 

2014*, 2018** 

2014 

2018 

2018 

2014 

2018 

2018 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

*Baltic, ** North East Atlantic region 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The  technical  assessment  shows  that  Denmark  has  developed  its  monitoring 
programme  and  sub-programmes  in  a  consistent  manner  in  relation  to  its  GES 
definitions and  targets for contaminants (Descriptor 8) and contaminants in seafoood 
(Descriptor 9).  

-  Denmark has reported on the use of existing monitoring programmes in the context of 
the  MSFD.  Denmark  has  referred  to  relevant  monitoring  done  as  part  of  various  EU 
Directives  such  as  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  Regulation 26  (CFP),  Water 
Framework  Directive27 (WFD),  Habitats  Directive28,  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment 

26 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) 
27 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) 
28 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) 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Directive29 and others. The Danish monitoring programme is however based mostly on 
the  national  monitoring  of  the  aquatic  environment  (NOVANA)  Nature  Agency's 
catchment  models  and  marine  models  and  the  Danish  surveillance  under  the  EU's 
Common Fisheries Policy (in the case of commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) 
mostly). 

-  Denmark  reports  on 

level  for 

its  coordination  at  regional  and  Union 

the 
implementation  of  the  MSFD,  including  for  monitoring  programmes.  Firstly, 
Denmark’s  monitoring  programme  and  sub-programmes  are  linked  to  monitoring 
activities  carried  out  by  both  HELCOM30 and  OSPAR31.  The  Member  State  often 
refers to elements from both Regional Sea Conventions being applied to its monitoring 
programmes  in  both  regions  at  the  same  time,  thus  cross-referencing  information 
throughout  its  descriptor-specific  programmes.  The  Member  State  also links  to  other 
regional  processes  such  as  the  Trilateral  Wadden  Sea  Cooperation.  Secondly, 
Denmark’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes also contain links to relevant 
Union processes, in particular the Common Implementation Strategy working groups 
and technical groups for the MSFD. 

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED 

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Danish  monitoring  programmes  and  sub-
programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage in relation to the 
data  needed  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  GES  and  targets.  This  is 
applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors except contaminants (Descriptor 8) and 
contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9).  For  several  of  these,  fish,  water  column 
habitats (Descriptors 1, 4), commercial fish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 
5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and marine litter (Descriptor 10) there is a 
lack  of  plans  provided  for  one  or  both  subregions  on  how  these  weaknesses  will  be 
addressed. 

- 

In  particular  in  relation  to  energy,  including  underwater  noise  (Descriptor  11),  the 
technical assessment shows that the Danish targets are not yet adequately covered by 
the  current  monitoring  programmes  and  sub-programmes.  Denmark  acknowledges 
that more work is needed on their energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) 
programmes.   

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Denmark should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  EU 
legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive, the 

29 Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40). 
30 Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1992, to which the EU is party. 
The MSFD requires in its Article 5(2) and Article 6 that Member States sharing a marine region or subregion cooperate. 
31 Oslo-Paris Conventions of 1972 and 1974 to which the EU is party. The MSFD requires in its Article 5(2) and Article 6 
that Member States sharing a marine region or subregion cooperate. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Birds Directive32, the  WFD and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation33 with MSFD 
monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time  ensuring  that  MSFD-specific 
monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, 
parameters, habitats and species monitored; 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

joint  monitoring 
programmes  developed  at  regional  or  subregional  level,  for  instance  by  OSPAR  and 
HELCOM; 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region  or  subregion,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage, 
frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level; 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) expand  its  monitoring  programme  for  seabed  habitats  to  habitats  and  associated 

species outside of areas under the remit of the Habitats Directive and WFD.  

(e) develop  transboundary  approaches  and  cooperation  for  monitoring,  particularly  for 
mobile  species,  which  frequently  move  between  Member  States’  waters.  Such 
cooperation may also help to reduce financial costs of monitoring. 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(f) ensure that the NIS monitoring programme starts collecting data as soon as possible.  

(g) monitor a greater number of hotspots and pathways of introduction.  

On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3): 

(h) improve monitoring and assessment of non-Data Collection Framework34 species, and 

species for which analytical stock assessments are not carried out.  

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): 

(i)  expand its monitoring programme to cover additional elements and parameters as per 
its GES definition (e.g. macroalgal colonisation depth along transects from shore).  

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 

(j)  develop targets; 

(k) expand its monitoring programme to cover additional activities, where appropriate, as 

per GES definition.  

32 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
33 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the 
prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 
34 Data Collection Framework as referred to under Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning 
the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and 
support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy and Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 of 14 
July 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 concerning the 
establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support 
for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

(l)  expand  its  programmes  to  cover  monitoring  of  micro-litter  and,  where  necessary, 

impacts on marine biota, as per GES definition; 

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 

(m) develop a permanent monitoring programme for diffuse noise for both regions, based 

where appropriate on the results of the BIAS project35.  

(n) set  up  a  noise  registry  for  impulsive  sounds,  in  coordination  with  HELCOM  and 

OSPAR, for both regions.  

35 Baltic sea information on the acoustic soundscape (BIAS) project (www.biasproject.wordpress.com) 

20 

 
 
 
                                                 
4. Germany 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Germany  constitutes  a  partially  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Germany reports that its monitoring programme will mostly be in place to measure progress 
towards GES by 2018, but with some aspects such as hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), 
contaminants (Descriptor 8) and marine litter (Descriptor 10) only covered as of 2020. 

None of the descriptor categories are sufficiently addressed in the reported monitoring 
programmes. 

Germany has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for all descriptors.  

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Germany should: 

(a) Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant 
to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation 
by 15 July 2014; 

(b) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs   for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES; 

(c) Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps. 

Germany reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in 
October-November  2014.  The  German  Article  11  reporting  consists  of  28  monitoring  sub-
programmes  for  the  Baltic  Sea  marine  region  and  31  monitoring  sub-programmes  for  the 
North Sea sub-region. The monitoring  programme in place  addresses all descriptors in both 
the marine region and sub-region, apart from contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). 

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The adequacy of the German MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 
needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  good  environmental  status  (GES) 36  and 
achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Germany in 2012-2013.  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

36

 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 

descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
-  The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

No 
monitoring* 

No 
monitoring* 

No 
monitoring** 

No 
monitoring** 

GES 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2020 

2020 

2014 

2020 

2018 

Targets 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2020 

2018 

2014 

2020 

2018 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

*  DE  reports  that  existing  food  monitoring  is  used  but  that  there  is  no  separate  MSFD  monitoring  for 
contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  and  that  the  monitoring  data  was  not  yet  available,  at  the  time  of 
reporting, for MSFD purposes. Nevertheless, Germany reported that monitoring on contaminants in seafood was 
adequate as of 2014 to cover GES and targets data needs.    
** DE did not report a monitoring sub-programme for 'Energy including underwater noise' (Descriptor 11) but 
expects that monitoring will be in place by 2018. 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The  technical  assessment  shows  that  Germany  has  developed  its  monitoring 
programme  and  sub-programmes  in  a  consistent  manner  with  its  targets  for 
commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and eutrophication (Descriptor 5). 

-  Germany has reported on the use of existing monitoring programmes in the context of 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the MSFD. Germany has referred to relevant monitoring undertaken as part of various 
EU Directives such as the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation37, Water Framework 
Directive 38  (in  the  case  of  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  eutrophication 
(Descriptor  5),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8), 
seabed and water column (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) monitoring), the Habitats Directive39 
(birds,  fish  and  seabed  habitats  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6),  as  well  as  hydrographical 
changes (Descriptor 7) monitoring), the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive40 (in 
the case of eutrophication (Descriptor 5) monitoring) and others.  

-  Germany  has  identified  existing  coordination  at  regional  and  Union  level  for  the 
implementation  of  the  MSFD,  including  for  monitoring  programmes.  Firstly, 
Germany’s  monitoring  programme  and  sub-programmes  are  linked  to  monitoring 
activities carried out by both HELCOM41 and OSPAR42. The Member State sometimes  
uses standards/guidelines from either Regional Sea Convention for both regions, thus 
ensuring consistency in their national approach. The Member State also links to other 
regional  processes  such  as  the  Trilateral  Wadden  Sea  Cooperation.  Secondly, 
Germany’s monitoring programmes and sub-programmes also contain links to relevant 
EU processes, in particular the Common Implementation Strategy working groups and 
technical subgroup.  

-  Germany  links  its  monitoring  programmes  to  monitoring  done  under  international 
conventions  and  agreements,  such  as  the  Convention  on  Wetlands  (Ramsar 
Convention),  the  Convention  on  Migratory  Species  (CMS),  the  Convention  on 
Biodiversity  (CBD  –  in  the  case  of  birds  monitoring)  and  the  Agreement  on  the 
Conservation  of  Small  Cetaceans  in  the  Baltic,  North  East  Atlantic,  Irish  and  North 
Seas (ASCOBANS – in the case of mammals monitoring).  

-  Germany  systematically  reports  plans  to  address  the  gaps  in  its  monitoring 

programmes.   

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED 

-  According to the technical assessment, the German monitoring programmes and sub-
programmes  show  a  number  of  weaknesses  that  affect  their  coverage  of  GES  and 
targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors. 

-  While acknowledging that Germany has existing food monitoring for the purposes of 
other legislation, it has not reported these for MSFD purposes under contaminants in 
seafood (Descriptor 9). In addition, Germany has not reported monitoring for energy, 
including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). As such it is unclear whether Germany is 

37

 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) 
38
 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) 
39

 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) 
40

 Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40) 
41 Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1992, to which the EU is party. 
The MSFD requires in its Article 5(2) and Article 6 that Member States sharing a marine region or subregion cooperate. 
42 Oslo-Paris Conventions of 1972 and 1974 to which the EU is party. The MSFD requires in its Article 5(2) and Article 6 
that Member States sharing a marine region or subregion cooperate. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
monitoring  progress  towards  GES  and  targets  for  these  descriptors.  However,  plans 
and justifications are provided. 

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Germany should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  Union 
legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive, the 
Birds  Directive43,  the  Water  Framework  Directive  and  the  Invasive  Alien  Species 
Regulation44 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time  ensuring 
that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope 
as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

joint  monitoring 
programmes  developed  at  regional  or  subregional  level,  for  instance  by  OSPAR  and 
HELCOM.  

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

(c) continue  to  enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its 
marine  (sub-)regions,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage, 
frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (particularly Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) finalise  and  implement  the  ‘concept’  monitoring  programmes  that  are  confirmed  by 

research and development projects45. 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(e) ensure that its monitoring programme covers fish, as per its GES definition. 

(f) strengthen its monitoring programmes to ensure that the assessment of changes in the 

ecosystem can be undertaken through the data collected. 

On commercial fish (Descriptor 3): 

(g) ensure that its monitoring programme covers shellfish, as per its GES definition. 

43 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
44 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 
45 The reporting of Germany refers to activities already in place or proposed and described as ‘concept’ monitoring sub-
programmes. It is presumed that the concept monitoring programmes are the sub-programmes that Germany intends to have 
in place in 2018 when the Member State reports gaps in its monitoring programme will be filled. The Member State clarified 
that this is true only if the designed programmes are confirmed through R&D projects. The federal government and the 
coastal regions/states (Lander) developed a draft paper report entitled "Monitoring programs in accordance with § 45 f 
Section 1 WHG (Wasserhaushaltsgesetz) transposing Article 11 MSFD: Part A - Framework concept". The draft was 
published on 14 October 2013 on a dedicated MSFD website (www.meeresschutz.info) 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): 

(h) further develop its monitoring programme to address the gaps it has identified, e.g. in 
relation to the monitoring cyanobacteria blooms or of atmospheric nutrient deposition, 
in coordination with the work done in HELCOM and OSPAR.  

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 

(i)  extend  its  monitoring  programme  to  cover  impacts  on  habitats,  as  per  its  GES 

definition.  

On contaminants (Descriptor 8): 

(j)  strengthen  its  monitoring  programme  to  monitor  effects  of  contaminants  on  marine 

biota, as per its GES definition.  

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): 

(k) report a monitoring programme for MSFD purposes.  

On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

(l)  further develop its programme to monitor micro-litter and beach litter.  

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 

(m)  develop and establish a monitoring programme.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. Estonia  

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Estonia  constitutes  a  partially  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Estonia  reports  that  its  monitoring  programme  was  mostly  in  place  to  measure  progress 
towards  GES  by  2014,  but  with  some  aspects  only  covered  as  of  2018,  or  even  2020  for 
contaminants (Descriptor 8). 

Seven  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programmes.  These  are  birds,  mammals,  fish  and  cephalopods,  water  column 
habitats  and  seabed  habitats  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5)  and 
contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9).  

Estonia has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address these, for all descriptors except 
eutrophication (Descriptor 5). 

Estonia  has  not  determined  GES  for  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  marine  litter 
(Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Estonia should: 

(a) Ensure immediate implementation of the monitoring programme pursuant to point 
(iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation by 15 
July 2014; 

(b) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs   for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES; 

(c) Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps. 

Estonia  reported  under  Article  11  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD)  in 
October  2014.  Estonia's  Article  11  reporting  includes  38  sub-programmes  covering  all 
descriptors. 

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The  adequacy  of  the  Estonian  MSFD  monitoring  programme  has  been  assessed  by 
considering  whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the 
monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES)46 
and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Estonia in 2012-2013.  

46 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 
descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

No GES 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

No GES 

No GES 

GES 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2018 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2018 

2020 

2014 

2018 

2018 

Targets 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2014 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2014 

2018 

2018 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The technical assessment shows that Estonia has developed its monitoring programme 
and  sub-programmes  in  a  consistent  manner  with  its  GES  determinations  and 
environmental targets. The Estonian monitoring programme is considered sufficient to 
assess  progress  towards  biodiversity  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6),  eutrophication  and 
contaminants in seafood GES and targets.  

-  Although  the  Member  State  has  not  yet  defined  GES  for  hydrographical  changes 
(Descriptor  7),  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  and  energy,  including  underwater  noise 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Descriptor 11) it has nevertheless reported monitoring programmes, which is positive 
as  it  indicates  that  some  monitoring  for  these  descriptors  is  already  taking  place  in 
view of a future GES definition. 

-  Regional  cooperation  is  systematically  been  referenced  by  the  Member  State,  with 
HELCOM  being  linked  to  monitoring  activities  under  almost  all  descriptors.  The 
HELCOM Monitoring Manual is linked to all sub-programmes, apart from birds, fish 
and  mammals,  where  Union  Directives  are  referenced  (Birds  and  Habitats,  Common 
Fisheries Policy). 

-  Estonia has provided plans for future work for a number of descriptors, even though it 
considers  that  its  monitoring  is,  for  the  most  part,  already  adequate  to  measure 
progress  towards  its  GES  and  targets.  This  approach  is  in  line  with  the  principle  of 
adaptive management.   

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED  

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Estonian  monitoring  programme  shows  a 
number of weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets for non-indigenous 
species  (Descriptor  2),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  hydrographical 
changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and 
energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).  

-  Estonia  reports  limited  amount  of  information  on  transboundary  impacts,  major 
environmental changes and emerging issues. To describe these, the Member State only 
refers to the HELCOM Monitoring Manual. 

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Estonia should:  

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  Union 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive47, 
the  Birds,  Directive 48 ,  the  Water  Framework  Directive 49  and  the  Invasive  Alien 
Species  Regulation50 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  MSFD-specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 
spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

joint  monitoring 

programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by HELCOM. 

47 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
48 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
49 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
50 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular:  

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(d) further develop its monitoring programme to monitor more hotspots and pathways of 

introduction, as per GES definition. 

On commercial fish (Descriptor 3): 

(e) further strengthen its monitoring programme by bringing in data from DCF in relation 
to additional relevant parameters, including fishing mortality for herring and sprat and 
length/age data for salmon and trout.. 

On contaminants (Descriptor 8): 

(f) further strengthen the monitoring programme by monitoring biological impacts, as per 

GES definition.  

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 

(g) develop GES. 

On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

(h) develop GES; 

(i)  strengthen  its  monitoring  programme  by  monitoring,  where  necessary,  seabed  litter 

and impact on biota.  

On energy, including underwater noise underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 

(j)  develop GES; 

(k) strengthen its monitoring programme by monitoring impulsive noise. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. Ireland 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Ireland  constitutes  a  partially  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Ireland  reports  that  its  monitoring  programme  will  mostly  be  in  place  by  2020  to  measure 
progress towards GES, but with some aspects already in place in 2014.  

Two  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programme.  These  are  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5)  and  contaminants  in 
seafood (Descriptor 9). 

Ireland has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for all descriptors. 

Ireland has not established targets for birds, mammals and water column (Descriptors 1, 4). 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Ireland should: 

(a) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES; 

(b) Ensure immediate implementation of the monitoring programme pursuant to point 
(iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation by 15 
July 2014; 

(c) Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps. 

Ireland  reported  under  Article  11  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD)  in 
April  2015.  The  Irish  Article  11  reporting  consists  of  70  sub-programmes  covering  all 
descriptors, apart from birds (Descriptors 1, 4), for which a sub-programme is not defined yet. 
It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  reported  sub-programme  for  non-indigenous  species 
(Descriptor 2), is not a monitoring programme as such, but rather a risk assessment study.   

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The  adequacy  of  the  Irish  MSFD  monitoring  programme  has  been  assessed  by  considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 
needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  good  environmental  status  (GES) 51  and 
achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Ireland in 2013 and partially revised in 
2015.  

51 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 
descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether  the  Member  State  has  provided  justifications  and/or  plans  to  address  gaps 

present as of 2014.  

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

GES 

Targets 

No targets 

No targets 

D1, 4 Water column 

No targets 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

GES 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2018 

2020 

2014 

2014 

2018 

2018 

2014 

Water column: 
2018 
Litter in biota: 
2020 

Targets 

After  

After  

After 2020 

After 2020 

After 2020 

2020 

Target 1 : 2018 
Target 2 : 2020 

2014 

2018 

2018 

2014 

2014 

2020 

2018 

Yes 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The technical assessment shows that Ireland has developed its monitoring programme 
and  sub-programmes  in  a  consistent  manner  with  its  GES  definitions  and  targets  for 
eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9); and with its 
targets  only  for  fish  and  cephalopods,  seabed  habitats  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6), 
commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, 
including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

-  Even  though  targets  are  not  yet  been  defined  by  Ireland  for  mammals  and  water 
column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4), the Member State reports monitoring programmes 
for these descriptors, which is positive.  

- 

- 

Ireland  reports  on  its  cooperation  in  relevant  regional  and  Union  processes,  in 
particular OSPAR and the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy working groups 
and  technical  subgroup,  to  ensure  coordination  at  regional  and  Union  level  for  the 
implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes.  

Ireland has clearly used existing monitoring programmes from other Union policies as 
part of its MSFD monitoring programme. The link to the Water Framework Directive 
(WFD)  is  prominent  in  its  monitoring  programmes  on  seabed  and  water  column 
habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), eutrophication 
(Descriptor  5),  hydrological  changes  (Descriptor  7)  and  contaminants  (Descriptor  8). 
The  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  forms  the  basis  of  the  monitoring  programmes 
for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and fish and cephalopod (descriptors 
1, 4 and 6). The Habitats Directive has been linked with the monitoring of cetaceans, 
seals and reptiles, seabed habitats, hydrographical changes and marine litter; while the 
eutrophication programme is based on existing monitoring programmes for the Urban 
Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive  and  the  Nitrates  Directive.  Finally,  while  no  sub-
programmes  have  been  reported  for  the  monitoring  of  birds,  the  Member  State  has 
highlighted  monitoring  activities  it  undertakes  within  the  framework  of  the  Birds 
Directive.  

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED 

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Irish  monitoring  programmes  and  sub-
programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage in relation to the 
data  needed  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  GES  and  targets.  This  is 
applicable,  to  various  extents,  to  all  descriptors  except  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5) 
and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). 

- 

In particular, in relation to birds (Descriptors 1, 4) non-indigenous species (Descriptor 
2) and hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), the technical assessment shows that the 
GES definition (and the targets for non-indigenous species) is not adequately covered 
by  the  current  monitoring  programmes  and  sub-programmes.  In  all  cases,  Ireland 
acknowledges that more work is needed on their monitoring programmes.  

-  Even  though  Ireland  reported  a  bird  monitoring  programme,  it  did  not  define  sub-
programmes  for  birds,  therefore  it  is  considered  that  monitoring  of  birds  is  not 
appropriate  and  as  such  monitoring  to  assess  progress  in  achieving  GES  is  currently 
not addressed under the MSFD. However, Ireland reports that the bird monitoring sub-
programme is under development and would be in place by 2020.  

32 

 
 
 
OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Ireland should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  EU 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive52, 
the Birds Directive53, the Water Framework Directive54 and the Invasive Alien Species 
Regulation55 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time  ensuring 
that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope 
as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored.  

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

joint  monitoring 

programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR.  

(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (in particular for Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) develop targets for birds, mammals and water column; 

(e) develop monitoring sub-programmes for birds as soon as possible; 

(f) further develop its mammals monitoring programme to ensure coverage of cetaceans; 

(g) further develop its fish biodiversity monitoring programme to ensure coverage of non-

commercial species; 

(h) further  develop  its  water  column  monitoring  programme  to  ensure  coverage  of 

phytoplankton and zooplankton communities; 

(i)  ensure that its monitoring programmes are adaptive in view of any future changes to 

an environmental target (i.e. birds, mammals and water column habitats). 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(j)  develop a monitoring programme to cover all relevant habitats or species groups using 
a risk-based approach, going beyond the risk assessment study currently in place.  

On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3): 

(k) extend  monitoring  programme  to  include  all  commercially-exploited  species  of  fish 

and in particular of shellfish.  

52 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
53 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
54 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
55 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the 
prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 

(l)  develop and implement an MSFD-specific monitoring sub-programme. 

On contaminants (Descriptor 8): 

(m) expand its monitoring programme to measure adverse impacts on biota, as per its GES 

definition.   

On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

(n) expand its monitoring programme to monitor litter and micro-litter, where necessary, 

in the water column and in biota, according to its GES definition. 

On energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 

(o)  develop  a  sub-programme  on  the  monitoring  of  continuous  low-frequency  sounds, 

according to its GES definition. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7. Spain 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Spain  constitutes  a  mostly  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Spain  reports  that  its  monitoring  programme  will  be  fully  in  place  by  2020  to  measure 
progress  towards  GES,  but  with  some  aspects  already  addressed  by  2014  (eutrophication 
(Descriptor  5),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  and 
marine litter (Descriptor 10)).  

Eleven  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programme.  The  two  descriptors  not  sufficiently  addressed  are  marine  litter 
(Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).  

Spain  has  identified  monitoring  gaps,  and  plans  to  address  them,  for:  birds,  mammals,  fish 
and  cephalopods,  seabed  habitats,  water  column  habitats  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6),  non-
indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3), 
hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7)  and  energy,  including  underwater  noise  (Descriptor 
11).  
A plan to address monitoring gaps for marine litter (Descriptor 10) is therefore still missing. 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Spain should: 

(a) Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant 
to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation 
by 15 July 2014; 

(b) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  a  fully  appropriate 
framework that enables complete coverage of the monitoring needs for the assessment 
of progress towards GES; 

(b) Identify  plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  where  this  has  not  been  done  and 

implement those plans. 

Spain  reported  under  Article  11  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD)  by 
March  2015.  Spain  has  developed  273  sub-programmes  covering  all  five  Spanish  sub-
divisions  (Bay  of  Biscay  and  Iberian  Coast  North  and  South,  Macaronesia,  and  Western 
Mediterranean Sea (Levantine Balearic Sea and Estrecho and Alboran)). Although they have 
reported  a  different  set  of  sub-programmes  for  each  sub-division,  the  content  of  the  sub-
programmes for the same descriptor is very similar from one sub-division to the next.  

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT  

The adequacy of the Spanish MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  good  environmental  status  (GES) 56  and 
achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Spain in 2012.  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State's monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State's own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

GES 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2014 

2020 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2020 

Targets 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

56 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 
descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The  technical  assessment  shows  that  Spain  has  developed  its  monitoring  programme 
and  sub-programmes  in  a  consistent  manner  with  its  GES  definitions  and  targets 
including commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), 
hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8);  with  its  GES 
definitions  for  biodiversity  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6)  and  contaminants  in  seafood 
(Descriptor 9); and with its targets for marine litter (Descriptor 10).  

-  Spain reports to be an active member of the relevant regional and Union processes, in 
particular  OSPAR  and  the  United  Nations  Environment  Programme/Mediterranean 
Action Plan (UNEP/MAP) and the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy working 
groups and technical subgroup, to ensure coordination at regional and Union level for 
the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes. 

-  As part of its Article 11 reporting Spain has done a detailed inventory and a detailed 
analysis  of  existing  monitoring  programmes  in  place  in  the  context  of  other 
international, European, regional and national obligations and commitments, to which 
its monitoring programmes link to extensively.  

-  Spain  reports  that  all  sub-programmes  have  been  designed  based  on  the  concept  of 
adaptive management. Proposed indicators can be redesigned or re-adapted in the light 
of improved knowledge of developments in the regional coordination or simply based 
on the increase of information. 

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED 

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Spanish  monitoring  programme  shows  a 
few  weaknesses  that  affect  the  complete  coverage  of  its  GES  and  targets  for  the 
biodiversity  descriptors  (although  relatively  minor)  and  descriptors  considered  less 
advanced  in  terms  of  knowledge  and  methodologies,  i.e.  non-indigenous  species 
(Descriptor  2),  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  and  energy,  including  underwater  noise 
(Descriptor 11).   

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Spain should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  EU 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive57, 
the  Birds,  Directive 58 ,  the  Water  Framework  Directive 59  and  the  Invasive  Alien 
Species  Regulation60 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  MSFD-  specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 
spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

57 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
58 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
59 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
60 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

joint  monitoring 
programmes  developed  at  regional  or  subregional  level,  for  instance  by  OSPAR  and 
UNEP/MAP.  

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptor 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) further  develop  its  biodiversity  monitoring  sub-programmes  to  address  some  of  the 
minor weaknesses identified (e.g. coverage of relevant monitoring parameters such as 
mortality through bycatch and other human activities, as per GES definition). 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(e) ensure that its monitoring sub-programmes cover trends, as per GES definition.  

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): 

(f) ensure  that  its  monitoring  sub-programmes  use  appropriate  temporal  frequency  and 

spatial scope, as per targets definitions.  

On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

(g) further  develop  its  monitoring  sub-programmes  to  ensure  that,  where  necessary, 

impact on biota is monitored, as per GES definition.  

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. France 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  France  constitutes  a  partially  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

France  reports  that  its  monitoring  programme  was  almost  completely  in  place  to  measure 
progress  towards  GES  by  2014,  except  for  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  only 
covered as of 2020.  

Five  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programmes.  These  are:  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3), 
eutrophication (Descriptor 5), contaminants (Descriptor 8), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and 
energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).  

France  has  identified  monitoring  gaps,  and  plans  to  address  these,  for  nearly  all  the 
biodiversity  descriptors  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6),  with  the  exception  of  birds,  marine  litter 
(Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 
Plans to address monitoring gaps for birds (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), non-indigenous species 
(Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and contaminants in seafood 
(Descriptor 9) are therefore still missing. 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

France should: 

(a) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES; 

(b) Identify  plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  where  this  has  not  been  done  and 

implement those plans. 

France  reported  under  Article  11  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD)  in 
July-August 2015. The French Article 11 reporting consists of 194 sub-programmes covering 
the four sub-regions (the Celtic Seas, the Greater  North Sea,  the Bay of Biscay and Iberian 
Coast,  and  the  Western  Mediterranean  Sea).  Although  they  have  reported  a  different  set  of 
sub-programmes  for  each  subdivision,  the  content  of  the  sub-programmes  for  the  same 
descriptor is very similar from one sub-region to the next.  

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The adequacy of the French MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 

39 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  good  environmental  status  (GES) 61  and 
achievement of environmental targets, as defined by France in 2013.  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State's monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State's own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

GES 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2020 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

Targets 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2020 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

61 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 
descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The technical assessment shows that France has developed its monitoring programme 
and  sub-programmes  in  a  consistent  manner  with  its  GES  definitions  and  targets  for 
marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11), 
with  its  GES  determination  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3), 
eutrophication  (Descriptor  5)  and  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  and  with  its  targets 
only, for contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9).  

-  France reports to be an active member of the relevant regional and Union processes, in 
particular  OSPAR  and  the  United  Nations  Environment  Programme/Mediterranean 
Action  Plan  (UNEP/MAP)  and  the  EU  Common  Implementation  Strategy  working 
groups and technical subgroup, to ensure coordination at regional and Union level for 
the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes.  

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED 

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  French  monitoring  programmes  and  sub-
programmes  show  a  number  of  weaknesses  that  affect  their  coverage  of  GES  and 
targets.  This  is  applicable,  to  various  extents,  to  all  descriptors  except  marine  litter 
(Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).  

- 

In  particular,  in  relation  to  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  the  technical 
assessment  shows  that  the  French  GES  definition  and  targets  are  not  covered  by  the 
current monitoring programmes and sub-programmes. France acknowledges that more 
work is needed on their non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2).   

-  France  has  not  reported  on  the  links  between  its  monitoring  programmes  and  the 
monitoring undertaken for the Habitats and Birds Directive. In addition, for a number 
of  descriptors,  France  has  not  systematically  reported  on  the  links  between  its 
monitoring  and  work  carried  out  under  relevant  Union  processes,  in  particular 
eutrophication  (Descriptor  5)  (Urban  Water  Waste  Treatment  Directive  or  Nitrates 
Directive),  and  contaminants  (Descriptor  8)  (Environmental  Quality  Standards 
Directive). 

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

France should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  EU 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive62, 
the Birds, Directive63, the Water Framework Directive (WFD)64 and the Invasive Alien 
Species  Regulation65 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 

62 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
63 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
64 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
65 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ensuring  that  MSFD-specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 
spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

joint  monitoring 
programmes  developed  at  regional  or  subregional  level,  for  instance  by  OSPAR  and 
United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP). 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) building  upon  point  (a),  adapt  existing  monitoring  (e.g.  under  WFD  or  Habitats  and 

Birds Directive) to meet the objectives of the MSFD of achieving GES; 

(e) develop  more  transboundary  approaches  and  cooperation  for  monitoring,  particularly 

for mobile species, which frequently move between Member States’ waters.  

(f) further  develop  the  monitoring  of  fish  biodiversity  to  include  non-commercial  fish 

species. 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(g) develop monitoring of effects and impacts of non-indigenous species on environment, 

as planned; 

(h) develop  a  programme  that  generates  information  on  the  risk  of  introduction  of  non-

indigenous species, as per the targets.   

On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3): 

(i)  consider how to address deficiencies related to the under-sampling of some species; 

(j)  clearly define the temporal scope of recreational fisheries monitoring. 

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): 

(k) develop  relevant  monitoring  programmes  for  the  North-East  Atlantic  targets  on  the 
abundance of opportunistic macroalgae and the abundance of perennial seaweeds and 
seagrasses not currently covered. 

On contaminants (Descriptor 8): 

(l)  develop a programme for the monitoring of atmospheric deposition and of hazardous 

air contaminants, as per the GES definition. 

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): 

(m) ensure  that  the  selection  of  species  for  contaminants  monitoring  in  biota  under 
contaminants (Descriptor 8) are appropriate for the purpose of contaminants in seafood 
(Descriptor 9) monitoring, if the two programmes are grouped.  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9. Croatia 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Croatia  constitutes  a  partially  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Croatia reports that its monitoring of GES were supposed to be in place by 2014.  

One  of  the  thirteen  descriptor  categories  is  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring programmes, this is contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). 

Croatia has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for all descriptors. 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Croatia should:  

(a) Ensure that the monitoring programme constitutes an appropriate framework 
that enables full coverage of the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress 
towards GES; 

(b) Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps. 

Croatia  reported  under  Article  11  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD)  in 
October  2014.  Croatia's  Article  11  reporting  includes  42  sub-programmes  covering  all 
descriptors.  

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The  adequacy  of  the  Croatian  MSFD  monitoring  programme  has  been  assessed  by 
considering  whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the 
monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards Good Environmental Status (GES)66 
and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Croatia in 2014.  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State's monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State's own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

66 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 
descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

GES 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

Targets 

2018 - 2020 

2018 - 2020 

2020 

2018 

2018 - 2020 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The technical assessment shows that Croatia has developed its monitoring programme 
and  sub-programmes  in  a  consistent  manner  with  its  GES  determination  for 
contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). 

-  Croatia has systematically reported on the use of existing monitoring programmes in 
the  context  of  the  MSFD.  At  Union  level,  a  link  to  the  Water  Framework  Directive 
(WFD)  is  made  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  eutrophication 
(Descriptor  5),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8) 
and marine litter (Descriptor 10); as well as for fish, seabed habitats and water column 
habitats (Descriptors 1, 4, 6).  

-  Croatia  has  systematically  made  use  of  existing  UNEP/MAP  standards;  i.e.  in 
eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  contaminants 
(Descriptor 8) and marine litter (Descriptor 10) and seabed monitoring (Descriptors 1, 
4, 6).   

-  Croatia has provided plans for future work for all descriptors, even though it considers 
that  its  monitoring  programme  is,  for  the  most  part,  already  adequate  to  measure 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
progress  towards  its  GES  and  targets.  This  is  in  line  with  the  principle  of  adaptive 
management.   

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED  

-  Even  though  Croatia  reports  that  its  monitoring  of  GES  will  be  in  place  by  2014,  it 
reports that monitoring of targets will not be in place until 2018 or 2020. This should 
be further clarified. 

-  According to the technical assessment, the Croatian monitoring programmes and sub-
programmes  show  a  number  of  weaknesses  that  affect  their  coverage  of  GES  and 
targets.  This  is  applicable,  to  various  extents,  to  all  descriptors  including  descriptors 
considered  less  advanced  in  terms  of  knowledge  and  methodologies,  i.e.  non-
indigenous species (Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), marine litter 
(Descriptor 10), energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

- 

It  was  difficult  to  assess  the  monitoring  programme  and  sub-programmes  for 
hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7)  with  regard  to  the  achievement  of  targets: 
Croatia's  monitoring  programme  only  monitors  long-term  large  scale  changes,  while 
the  targets  defined  by  Croatia  concern  the  impact  of  human  activities,  which  the 
reported monitoring programme does not cover.  

-  Croatia reports limited information on monitoring transboundary impacts or any other 

major environmental changes or emerging issues.  

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Croatia should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  Union 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive67, 
the  Birds,  Directive 68 ,  the  Water  Framework  Directive 69  and  the  Invasive  Alien 
Species  Regulation70 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  MSFD-specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 
spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

joint  monitoring 
programmes  developed  at  regional  or  subregional  level,  for  instance  by  United 
Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP).  

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

67 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
68 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
69 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
70 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In particular:  

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptor 1, 4 and 6):   

(d) strengthen its monitoring programmes by extending the geographical coverage (in the 
case  of  birds,  mammals  and  reptiles)  and  adjusting  the  frequency  of  monitoring 
(mammals, reptiles and water column habitats), as per GES definition. 

(e) further  develop  its  monitoring  programme  to  cover  additional  relevant  species  (e.g. 

sardine and tuna species (as part of fish), as per GES definition.  

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(f)  further  develop  its  monitoring  programme  to  ensure  the  coverage  of  all  relevant 

elements and parameters (i.e. fish abundance), as per the targets definition; 

(g) further develop its monitoring programme to ensure the monitoring of impacts, as per 

GES definition. 

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): 

(h) further develop its monitoring programme by adopting either an improved method of 
monitoring  submerged  aquatic  vegetation  to  incorporate  a  method  of  assessing 
ecological  health  and  species  abundance,  and  an  increased  monitoring  frequency  for 
nutrients and organic matter loads calculations, as per GES definition.  

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 
(i)  strengthen monitoring programme 

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): 

(j)  strengthen  its  monitoring  programme  to  ensure  adequate  spatial  and  temporal 

coverage, as per GES definition. 

(k) strengthen its monitoring programme to ensure the traceability of its D9 biota samples 

to the location of the contamination. 

On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

(l)  further develop its monitoring programme to measure impacts of marine litter on biota, 

where necessary, as per GES definition. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10. Italy 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Italy  constitutes  a  partially  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Italy reports that its monitoring programme will be in place to measure progress towards GES 
by 2018. Some timelines have nevertheless not been reported. 

Four  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programmes.  These  are  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3), 
hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  and  energy,  including 
underwater noise (Descriptor 11).  

Italy has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address these, for the following descriptors: 
commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), contaminants 
(Descriptor 8), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise 
(Descriptor 11). 
Plans to address monitoring gaps for the remaining descriptors, namely birds, mammals, fish 
and cephalopods, water column habitats and seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), non-
indigenous species (Descriptor 2), contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9), are therefore still 
missing. 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Italy should: 

(a) Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant 
to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation 
by 15 July 2014; 

(b) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES; 

(c) Identify  plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  where  this  has  not  been  done  and 

implement those plans. 

Italy  reported  Article  11  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD)  in  October 
2014. Italy’s Article 11 reporting includes 62 sub-programmes covering all descriptors, in all 
its  sub-divisions  (Adriatic  Sea,  the  Ionian  Sea  and  the  Central  Mediterranean  Sea  and  the 
Western Mediterranean Sea).  

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The adequacy of the Italian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  good  environmental  status  (GES) 71  and 
achievement  of  environmental  targets,  as  defined  by  Italy  in  2012-2013,  and  modified  in 
2014.  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. Changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

GES 

2018 

2018 

* 

2018 

2018 

2018 

* 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

* 

Targets 

2014 

2014 

* 

2014 

2014 

2014 

* 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

* 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

* Timeline of coverage is not reported on by Italy for these descriptors 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

71

 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 

descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The  technical  assessment  shows  that  Italy  has  developed  its  monitoring  programme 
and  sub-programmes  in  a  consistent  manner  with  its  MSFD  GES  and  targets  for 
hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and marine litter (Descriptor 10); and with its 
GES  determination  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3)  and  energy, 
including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).  

- 

- 

in 

Italy’s  monitoring  sub-programmes  show  relative  consistency  with  Union  level 
standards,  mainly 
the  context  of  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2), 
eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and contaminants 
(Descriptor 8) as well as in the monitoring sub-programmes for water column habitats 
(Descriptors1, 4 and 6). The Common Fisheries Policy forms the basis of commercial 
fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) sub-programmes, and Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 
forms  the  basis  of  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  sub-programmes.  The 
Habitats  Directive  is  linked  to  seabed,  mammals  and  fish  biodiversity  monitoring, 
while the Birds Directive contributes to the birds MSFD monitoring.  

Italy’s  monitoring  programme  shows  consistency  with  United  Nations  Environment 
Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP) monitoring programmes, which 
form the basis of many monitoring programmes of the MSFD; namely in the case of 
biodiversity  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6)  in  relation  to  the  management  and  the 
establishment  of  Marine  Protected  Areas  (MPAs),  as  well  as  monitoring  for  seabed 
habitats,  mammals  and  reptiles,  birds  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6)  and  contaminants 
(Descriptor 8).  

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED  

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Italian  monitoring  programme  shows  a 
number of weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets, in particular for the 
biodiversity  descriptors,  and  pressure  descriptors  commercial  fish  and  shellfish 
(Descriptor  3),  eutrophication 
(Descriptor  8), 
contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9);  and  descriptors  considered  less  advanced  in 
terms of knowledge and methodologies such as non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) 
and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

(Descriptor  5),  contaminants 

- 

Italy  reports  limited  information  on  monitoring  transboundary  impacts  or  any  other 
major environmental changes or emerging issues. To describe these, the Member State 
refers  to  its  efforts  in  the  context  of  UNEP/MAP  and  regional  cooperation,  but  does 
not elaborate further.  

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Italy should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  Union 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive72, 

72 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the  Birds,  Directive 73 ,  the  Water  Framework  Directive 74  and  the  Invasive  Alien 
Species  Regulation75 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  MSFD-  specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 
spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

joint  monitoring 

programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by UNEP/MAP.  

(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptor 1, 4 and 6):   

(d) ensure  that  all  necessary  elements  and  parameters  are  monitored  to  ensure  that  its 
monitoring needs are covered, in particular on food webs and ecosystem indicators of 
the programme concerning species exploited by commercial fisheries.  

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(e) ensure  that  results  from  multiple  survey  schemes  are  analysed  appropriately  to  draw 

conclusions on MSFD GES. 

On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3): 

(f) improve  monitoring  and  assessment  of  non-'Data  Collection  Framework'  species  and 

of data-limited stocks;  

(g) ensure appropriate geographical scope . 

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): 

(h) develop  its  monitoring  programme  and  cover  chlorophyll  levels  and  phytoplankton 

community composition and abundance, as per GES definition. 

On contaminants (Descriptor 8): 

(i)  ensure  that  all  relevant  contaminants,  as  well  as  significant  acute  pollution  event,  if 

they occur, and their effects are monitored, as per GES definition. 

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): 

(j)  strengthen its monitoring programme to ensure the traceability of its biota samples to 

the location of the contamination. 

73 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
74 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
75 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
11. Cyprus 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Cyprus  constitutes  a  partially  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Cyprus  reports  that  its  monitoring  programme  was  mostly  in  place  to  measure  progress 
towards  GES  by  2014,  but  with  birds  and  mammals  (Descriptors  1,  4)  only  addressed  by 
2020. 

Three  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programmes.  These  are  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3), 
eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). 

Cyprus has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for all descriptors in a very 
general manner. 

Cyprus  had  not  established  targets  for  birds  and  mammals  (Descriptors  1  and  4),  non-
indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  and  energy, 
including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Cyprus should: 

(a) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES; 

(b) Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps. 

Cyprus  reported  under  Article  11  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD)  in 
October 2014. In total, Cyprus’ Article 11 reporting consists of 25 sub-programmes covering 
all descriptors. 

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The adequacy of the Cypriot MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 
needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  good  environmental  status  (GES) 76  and 
achievement of environmental targets, as defined by the Member State in 2013, and revised 
and re-submitted on 15 April 2015.   

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

76

 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 

descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether  the  Member  State  has  provided  justifications  and/or  plans  to  address  (any) 

gaps.  

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

*Timeline not reported 

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

No targets 

No targets 

No targets 

No targets 

No targets 

GES 

2020 

2020 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

Targets 

* 

* 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

* 

2014 

2014 

2014 

* 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The technical assessment shows that Cyprus has developed its monitoring programme 
and sub-programmes  in a  consistent manner  with  its GES determinations and  targets 
for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  with  its  GES  determinations  for 
eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9); and with its 
targets for marine litter (Descriptor 10).  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  The  technical  assessment  also  shows  that  even  though  targets  have  not  yet  been 
defined  for  birds,  mammals,  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  hydrographical 
changes  (Descriptor  7)  and  energy,  including  underwater  noise  (Descriptor  11),  the 
Member State has already designed monitoring sub-programmes for these descriptors, 
which is positive.  

-  The  Cypriot  monitoring  programme  shows  consistency  with  the  standards  and 
guidelines  produced  by  the  United  Nations  Environment  Programme/Mediterranean 
Action Plan (UNEP/MAP), bringing in a regional dimension to the work done by the 
Member  State.  Furthermore,  the  modified  GES  indicators  make  the  direct  link  with 
UNEP/MAP guidance indicators in all descriptors.  

-  Cyprus has provided plans for future work for  all descriptors, even though it considers 
that  its  monitoring  programme  is,  for  the  most  part,  already  adequate  to  measure 
progress  towards  its  GES  and  targets.  This  is  in  line  with  the  principle  of  adaptive 
management.   

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED  

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Cypriot  monitoring  programme  shows  a 
number of weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets for the biodiversity 
descriptors  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6)  as  well  as  contaminants  (Descriptor  8);  and 
descriptors  considered  less  advanced  in  terms  of  knowledge  and  methodologies,  i.e. 
non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), marine 
litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

-  A number of descriptors have no targets. The establishment of these targets would help 

inform the development of the monitoring programme for these descriptors. 

-  Cyprus has not reported on the links between its monitoring and the relevant Regional 
Sea Convention and  EU  work for  eutrophication (Descriptor  5) (Urban  Waste  Water 
Treatment Directive) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) (MSFD 
technical group on underwater noise). 

-  Cyprus  does  not  elaborate  on  monitoring  transboundary  impacts  or  any  other  major 
environmental  changes  or  emerging  issues,  but  refers  to  the  impacts  and  features  it 
monitors as part of its monitoring sub-programmes. 

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Cyprus should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  EU 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive77, 
the  Birds,  Directive 78 ,  the  Water  Framework  Directive 79  and  the  Invasive  Alien 

77 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
78 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
79 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Species  Regulation80 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  MSFD-  specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 
spatial scope as well as elements (habitats and species) and parameters monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

joint  monitoring 

programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by UNEP/MAP. 

(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) develop targets for birds and mammals; 

(e) building upon point (a), adapt existing monitoring (e.g. under HBD or WFD) to meet 

the objectives of the MSFD of achieving GES; 

(f) develop  the  monitoring  programme  to  cover  offshore  areas,  where  appropriate,  and 

cover terrestrial habitats in the case of birds; 

(g) develop  the  monitoring  programme  for  fish  biodiversity  to  include  non-commercial 

fish species and coastal fish; 

(h) develop the monitoring programme for seabed habitats to ensure a wider spatial scope 

is monitored, where appropriate. 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(i)  develop targets; 

(j)  extend monitoring to other key species groups and habitat types such as phytoplankton 

and zooplanktonic species; macrobenthos (sediments) and pelagic fish. 

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): 

(k) extend  its  monitoring  sub-programmes  to  cover  additional  geographic  areas  beyond 

coastal waters, where necessary based on a risk assessment.  

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 

(l)  develop targets; 
(m) strengthen  the  monitoring  programme  to  assess  hydrographical  significant  and 

permanent changes. 

On contaminants (Descriptor 8): 

(n) develop a monitoring programme of contamination effects on biota, where necessary, 

as per GES definition. 

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): 

80 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(o) develop a monitoring programme that covers all seafood for consumption, as per GES 

definition. 

On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

(p) develop monitoring of micro-litter. 

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 

(q) develop targets ; 

(r) develop, as appropriate, monitoring on impulsive noise. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
12. Latvia 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Latvia  does  not  constitute  an  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Latvia reports that its monitoring programme to measure progress towards its GES will not be 
fully in place until after 2020. 

Latvia has not reported monitoring for mammals (Descriptors 1, 4). 

None of the thirteen descriptor categories have been sufficiently addressed.  

Latvia  has  identified  monitoring  gaps,  and  plans  to  address  these,  for  the  following 
descriptors:  birds,  water  column  habitats,  seabed  habitats  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6),  non-
indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  hydrographical  changes 
(Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8) and marine litter (Descriptor 10).  
Plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  for  the  remaining  descriptors,  i.e.  mammals,  fish  and 
cephalopods  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3), 
contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  and  energy,  including  underwater  noise  (Descriptor 
11), are therefore still missing. 

Latvia has not determined GES and targets for birds, mammals and fish (Descriptors 1 and 4), 
hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminant (Descriptor 8), marine litter (Descriptor 
10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Latvia should: 

(a) Ensure immediate implementation of the monitoring programme pursuant to point 
(iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation by 15 
July 2014; 

(b) Address all descriptors in the monitoring programme; 

(c) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs   for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES; 

(d) Identify  plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  where  this  has  not  been  done  and 

implement those plans. 

Latvia reported under Article 11 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in December 
2014. In total, Latvia’s Article 11 reporting includes consists of 22 sub-programmes covering 
all  descriptors,  apart  from  mammals  and  fish  (D1,  4).  Latvia  has  not  defined  good 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
environmental  status  (GES)81 and  targets  for  birds,  mammals  and  fish  (Descriptors  1,  4),  as 
well  as  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  marine  litter 
(Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The adequacy of the Latvian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 
needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status and achievement of 
environmental targets, as defined by Latvia in 2013.  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

81

 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 

descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

57 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Descriptor 

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

GES 

Targets 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

D1, 4 Birds 

No GES 

No targets 

After 2020 

After 2020 

D1, 4 Mammals 

No GES 
No monitoring 

No targets 
No monitoring 

D1, 4 Fish 

No GES 

No targets 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

No GES 

No targets 

D8 Contaminants 

No GES 

No targets 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

No GES 

No targets 

* 

* 

* 

* 

After 2020 

After 2020 

After 2020 

After 2020 

After 2020 

After 2020 

2014 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2018 

2020 

After 2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2014 

After 2020 

D11 Energy/Noise 

No GES 

No targets 

After 2020 

After 2020 

*Timeline of coverage is not reported by Latvia 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  Although  Latvia  has  not  yet  defined  GES  and  targets  for  birds  (Descriptors  1,  4) 
hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  marine  litter 
(Descriptor  10),  energy, 
it  has 
nevertheless  reported  monitoring  programmes,  which  is  positive  as  it  indicates  that 
some  monitoring  for  these  descriptors  is  already  taking  place  in  view  of  a  future 
GES/targets definition. 

including  underwater  noise  (Descriptor  11), 

-  Efforts  have  been  by  Latvia to link its  monitoring  programmes  with  existing  ones at 
Union  level  in  the  context  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  (seabed  and 
water  column  habitats  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5), 
hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  contaminants  in 
seafood  (Descriptor  9),  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (Descriptor  3),  the  Birds 
Directive  (birds),  the  Habitats  Directive  (non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2), 
seabed  habitats  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6)),  the  Nitrates  Directive  (eutrophication 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Descriptor 5)) and Commission Regulation No 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for 
certain contaminants in foodstuffs (contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9)).  

-  Regional  cooperation  is  referred  to  by  Latvia,  with  HELCOM  being  linked  to 
monitoring  activities  under  most  descriptors.  Latvia  reports  that  existing  gaps  in  its 
monitoring  programmes,  as  well  as  transboundary  issues  will  be  progressively 
addressed, often in the context of regional cooperation through HELCOM. 

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED  

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Latvian  monitoring  programme  and  sub-
programmes  show  a  number  of  weaknesses  that  affect  their  coverage  of  GES  and 
targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors. 

-  Latvia has not defined GES and targets for birds, mammals and fish (Descriptors 1, 4), 
hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  marine  litter 
(Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

-  Latvia  does  not  report  any  monitoring  programmes  and  associated  timeline  for 

mammals and fish (Descriptors 1, 4).  

-  Latvia  does  not  elaborate  on  major  environmental  changes  and  emerging  issues.  It 
states  that  its  monitoring  programmes  are  not  statistically  tested  for  their  ability  to 
identify major changes in the environment, and thus cannot identify new and emerging 
issues. 

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Latvia should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  Union 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive82, 
the Birds Directive83, the Water Framework Directive84 and the Invasive Alien Species 
Regulation85 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time  ensuring 
that MSFD- specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope 
as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

joint  monitoring 

programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by HELCOM. 

(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

82 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
83 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
84 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
85 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In particular:  
On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) develop GES and targets for birds, mammals and fish 

(e) develop monitoring programmes for mammals as soon as possible.  

(f) further  develop  its  monitoring  programmes,  refine  survey  methods  and  render  them 

operational as soon as possible.  

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(g) further develop its existing monitoring programme to cover pathways of introduction; 

(h) further  develop  its  existing  monitoring  programme  to  monitor  NIS  distribution  and 

biomass, as per GES definition.  

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): 

(i)  expand  its  monitoring  programme  to  cover  additional  elements  and  parameters  (e.g. 
macroalgal colonisation depth along transects from shore), as per its GES definition. 

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) 

(j)  develop GES and targets. 

On contaminants (Descriptor 8): 
(k) develop GES and targets. 

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): 

(l)  expand its monitoring programme to cover additional species (beyond the four species 

identified), as per its GES definition.  

On marine litter (Descriptor 10)  
(m) develop GES and targets. 

On energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11 

(n) develop GES and targets. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13. Lithuania 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Lithuania  constitutes  a  partially  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Lithuania reports that its monitoring programme will mostly be in place to measure progress 
towards GES by 2020, but with some aspects (birds, seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), 
non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  marine  litter 
(Descriptor 10)  and energy,  including underwater noise (Descriptor 11)), only covered after 
2020.  

Monitoring of mammals (Descriptor 1, 4) has not been reported.  

Three  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programmes.  These  are  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3), 
eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9).  

Lithuania has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for all descriptors, except 
for birds (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), which are still missing.  

Lithuania  has  not  determined  GES  and  targets  for  mammals  (Descriptors  1  and  4), 
hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  and  energy,  including 
underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Lithuania should: 

(a) Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant 
to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation 
by 15 July 2014; 

(b) Address all descriptors in the monitoring programme; 

(c) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES; 

(c) Identify  plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  where  this  has  not  been  done  and 

implement those plans.  

Lithuania reported under article 11 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in March  
2015.  In  total,  Lithuania’s  article  11  reporting  consists  of  23  sub-programmes  covering  all 
descriptors,  apart  from  mammals  (Descriptors  1,  4)  and  energy,  including  underwater  noise 
(Descriptor 11). 

61 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The  adequacy  of  the  Lithuanian  MSFD  monitoring  programme  has  been  assessed  by 
considering  whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the 
monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES)86 
and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Lithuania in 2013.  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

GES 

Targets 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

No GES 
No monitoring 

No targets 
No monitoring 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

** 

D5 Eutrophication 

After 2020 

After 2020 

* 

2018 

2018 

* 

2018 

2018 

After 2020 

After 2020 

After 2020 

After 2020 

2014 

2020 

2014 

2020 

D7 Hydro. changes 

No GES 

No targets 

After 2020 

After 2020 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

2018 

2020 

2020 

2020 

D10 Marine litter 

No GES 

No targets 

After 2020 

After 2020 

D11 Energy/Noise 

No GES 

No targets 

After 2020 

After 2020 

*Not reported, **inaccuracies and lack of data in paper report  

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

86

 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 

descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment  Lithuania  has  developed  its  monitoring 
programme  and  sub-programmes  in  a  consistent  manner  with  its  GES  determination 
and  environmental  targets,  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3), 
eutrophication (Descriptor 5), and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9).   

-  Although  Lithuania  has  not  yet  defined  GES  and  targets  for  hydrographical  changes 
(Descriptor  7),  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  and  energy,  including  underwater  noise 
(Descriptor 11), it has nevertheless reported monitoring programmes, which is positive 
as  it  indicates  that  some  monitoring  for  these  descriptors  is  already  taking  place  in 
view of a future GES/targets definition, even though it is fairly high-level for energy, 
including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

-  Some efforts have been by Lithuania to link its monitoring programmes with existing 
ones at Union level in the context of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for fish 
and  cephalopods,  seabed  habitats,  and  water  column  habitats  (Descriptors  1,  4,  6) 
monitoring,  as  well  as  for  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  hydrographical  changes 
(Descriptor  7),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8)  and  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor 
9).  The  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  forms  the  basis  of  the  monitoring 
programmes for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and fish (Descriptors 1, 
4). The Habitats Directive has been linked with fish and cephalopods, seabed habitats 
(Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) and eutrophication (Descriptor 5).  

-  Regional  cooperation  is  systematically  referenced  by  the  Member  State,  with 
HELCOM  being  linked  to  monitoring  activities  under  most  descriptors.  Lithuania 
reports that existing gaps in its monitoring programme, as well as transboundary issues 
will  be  progressively  addressed,  often  in  the  context  of  regional  cooperation through 
HELCOM. 

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED  

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Lithuanian  monitoring  programmes  and 
sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses for birds, fish and cephalopods, water 
column  and  seabed  habitats  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6),  non-indigenous  species 
(Descriptor  2)  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3)  and  contaminants 
(Descriptor 8).   

-  Furthermore,  Lithuania  has  not  defined  a  specific  MSFD  monitoring  programme  for 

mammals (Descriptors 1, 4).  

-  Lithuania  has  not  defined  GES  and  targets  for  mammals  (Descriptors  1,  4), 
hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  and  energy  and 
underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

-  A timeline for adequate monitoring of mammals has not been reported by the Member 

State.  

-  Justifications  and  plans  have  not  been  presented  for  the  birds  monitoring,  which  the 

Member State reports will be adequate after 2020. 

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Lithuania should: 

63 

 
 
 
In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  EU 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive87, 
the  Birds,  Directive 88 ,  the  Water  Framework  Directive 89  and  the  Invasive  Alien 
Species  Regulation90 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  MSFD-  specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 
spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

joint  monitoring 

programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by HELCOM. 

(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular:  

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) develop GES and targets on mammals; 

(e) develop a monitoring programme for mammals as soon as possible;   

(f) further  develop  its  monitoring  programme  for  fish  to  ensure  the  coverage  of  non-

commercial species.   

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(g) make  efforts  to  monitor  more  hotspots  and  pathways  of  introduction,  as  per  GES 

definition. 

(h) further  develop  its  existing  monitoring  programme  to  ensure  that  collected  data  is 

adequately assessed to monitor impact, as per GES definition. 

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 

(i)  develop GES and targets. 

On marine litter (Descriptor 10):  
(j)  develop GES and targets. 

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 
(k) develop GES and targets. 

(l)  develop monitoring sub-programmes for underwater noise. 

87 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
88 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
89 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
90 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
14. Netherlands 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Netherlands  constitutes  a  mostly  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

The  Netherlands  reports  that  its  monitoring  programme  was  almost  completely  in  place  by 
2014, except for energy including underwater noise (Descriptor 11), only covered as of 2018. 

Five  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programmes.  These  are  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3), 
eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  contaminants  in  seafood 
(Descriptor 9) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).  

The Netherlands has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address these, for the following 
descriptors:  birds,  mammals,  fish  and  cephalopods,  water  column  habitats,  seabed  habitats 
(Descriptors  1,  4  and  6),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  contaminants  in  seafood 
(Descriptor  9),  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  and  energy,  including  underwater  noise 
(Descriptor 11). A plan to address gaps for non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) is missing. 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Netherlands should: 

(a) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  a  fully  appropriate 
framework  that  enables  complete  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs    for  the 
assessment of progress towards GES; 

(b) Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps. 

The  Netherlands  reported  under  Article  11  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive 
(MSFD)  in  October  2014.  The  Dutch  Article  11  reporting  includes  28  sub-programmes 
covering  all  descriptors  except  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7).  This  descriptor  was 
reported in the general monitoring programme reporting sheet.  

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The adequacy of the Dutch MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 
needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  good  environmental  status  (GES) 91  and 
achievement of environmental targets, as defined by the Netherlands in 2013.  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

91

 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 

descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
-  The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

GES 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2018 

Targets 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2018 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The  technical  assessment  shows  that  the  Netherlands  has  developed  its  monitoring 
programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its MSFD environmental 
targets.  The  Dutch  monitoring  programme  is  considered  sufficient  to  assess  progress 
towards all targets except those for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7),   

-  With regard to measuring progress towards GES, the Dutch programme is considered 
sufficient  for  a  number  of  key  pressure  descriptors,  including  those  on  commercial 
fisheries (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants (Descriptor 8) 
and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9).  

-  The  Dutch  monitoring  programme  shows  a  high  level  of  consistency  with  the 
standards and guidelines produced by OSPAR, bringing in a strong regional dimension 
in the work done by the Member State.  

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  The Netherlands has provided plans for future work for a number of descriptors, even 
though  it  considers  that  its  monitoring  programme  is,  for  the  most  part,  already 
adequate  to  measure  progress  towards  its  GES  and  targets.  This  is  in  line  with  the 
principle of adaptive management.   

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED  

-  According to the technical assessment, the Dutch monitoring programme shows a few 
weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets for biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 
4 and 6) (although relatively minor) and descriptors considered less advanced in terms 
of  knowledge  and  methodologies,  i.e.  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  marine 
litter (Descriptor 10) and hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7).   

- 

In  particular  for  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  the  Netherlands  has  not  yet 
defined  a  specific  MSFD  monitoring  sub-programme  and  any  monitoring  currently 
done on hydrographical changes is done under other processes (e.g. Water Framework 
Directive and licensing procedures). 

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Netherlands should:  

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  Union 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive92, 
the  Birds,  Directive 93 ,  the  Water  Framework  Directive 94  and  the  Invasive  Alien 
Species  Regulation95 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  MSFD-  specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 
spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

joint  monitoring 

programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR.  

(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptor 1, 4 and 6):   

(d) develop further its biodiversity monitoring sub-programmes to addresses some of the 

minor weaknesses identified (e.g. coverage of relevant monitoring parameters). 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

92 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
93 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
94 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
95 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(e) further develop its monitoring programme to cover relevant habitats or species groups 
(e.g. water-bound NIS, such as phytoplankton and zooplankton species) using a risk-
based approach, as well as additional activities, hotspots and pathways of introduction.  

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 

(f) complement the monitoring sub-programme, in particular to ensure the monitoring of 

activities beyond coastal zones, where necessary. 

On marine litter (Descriptor 10):  

(g) further  improve  its  sub-programmes  in  relation  to  the  monitoring  of  microlitter  and, 

where necessary, impacts on marine biota. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
15. Portugal 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Portugal  does  not  constitute  an  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Portugal has not reported the timing  by when its  monitoring programme will  be in place to 
measure progress towards its GES. 

Portugal has not reported monitoring on eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and on hydrographical 
changes (Descriptor 7). 

Two  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring programmes. These are commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and marine 
litter (Descriptor 10). 

Portugal  has  not  identified  monitoring  gaps,  nor  plans  to  address  them,  except  on  part  of 
energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 
9).  

Plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  are  therefore  still  missing  for  birds,  mammals,  fish  and 
cephalopods, water column habitats biodiversity and seabed habitats (Descriptors1, 4 and 6), 
non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes 
(Descriptor  7),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  and 
energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Portugal should: 

(a) Ensure  immediate  implementation  of  the  monitoring  programme  pursuant  to 
point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation 
by 15 July 2014; 

(b) Address all descriptors in the monitoring programme; 
(c) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES; 

(d) Identify  plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  where  this  has  not  been  done  and 

implement those plans. 

Portugal reported under Article 11  of the Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive (MSFD) in 
January 2015. The Portuguese Article 11 reporting consists of 23 monitoring sub-programmes 
covering all descriptors, apart from eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and hydrographical changes 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Descriptor 7). The reported monitoring programmes cover all three Portuguese sub-divisions: 
Continental, Azores and Madeira96.  

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The  adequacy  of  the  Portuguese  MSFD  monitoring  programme  has  been  assessed  by 
considering  whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the 
monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES)97 
and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Portugal in 2015.  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State's monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State's own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

96 The Process of Extension of the Continental Shelf is currently on-going within the framework of the United Nations. As 
such, the present assessment does not cover the ‘extended continental shelf’ sub-division. 
97 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 
descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

GES 

Targets 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

D5 Eutrophication 

No monitoring 

No monitoring 

D7 Hydro. changes 

No monitoring 

No monitoring 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

*Dates not provided 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The  technical  assessment  shows  that  Portugal  has  developed  its  monitoring 
programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES determinations 
and  targets  for  commercial  fisheries  (Descriptor  3);  with  its  GES  determination  for 
marine  litter  (Descriptor  10);  and  with  its  targets  for  energy  including  underwater 
noise (Descriptor 11). 

-  Portugal has reported on the use of existing monitoring programmes in the context of 
the  MSFD.  The  Member  State  has  referred  to  relevant  monitoring  done  as  part  of 
various Union legislative frameworks, such as the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) for 
fish and cephalopods (Descriptors 1, 4), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), 
and  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2).  Monitoring  under  the  Water  Framework 
Directive is referred to in the case of all biodiversity descriptors (Descriptors 1, 4, 6), 
non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) and contaminants (Descriptor 8). The Habitats 
Directive  is  referred  to  in  relation  to  the  birds,  mammals  and  reptiles  monitoring 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Descriptors  1,  4)  as  well  as  to  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  and  energy  including 
underwater noise (Descriptor 11), while the Birds Directive is referred to in the context 
of bird monitoring programmes reported for birds (Descriptors 1, 4) and marine litter 
(Descriptor 10).  

-  Portugal's  report  considers  relevant  regional  and  Union  processes,  in  particular 
OSPAR  and  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  working  groups  and  technical 
subgroup, to ensure coordination at regional and Union level for the implementation of 
the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes.  

-  Portugal occasionally refers to monitoring done under other international and regional 
agreements, in addition to the Regional Sea Conventions, in particular the Agreement 
on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous 
Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS) and the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention). 

-  Portugal has already reported on measures in 2015.  

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED  

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Portuguese  monitoring  programmes  and 
sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage of GES and 
targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors except commercial fish 
and shellfish (Descriptor 3). 

-  Portugal has not designed and implemented monitoring programmes for eutrophication 
(Descriptor  5)  and  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  as  such  it  is  currently  not 
monitoring  progress  towards  GES  and  targets  for  these  descriptors,  and  this  has  not 
been justified.  

-  Portugal does not report on a timeline to complete its monitoring programmes. This is 
necessary in order to ensure that monitoring needs to measure progress towards GES 
and targets, as defined by the Member State, are met.  

-  OSPAR  standards  and  guidelines  are  not  systematically  referred  to.  Only  the 
monitoring  programmes  for  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  contaminants  in 
seafood (Descriptor 9) and marine litter (Descriptor 10) have been explicitly linked to 
OSPAR activities.  

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Portugal should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  Union 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive98, 
the  Birds  Directive 99 ,  the  Water  Framework  Directive 100  and  the  Invasive  Alien 

98 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
99 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
100 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Species  Regulation101 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  MSFD-specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 
spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b) implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed 

at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR.  

(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular102: 

On biodiversity (particularly Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) further develop its biodiversity monitoring sub-programmes to addresses weaknesses, 
which relate to the coverage of monitoring of habitats (in the case of birds), abundance 
and  distribution  of  stocks  (in  the  case  of  fish)  and  indicator  species  (for  seabed  and 
water column habitats). 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(e) further develop the monitoring programme to ensure the coverage of fish species. 

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): 

(f)  develop and establish a monitoring programme or report, for MSFD purposes, relevant 

existing monitoring. 

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 

(g) develop and establish a monitoring programme or report, for MSFD purposes, relevant 

existing monitoring. 

On contaminants (Descriptor 8): 

(h) expand its programme to monitor additional contaminants, including radionuclides, as 

per GES definition. 

(i)  develop a monitoring programme of contamination effects on biota, where necessary, 

and of significant acute pollution events if they occur, as per GES definition. 

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): 

(j)  clearly  link  its  MSFD  monitoring  programme  to  monitoring  done  under  Regulation 

(EC) No 1881/2006. 

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 

(k) expand its monitoring programmes for underwater noise as soon as possible on Azores 

and Continental subdivisions on the basis of occurring human activities.  

101 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 
102 The Portuguese Article 11 reporting is not detailed enough to allow for a full assessment in most descriptors. Best efforts 
have been made to extract information from the paper reports, but this was sometimes not possible given the data at hand. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
16. Romania 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Romania  constitutes  a  partially  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards achievement of good environmental status (GES) and targets. 

Romania reports that its monitoring programme will be fully in place by 2018 at the latest to 
measure progress towards GES.  

Seven  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programmes.  These  are  mammals,  water  column  habitats  biodiversity,  seabed 
habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication 
(Descriptor 5), contaminants (Descriptor 8) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). 
The  remaining  descriptors  were  not  assessed  because  Romania  had  not  defined  GES  and 
targets for these, in time for this assessment.  

Romania has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address these, for all descriptors. 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Romania should: 

(a) Ensure immediate implementation of the monitoring programme pursuant to point 
(iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation by 15 
July 2014; 

(b) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES. 

(c) Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps. 

Romania reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in 
November 2014, with additional  monitoring  programme reports submitted in October 2015. 
In total, Romania’s Article 11 reporting includes a single monitoring programme consisting of 
62 sub-programmes covering all descriptors.  

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The  adequacy  of  the  Romanian  MSFD  monitoring  programme  has  been  assessed  by 
considering  whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the 
monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES)103 
and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Romania in 2013, and modified in 
2014-2015.  

103 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 
descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State's monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State's own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

GES 

Targets 

No GES* 

No targets* 

No GES* 

No targets* 

No GES* 

No targets* 

D7 Hydro. Changes 

No GES* 

No targets* 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

No GES* 

D11 Energy/Noise 

No GES* 

No targets* 

GES 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

Targets 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

* No GES had been reported in 2014. Romania clarified in late 2015 that GES has been defined and that this will 
be reported in the second cycle of the MSFD implementation, as part of the reporting obligations in 2018. Due to 
this late determination of GES and targets, no assessment of the monitoring programme could be carried out.  

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The  technical  assessment  shows  that  Romania  has  developed  its  monitoring 
programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES determinations 
and  targets  for  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8)  and 
contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9);  and  with  its  GES  determinations  for 
mammals, water column and seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4, 6) and commercial fish 
and shellfish (Descriptor 3).  

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  Romania  reports  to  consider  relevant  regional  and  Union  processes,  in  particular  the 
Black  Sea  Commission  and  work  done  under  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy 
working  groups  and  technical  groups,  to  ensure  coordination  at  regional  and  Union 
level for the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes.  

-  Romania  reports  extensive  bilateral  cooperation  with  Bulgaria  in  the  coordinated 
development of its monitoring programmes, an aspect that has contributed to regional 
coherence in the context of the MSFD implementation.  

- 

In 2014, Romania had not yet defined GES and targets for a number of descriptors, yet 
the  Member  State  has  made  efforts  in  already  establishing  monitoring  programmes 
which is positive. This is the case for biodiversity birds and fish (Descriptors 1, 4 and 
6),  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7), 
marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  (where  there  were  no  GES,  but  there  were  targets)  and 
energy,  including  underwater  noise (Descriptor 11).  However,  GES  and  targets  were 
defined  for  these  descriptors  in  late  2015  and  Romania  indicated  that  they  will  be 
reported in the second cycle of the MSFD implementation. 

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED  

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Romanian  monitoring  programmes  and 
sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage of GES and 
targets.  This  is  applicable,  to  various  extents,  to  all  descriptors  except  for 
eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8)  and  contaminants  in 
seafood (Descriptor 9). 

-  Regarding  the  implementation  timeline,  monitoring  programmes  are  in  most  cases 

planned to start in 2015-2016 and will only be in place by 2018.  

-  Monitoring  programmes  have  gaps  which  mainly  relate  to  lack  of  knowledge, 
techniques  and  (as  reported  by  Romania)  funds,  that  are  planned  to  be  addressed  by 
2018. 

-  Romania had not defined GES and targets, in 2014, for birds and fish (Descriptors 1, 
4), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and 
energy including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) and has not defined GES for marine 
litter (Descriptor 10). As explained above, Romania has in the meantime defined GES 
and targets for these descriptors. 

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Romania should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  Union 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive104, 
the  Birds,  Directive 105,  the  Water  Framework  Directive 106 and  the  Invasive  Alien 

104 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
105 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Species  Regulation107 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  MSFD-  specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 
spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

joint  monitoring 
programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by the Black Sea 
Commission and/or in cooperation with Bulgaria.  

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

(c) Enhance,  in  cooperation  with  Bulgaria,  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring 
methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, 
coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level, where 
such practices have been agreed and are being implemented. 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) further  strengthen  the  monitoring  programmes  for  all  its  biodiversity  monitoring 
programmes to ensure more appropriate spatial scope and frequency of monitoring.  

(e) ensure  that  its  monitoring  programmes  are  adaptive  in  view  of  its  future  GES  and 

targets definitions. 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(f) ensure that non-indigenous species monitoring is fit for the purposes of the MSFD. 

On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3): 

(g) ensure the coverage of additional species, beyond the ones already being covered by 

the monitoring sub-programmes. 

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 

(h) ensure adequate monitoring as soon as possible. 

On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

(i)  further develop criteria and indicators, for the assessment of marine biota and micro-

litter including.  

(j)  further expand the frequency of monitoring of beach litter. 

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 

(k) consider a dedicated permanent monitoring network.    

106 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
107 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
17. Slovenia 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 
Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Slovenia  does  not  constitute  an  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES).  

Slovenia  reports  that  its  monitoring  programme  to  measure  progress  towards  its  GES  will 
mostly not be in place until after 2020. For some aspects, no timeline has been reported. 

Slovenia  has  not  reported  monitoring  for  birds,  mammals,  fish  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6), 
non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  and  energy, 
including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

None of the thirteen descriptor categories have been sufficiently addressed.  

For  the  descriptors  on  which  it  has  reported,  Slovenia  has  identified  monitoring  gaps,  and 
plans  to  address  these,  on:  water  column  habitats,  seabed  habitats  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6), 
commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  contaminants 
(Descriptor  8)  and  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10).  Plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  for 
hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7)  are  therefore  still  missing.  In  addition,  for  the 
descriptor categories on which no monitoring is reported, justifications and/or plans are also 
still missing. 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Slovenia should: 

(a) Address all descriptors in the monitoring programme;  

(b) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES; 

(c) Ensure  immediate  implementation  of  the  monitoring  programme  pursuant  to 
point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation 
by 15 July 2014; 

(d) Identify  plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  where  this  has  not  been  done  and 

implement those plans. 

Slovenia reported under Article 11 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October  
2014.  In  total,  Slovenia's  Article  11  reporting  consists  of  eight  sub-programmes  covering 
seabed  habitats,  water  column  habitats  (Descriptors  1,  4,  6),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish 
(Descriptor  3),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7), 
contaminants (Descriptor 8) and marine litter (Descriptor 10). 

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The  adequacy  of  the  Slovenian  MSFD  monitoring  programme  has  been  assessed  by 
considering  whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES)108 
and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Slovenia in 2013.  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

Descriptor 

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

GES 

Targets 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

D1, 4 Birds 

No monitoring 

No monitoring 

D1, 4 Mammals 

No monitoring 

No monitoring 

D1, 4 Fish 

No monitoring 

No monitoring 

No monitoring 

No monitoring 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

No monitoring 

No monitoring 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

No monitoring 

No monitoring 

* Information not reported by Slovenia 

* 

* 

* 

2018 

2020 

* 

* 

* 

* 

2018 

2020 

* 

After 2020 

After 2020 

2020 

* 

After 2020 

After 2020 

2020 

* 

2018 

* 

2020 

* 

2020 

* 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

108 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 
descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  Slovenia  has  made  efforts  to  link  its  monitoring  programmes  with  the  Water 
Framework  Directive  (WFD)  for  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  contaminants 
(Descriptor 8), as well as seabed and water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4, 6).  

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED  

-  No  monitoring  programmes  have  been  implemented  (and  no  information  has  been 
reported)  for  birds,  mammals  and  reptiles,  fish  and  cephalopods  (Descriptors  1,  4), 
non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  and 
energy,  including  underwater  noise  (Descriptor  11),  and  as  such  the  Slovenian 
monitoring programme has significant gaps.  

-  Gaps have not been justified by the Member State and no plans have been presented.  

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Slovenian  monitoring  programmes  and 
sub-programmes show many weaknesses for all descriptor categories on which it has 
reported, namely water column and seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4, 6), commercial 
fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  hydrographical 
changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8) and marine litter (Descriptor 10).   

-  Slovenia  has  not  systematically  reported  on  the  links  between  its  MSFD  monitoring 
and  relevant  Regional  Sea  Convention  and  Union  work  for  the  majority  of  its 
descriptors. In particular, no links are made with the Birds and Habitats Directives in 
any biodiversity related monitoring programmes, eutrophication (Descriptor 5) is not 
linked  to  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive  nor  to  the  Bathing  Water 
Directive  and  the  work  done  by  the  MSFD  Common  Implementation  Strategy 
technical group on underwater noise has not been fully taken up in energy, including 
underwater noise (Descriptor 11). Very limited links are made with the United Nations 
Environment  Programme/Mediterranean  Action  Plan  (UNEP/MAP)  (only  for  water 
column  habitats,  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5)  and  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10) 
monitoring programmes).  

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Slovenia should: 

In general: 

(a) integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  Union  legislation 
and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive109,  the  Birds, 
Directive 110 ,  the  Water  Framework  Directive 111  and  the  Invasive  Alien  Species 
Regulation112 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time  ensuring 

109 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
110 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
111 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
112 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
that MSFD- specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope 
as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

joint  monitoring 

programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by UNEP/MAP. 

(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular:  

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) develop  monitoring  programmes  for  birds,  mammals  and  reptiles  as  well  as  fish  and 

cephalopods as soon as possible; 

(e) further develop monitoring programme for seabed habitats to cover pressure impacts, 

as per GES definition. 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(f) develop a monitoring programme as soon as possible. 

On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3): 

(g) further  develop  the  monitoring  programme  to  cover  additional  species  beyond  those 
included in the Mediterranean International Bottom Trawl Survey (MEDITS), as per 
GES definition; 

(h) further  develop  its  monitoring  programme  to  cover  pressures  (including  fishing 

mortality); in line with its targets definition. 

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): 

(i)  further  develop  its  monitoring  programme  to  cover  larger  geographic  areas,  where 

necessary based on a risk assessment. 

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 

(j)  further develop  its monitoring  programme  to  monitor elements relating  to  measuring 

impact on biodiversity, as per GES definition. 

On contaminants (Descriptor 8): 

(k) further  develop  a  monitoring  programme  of  effects  of  contaminants,  as  per  GES 

definition.  

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): 

(l)  develop a monitoring programme for contaminants in seafood as soon as possible. 

On marine litter (Descriptor 10):  

(m) further  develop  a  monitoring  programme  to  measure  micro-litter  and  impacts  of 

marine litter, where necessary, on marine biota, as per GES definition. 

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 

(n) develop a monitoring programme for underwater noise as soon as possible. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18. Finland 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Finland  constitutes  a  mostly  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Finland  reports  that  its  monitoring  programmes  was  almost  completely  in  place  to  measure 
progress  towards  GES  by  2014,  except  for  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  only 
covered as of 2018. 

Ten  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programme. These are birds, mammals, fish and cephalopods, seabed habitats, 
water column habitats, (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), 
eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  contaminants 
(Descriptor 8) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9).  

Finland has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for non-indigenous species 
(Descriptor 2), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), marine 
litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).  

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Finland should: 

(a) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  a  fully  appropriate 
framework that enables full coverage of the monitoring needs  for the assessment of 
progress towards GES; 

(b) Implement the plans identified to address the monitoring gaps. 

Finland  reported  under  Article  11  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD)  in 
October  2014.  The  Finnish  Article  11  reporting  consists  of  39  monitoring  sub-programmes 
covering all descriptors.   

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The adequacy of the Finnish MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 
needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  good  environmental  status  (GES)113 and  the 
achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Finland in 2012-2013.  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The results of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets 

by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

113 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 
descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
-  The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

GES 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2018 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

Targets 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2020 

2014 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

No* 

No* 

No* 

No* 

No* 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

* Gaps are identified in the HELCOM factsheet but not in the Finnish reporting sheets 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The technical assessment shows that Finland has developed its monitoring programme 
and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES determinations and targets 
for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8)  and 
contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9); with its GES determinations for biodiversity 
(Descriptors  1,  4,  6),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5)  and  hydrographical  changes 
(Descriptor 7); and with its targets for energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 
11.  

-  Finland has reported on the use of existing monitoring programmes in the context of 
the MSFD. Finland has reported the use of its Water Framework Directive monitoring 
programmes for biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4, 6), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 
2),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8)  and  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  sub-

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
programmes. The monitoring on commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) has been 
linked to Common Fisheries Policy monitoring programmes. 

-  Finland  has  identified  relevant  activities  at  regional  and  Union  level  for  the 
implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes. Firstly, Finland's 
monitoring programme and sub-programmes are linked to monitoring activities carried 
out by HELCOM. In addition, reference is also made to OSPAR standards in the case 
of  marine 
litter  (Descriptor  10)  monitoring  programme.  Secondly,  Finland's 
monitoring  programme  and  sub-programmes  also  contain  links  to  relevant  Union 
processes,  in  particular  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  working  groups  and 
technical subgroup. 

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED 

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Finnish  monitoring  programme  and  sub-
programmes  show  a  few  weaknesses  that  affect  their  coverage  of  GES  and  targets. 
This  is  applicable,  to  various  extents,  to  all  descriptors  except  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8)  and  contaminants  in  seafood 
(Descriptor 9). 

-  Finland  does  not  link  its  monitoring  programmes  to  activities  carried  out  for  other 
international  conventions  other  than  those  activities  undertaken  for  the Regional  Sea 
Conventions. 

-  Finland  does  not  elaborate  on  monitoring  transboundary  impacts  or  any  other  major 

environmental changes or emerging issues, but refers to HELCOM priorities. 

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Finland should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  Union 
legislation and  other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive114, 
the  Birds  Directive 115 ,  the  Water  Framework  Directive 116  and  the  Invasive  Alien 
Species  Regulation117 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  MSFD-  specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 
spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

joint  monitoring 

programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by HELCOM.  

114 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
115 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
116 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
117 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(c) continue  to enhance  comparability and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its 
marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency 
and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (in particular for Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) ensure  that  any  monitoring  undertaken  as  part  of  its  HELCOM  activities  is  also 

reported in its national MSFD monitoring programme. 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(e) improve monitoring to cover ecosystems, as per its GES definition. 

(f) improve the monitoring of hotspots and pathways of introduction, including ports.  

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): 

(g)  in relation to the monitoring of macrophytes and phytoplankton-related parameters. 

(h) ensure  that  any  monitoring  undertaken  as  part  of  its  HELCOM  activities  is  also 

reported in its national MSFD monitoring programme. 

On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

(i)  further  improve  its  programme  to  monitor  impacts  of  litter  on  ecosystems,  as  per  its 
GES definition and marine litter on the seafloor, where appropriate, as per its target. 

On energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 

(j)  implement its plans to improve its underwater noise monitoring;  

(k) ensure  that  any  monitoring  undertaken  as  part  of  its  HELCOM  activities  is  also 

reported in its national MSFD monitoring programme.  

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
19. Sweden 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  Sweden  constitutes  a  partially  appropriate 
framework to meet the requirements of Directive 2008/56/EC and to measure progress 
towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

Sweden  reports  that  its  monitoring  programme  will  be  fully  in  place  to  measure  progress 
towards GES by 2020, but with some aspects already covered as of 2014 such as commercial 
fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  hydrographical  changes 
(Descriptor 7), and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). 

Three  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programmes.  These  are  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3), 
eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7). 

Sweden has identified monitoring gaps, and plans to address them, for birds, mammals, fish 
and  cephalopods,  water  column  habitats  seabed  habitats  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6),  non-
indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  marine  litter 
(Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).  
Plans to address monitoring gaps for the remaining descriptors (contaminants (Descriptor 8) 
and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9)) are therefore still missing. 

Sweden has not  established targets for birds, mammal  and water column (Descriptors  1, 4), 
and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

Sweden should: 

(a) Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant 
to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation 
by 15 July 2014; 

(b) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs   for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES; 

(c) Identify  plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  where  this  has  not  been  done  and 

implement those plans. 

Sweden  reported  under  Article  11  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD) 
between  October  and  December  2014.  The  Swedish  Article  11  reporting  consists  of  43 
monitoring sub-programmes for the Baltic Sea region and 39 monitoring sub-programmes for 
the North Sea sub-region. The sub-programmes in both regions are similar and often have the 
same titles. The monitoring programmes in place address all descriptors in both sub-regions, 
apart from descriptor 11 (underwater noise). 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The  adequacy  of  the  Swedish  MSFD  monitoring  programme  has  been  assessed  by 
considering  whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the 
monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES)118 
and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Sweden in 2012-2013.  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.  

118 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 
descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

87 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

No targets** 

GES 

2020 

Targets 

2020 

No targets** 

2020 

2020 

D1, 4 Water column 

No targets** 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

* 

* 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

No 
monitoring*** 

No targets 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2018 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2020 

2014 

2014 

2020 

2018 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2020 

2014* 

2014* 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

* Applicable to the Baltic Sea region only: no monitoring programme is yet in place for the North Sea sub-region. 
** Sweden did not report specific targets for these descriptor categories, only generic targets. 
*** Sweden has not reported a monitoring programme in 2014 but has subsequently clarified that monitoring started during 2015. 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The technical assessment shows that Sweden has developed its monitoring programme 
and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES determination and targets for 
commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and eutrophication (Descriptor 5), with its 
GES determinations for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and with its targets for 
fish and cephalopods (Descriptor 1, 4), contaminants (Descriptor 8) and contaminants 
in seafood (Descriptor 9). 

-  Sweden  has  not  set  specific  targets  for  birds,  mammals  and  water  column  habitats 
(Descriptors  1,  4),  however  it  has  established  general  targets  and  monitoring 
programmes to monitor progress towards these general targets, which is positive. 

-  Sweden has reported on the use of existing monitoring programmes in the context of 
the  MSFD.  The  Member  State  has  referred  to  relevant  monitoring  done  as  part  of 
various Union legislative frameworks such as the Water Framework Directive (in the 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
context  of  monitoring  programme  on  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2), 
eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  contaminants 
(Descriptor  8),  as  well  as  mammals,  seabed  habitats  and  water  column  habitats 
(Descriptor  1,  4  and  6).  The  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  is  linked  with 
commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and fish and cephalopods (Descriptors 1, 
4)  while  the  Habitats  Directive  is  linked  to  monitoring  programmes  for  commercial 
fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6).  

-  Sweden reports on its coordination at regional and Union level for the implementation 
of  the  MSFD,  including  for  monitoring  programmes.  Firstly,  Sweden’s  monitoring 
programme and sub-programmes are linked to monitoring activities carried out by both 
HELCOM  and  OSPAR.  The  Member  State  reports  the  use  of  standards/guidelines 
from  either  Regional  Sea  Convention  for  both  regions,  thus  ensuring  consistency  in 
their  national  approach.  Secondly,  Sweden's  monitoring  programme  and  sub-
programmes  also  contain  links  to  relevant  Union  processes,  in  particular  work  done 
under the Common Implementation Strategy working groups and technical group. 

-  Finally,  Sweden  links  its  monitoring  programmes  to  monitoring  done  under 
international  conventions  and  agreements,  such  as  the  Convention  on  Wetlands 
(Ramsar Convention), the Ballast Water Management Convention and the Agreement 
on  the  Conservation  of  African-Eurasian  Migratory  Waterbirds  (AEWA)  among 
others.  

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED  

-  According to the technical assessment, the Swedish monitoring programmes and sub-
programmes  show  a  number  of  weaknesses  that  affect  their  coverage  of  GES  and 
targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors, except commercial fish 
and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and eutrophication (Descriptor 5). 

-  Sweden  only  reported  generic  targets  for  birds,  mammals  and  water  column  habitats 
(Descriptors 1, 4), but no specific targets for each of these descriptor-categories. Since 
these  targets  are  not  specific  to  birds,  mammals  and  water  column  habitats 
(Descriptors  1,  4)  an  assessment  of  the  monitoring  programmes  to  measure  progress 
towards  specific  targets  cannot  be  made.  This  needs  to  be  seen  in  relation  with  the 
existing  monitoring  programme  and  the  future  target  definition,  reported  under 
'Achievements'.  

-  No  monitoring  programme  has  been  reported  for  the  North  Sea  sub-region  for 

contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). This needs to be further clarified. 

-  Sweden had not established monitoring programmes for energy, including underwater 
noise (Descriptor 11) in 2014. However, it has subsequently clarified that monitoring 
started during 2015 for this descriptor.  

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

Sweden should: 

In general: 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  EU 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive119, 
the  Birds  Directive 120 ,  the  Water  Framework  Directive 121  and  the  Invasive  Alien 
Species  Regulation122 with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  MSFD-specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 
spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b)  continue  to  implement,  where  they  exist,  coordinated  and  joint  monitoring 
programmes  developed  at  regional  or  subregional  level,  for  instance  by  OSPAR  and 
HELCOM.  

(c) continue  to  enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its 
marine  (sub-)regions,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage, 
frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (in particular for Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) further develop its monitoring of seabirds in the North Sea and expand it to offshore 

areas in both (sub-)regions.  

(e) strengthen its seabed monitoring programme and cover biogenic substrates, as well as 

areas of seabed affected by permanent structures. 

(f) develop  more  transboundary  approaches  and  cooperation  for  monitoring,  particularly 

for mobile species, which frequently move between Member States' waters.  

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(g) strengthen  its  monitoring  programmes  to  gather  data  on  genetically  modified 

organisms and monitoring of ecosystem effects, as per its GES definition.  

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 

(h) strengthen its monitoring programme to ensure the monitoring of impacts of activities.  

On contaminants (Descriptor 8): 

(i)  strengthen  its  monitoring  programme  by  monitoring  the  blubber  thickness  indicator 

proposed for both (sub-)regions in its GES definition. 

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): 

(j)  develop and implement a monitoring programme in the North Sea.  

(k) ensure the traceability of its biota samples to the location of the contamination. 

On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

119 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
120 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
121 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
122 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(l)  improve its monitoring of litter and micro-litter and of impacts on marine biota, where 

necessary, as per its GES definition. 

On energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 

(m) continue  development  and  implementation  of 

  a  monitoring  programme  for 

underwater noise.  

91 

 
 
 
 
20. United Kingdom 

OVERALL CONCLUSION 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programme  of  United  Kingdom  constitutes  a  partially 
appropriate  framework  to  meet  the  requirements  of  Directive  2008/56/EC  and  to 
measure progress towards the achievement of good environmental status (GES). 

The United Kingdom reports that its monitoring programme will be fully in place to measure 
progress towards GES by 2020 at the latest, with some aspects already covered as of 2014 or 
2018. 

Six  out  of  thirteen  descriptor  categories  are  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  reported 
monitoring  programmes.  These  are  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3), 
eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  contaminants 
(Descriptor  8),  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  and  energy,  including  underwater 
noise (Descriptor 11).  

The  United  Kingdom  has  identified  monitoring  gaps,  and  plans  to  address  them,  for  all 
descriptor categories except fish and cephalopods (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), which is missing. 

MAIN GUIDANCE 

United Kingdom should: 

(a) Ensure immediate implementation of the whole monitoring programme pursuant 
to point (iv) of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC which required implementation 
by 15 July 2014; 

(b) Ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  constitutes  an  appropriate  framework 
that  enables  full  coverage  of  the  monitoring  needs for  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards GES; 

(c) Identify  plans  to  address  monitoring  gaps  where  this  has  not  been  done  and 

implement those plans. 

The UK reported under article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in 
October 2014. In total, the UK's article 11 reporting includes 96 sub-programmes  covering 
all descriptors, apart from non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2).  

CONCLUSIONS ON MEMBER STATE-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 

The  adequacy  of  the  UK  MSFD  monitoring  programme  has  been  assessed  by  considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 
needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  good  environmental  status  (GES) 123  and 
achievement of environmental targets, as defined by the UK in 2012-2013.  

123 'Good environmental status' (GES) is defined under Article 3(5) of the MSFD. Member States then determine GES per 
descriptor in accordance with Art. 9 of the MSFD. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State's monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The Member State's own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme 

is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether  the  Member  State  has  provided  justifications  and/or  plans  to  address  gaps 

present as of 2014.  

Technical assessment 

Timeline reported 

GES 

Targets 

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 NIS 

* 

* 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

GES 

2014 

2014 

2020 

2018 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2018 

2020 

Targets 

2020 

2014 

2020 

2018 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2014 

2014 

2014 

2020 

2018 

2020 

Member State 
plans/ 
justifications 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

* The UK has since clarified that a NIS monitoring strategy has been developed in 2015, which will be progressively implemented in the 
coming years.   

No GES 
No targets 
No monitoring  No monitoring programme reported 

GES not defined 
Targets not defined 

Full coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 

ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR 

-  The technical assessment shows that with regard to measuring progress towards GES, 
the UK monitoring programme is considered sufficient for a number of pressure-based 
descriptors,  including  those  on  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3), 
eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8)  and  contaminants  in 
seafood (Descriptor 9). 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  The  technical  assessment  also  shows  that  the  UK  has  developed  its  monitoring 
programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its MSFD environmental 
targets.  The  UK  monitoring  programme  is  considered  mostly  sufficient  to  assess 
progress towards all targets except those for non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) and 
hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6).  

-  The UK monitoring programme shows a high level of consistency with the standards 

and guidelines produced by OSPAR. 

-  The UK has provided plans for future work for a number of descriptors, even though it 
considers  that  its  monitoring  programme  is,  for  the  most  part,  already  adequate  to 
measure  progress  towards  its  GES  and  targets.  This  is  in  line  with  the  principle  of 
adaptive management.   

ASPECTS WHERE IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED  

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  UK  monitoring  programme  shows  a 
number of weaknesses that affect its monitoring coverage of GES and targets for the 
biodiversity  descriptors  (although  relatively  minor)  and  descriptors  considered  less 
advanced  in  terms  of  knowledge  and  methodologies,  i.e.  non-indigenous  species 
(Descriptor  2),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7)  and  marine  litter  (Descriptor 
10).  

- 

In  particular  for  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  the  UK  is  in  the  process  of 
developing  a  specific  MSFD  monitoring  programme.  Implementation  of  the  strategy 
and plans in the coming years should be ensured.  

OUTCOME OF DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

The UK should: 

In general: 

(a) continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  EU 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive124, 
the  Birds,  Directive 125,  the  Water  Framework  Directive 126,  the  Common  Fisheries 
Policy  and  the  Invasive  Alien  Species  Regulation 127  with  MSFD  monitoring 
programmes,  while  at  the  same  time  ensuring  that  MSFD-specific  monitoring  needs 
are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of  spatial  scope  as  well  as  elements,  parameters, 
habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

joint  monitoring 

programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR.  

(c) enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

124 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
125 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds 
126 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy 
127 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and 
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35) 

94 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
In particular: 

On biodiversity (in particular for Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d)  further develop its biodiversity monitoring sub-programmes to addresses weaknesses 
which relate to the coverage of specific species and species groups (e.g. in the case of 
birds and fish).  

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(e)   further develop and implement a monitoring programme as soon as possible  

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 

(f)  ensure  that  the  spatial  extent  and  change  in  habitats  due  to  altered  hydrographical 

conditions, is monitored and assessed.  

On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

(g)   develop  its  monitoring  to  cover  micro-litter  and,  where  necessary,  the  impacts  of 

litter on biota, as per GES definition. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PART II – SUMMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PER 
MEMBER STATE ON THEIR INITIAL ASSESSMENT, GES 
DETERMINATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS, REPORTED 
UNDER ARTICLE 9(2) AND 10(2) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC 

This Annex only contains Member State-specific recommendations on their initial assessment 
(Article 8 of Directive 2008/56/EC), GES determination (Article 9 of Directive 2008/56/EC), 
and  environmental  targets  (Article  10  of  Directive  2008/56/EC),  for  those  Member  States 
that  were  not  part  of  the  Commission's  first  assessment128 (Croatia  and  Malta)  and  for 
Member States that had only reported partially under the first implementation phase of 
the Directive (Portugal, Bulgaria and United Kingdom).  

For  Portugal  and  the  United  Kingdom,  the  Commission's  initial  recommendations  under  its 
2014  assessment  were  updated  to  reflect  the  data  on  Macaronesia  for  Portugal  and  on 
Gibraltar for the United Kingdom. For Bulgaria, the Commission's assessment only concerns 
Bulgaria's reporting on its initial assessment (Article 8 of Directive 2008/56/EC), which was 
missing from the Commission's report in 2014. 

Poland is not part of this exercise, since, at the time of preparation of this report, Poland had 
still  not  reported  on  its  environmental  targets  under  Article  10 129.  The  Commission  has 
therefore not been able to assess its environmental targets. 

This Annex gives a summary per Member State of the findings in the Member State-specific 
technical  assessments,  made  by  the  Commission's  consultants  on  the  basis  of  the  Member 
State's reporting per descriptor and general questionnaire. It describes some general features 
and highlights, per article, strong and weak points; it addresses identified gaps in knowledge 
and information and plans to address them and concludes with recommendations.  

128

 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, and its accompanying Commission Staff Working Document, 20.2.2014, SWD(2014) 49 final, 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014SC0049&from=EN 
129

 Poland  reported  on  its  environmental  targets  under  Article  10  in  November  2015.  The  Commission  intends  to  assess 
Poland's  environmental  targets,  along  with  the  other  elements  of  its  marine  strategy  already  reported,  as  part  of  its  next 
assessment exercise (along with other Member States' programmes of measures).  

96 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1. Bulgaria 

GENERAL ISSUES 

Bulgaria was due to report on its initial assessment (Article 8 of Directive 2008/56/EC), GES 
determination (Article 9 of Directive 2008/56/EC), and environmental targets (Article 10 of 
Directive 2008/56/EC) by 15 October 2012.  

However, Bulgaria reported late, which only allowed the Commission services to assess the 
Bulgarian  implementation  of  Articles  9  and  10  of  Directive  2008/56/EC  in  the  2014 
Commission  report.  Bulgaria  submitted  its  paper  reports,  including  an  initial  assessment 
report in three parts, on 6 June 2013.  

Below is the evaluation by the Commission services of Bulgaria's implementation of Article 8 
on the basis of this report, which complements the evaluation on Articles 9 and 10 published 
in 2014. 

INITIAL ASSESSMENT (ART. 8) 

Strong points 

Bulgaria usefully referred to the Bucharest Convention and where relevant to other Regional 
Sea Conventions (OSPAR and HELCOM). It also made an effective use of existing data and 
efforts are made to provide a quantification of various parameters. 

Data and knowledge gaps are identified for each descriptor and for certain descriptors, high-
level recommendations are provided to address gaps. 

Assessment areas are defined and specific threshold values are attributed for each assessment 
area for certain descriptors (e.g. eutrophication (Descriptor 5)). 

Finally, Bulgaria also reports on confidence levels in its assessment. 

Weak points 
For  several  descriptors  (such  as  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5)  and  contaminants  (Descriptor 
8)) assessment of impacts or status judgments are not provided, 

The initial assessment was considered inadequate for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), 
marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).  

A fairly detailed socio-economic analysis of marine water uses is provided, but it suffers from 
an information deficit on key economic indicators and environmental impact. 

97 

 
 
 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS

130 

Bulgaria should: 

(a) Strengthen  methodology  for  the  socio-economic  analysis  allowing  assessment  of  the 

degradation/restoration costs and MSFD implementation costs/benefit analysis. 

(b) Address  knowledge  gaps  identified  in  the  initial  assessment,  i.e.  through  the 
monitoring programme under the MSFD and research programmes, focusing on those 
descriptors considered as inadequate or partially adequate; 

(c) Further  develop  its  approaches  to  assessing  (quantifying)  impacts  from  the  main 
pressures  to  lead  to  improved  and  more  conclusive  assessment  results  for  2018 
reporting. 

130 These are to be considered as additional recommendations compared to the ones concerning GES and environmental 
targets published in the 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, and its accompanying Commission Staff Working Document, 20.2.2014, SWD(2014) 49 
final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014SC0049&from=EN 

98 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2. Croatia 

GENERAL ISSUES 

Marine waters 

Croatian marine waters are part of the Mediterranean marine region and the Adriatic Sea sub-
region.  

Areas assessed 

Croatia’s  initial  assessment,  characteristics  of  GES  and  associated  targets  have  been 
developed for the Croatian marine waters as a whole.  

Regional Cooperation 

Croatia is a signatory to the Barcelona convention and it reports participation in all activities 
of  the  Mediterranean  Action  Plan  of  the  United  National  Environment  Programme 
(UNEP/MAP). When defining GES or targets, Croatia has not made reference to UNEP/MAP 
but the need for international cooperation with other Adriatic countries in setting some targets 
(e.g. hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7)).  

Other features 

The  Croatian  economic  and  social  analysis  of  marine  uses  has  been  carried  out  using  the 
water  accounts  approach.  The  assessment  however  lacks  a  lot  of  relevant  data  such  as  the 
reported value of the activities, employment and main pressures caused by the activity.  

DETERMINATION OF GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS (ART 9) 

Strong points 

Croatia has provided a definition of GES for all descriptors. 

Weak points 

The approach used by Croatia to define GES varies between descriptors. In some cases it is 
unclear if GES is actually defined for the Descriptor, while other GES definitions are 
indicated as being proposals (e.g. for (Non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2).  

Overall score  

Four  GES  definitions  are  considered  as  partially  adequate  (Biodiversity  (Descriptor  1), 
Commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  Food  webs  (Descriptor  4)  and  Eutrophication 
(Descriptor 5)). For the latter descriptor Croatia has reported different GES definitions in the 
paper report and the reporting sheets. For the remaining descriptors (Non-indigenous species 
(Descriptor  2),  Sea-floor  integrity  (Descriptor  6),  Hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7), 
Contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  Contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9),  litter  (Descriptor  10) 

99 

 
 
 
and Energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) the determination of GES is assessed 
as inadequate since it does not meet the minimum requirements.  

INITIAL ASSESSMENT (ART 8) 

Strong points 

The  initial  assessment  is  extensive  for  most  Descriptors  and  where  possible  assessments  of 
the  current  status  in  relation  to  GES  have  been  made.  The  criteria  and  data  used  to  assess 
current status in relation to GES are in most cases well explained. 

Weak points 

Croatia has not provided an initial assessment for Litter (Descriptor 11), although it states that 
some data and studies are available. 

Overall score  

Only  the  initial  assessment  of  Contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  is  considered  as 
adequate  based  on  the  assessment  of  pressures  and  the  provision  of  judgment  on  current 
status. The assessment also addresses microbial pathogens. 

Four  initial  assessments  are  considered  as  partially  adequate:  non-indigenous  species 
(Descriptor 2), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and 
contaminants (Descriptor 8) mainly due to the lack of quantitative data and unclear judgment 
in  relation  to  GES  and  limited  assessment  of  impacts  or  pressures.  The  assessment  of  the 
biological features also belongs in this category due to limited information and the use of non- 
transparent methodology for the judgment of status. 

Two  initial  assessments  (hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7)  and  energy,  including 
underwater noise (Descriptor 7) are considered as inadequate. The assessment carried out in 
relation to the pressure caused by physical loss and damage is also considered inadequate due 
to lack of assessment on the extent, distribution or type of damage. 

Croatia has not made an initial assessment for litter (Descriptor 10). 

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (ART 10)  

Strong points 

Croatia has defined environmental targets for all descriptors. 

Weak points 

Although Croatia has defined environmental targets for all descriptors, the approaches taken 
vary per Descriptor. Targets also often lack clear thresholds and baselines. 

Overall score 

100 

 
 
Only  the  target  related  to  energy,  including  underwater  noise  (Descriptor  11)  is  considered 
adequate. 

Targets related to biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4, and 6), non-indigenous species Descriptor 2), 
commercial  fish  and  shellfish  Descriptor  3),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5)  and  litter 
Descriptor 10) are partially adequate as they are vague, unclear, lacking ambition or baselines.  

The targets of the remaining descriptors, hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants 
(Descriptor  8)  and  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  are  considered  as  inadequate, 
mainly due to the fact that they are not 'SMART'131, they are vague, and they are unclear on 
how they will achieve GES. 

CONSISTENCY 

There  is  a  lack  of  consistency  in  the  approach  undertaken  to  set  GES  and  environmental 
targets across the different descriptors. Even for biodiversity (Descriptor 1, 4 and 6), fisheries 
(Descriptor  3),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5)  and  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9), 
where there is some degree of consistency there are still some issues of unclear definitions of 
GES and targets, discrepancies between paper report and reporting sheets. 

IDENTIFIED GAPS AND PLANS TO ADDRESS THEM 

While  data and  knowledge  gaps  are  generally  identified  and  described,  the  plans  to  address 
these gaps are usually quite vague and without details of timescale or responsibilities. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Croatia should consider:  

(a) Strengthening  the  methodology  for  the  socio-economic  analysis  allowing  assessment 
of the degradation/restoration costs and MSFD implementation costs/benefit analysis. 

(b) Improving  GES  definitions  focusing  on  quantitative  aspects  and  baselines,  with  the 
aim  to  make  GES  measurable,  focusing  especially  on  those  descriptors  assessed  as 
inadequate or partially adequate in cooperation with the Regional Seas Convention. 

(c) Further  developing  its  approaches  to  assessing  (quantifying)  impacts  from  the  main 
pressures  to  lead  to  improved  and  more  conclusive  assessment  results  for  2018 
reporting. 

(d) Ensuring  that  the  targets  cover  all  relevant  pressures,  are  measurable,  SMART  and 
sufficiently ambitious in order to achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD. 

(e) Improving  the  consistency  between  the  criteria  used  in  GES,  the  assessment  of  the 

impact and the proposed targets. 

131

S.M.A.R.T. is an acronym that is used to guide the development of measurable goals. Each objective should be: specific, 

measurable, achievable, relevant and time-orientated. 

101 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3. Malta 

GENERAL ISSUES 

Marine waters 

The  Maltese  marine  waters  fall  within  the  Ionian  Sea  and  the  Central  Mediterranean  Sea 
marine sub-region. No formal subdivision has been identified.  

Areas assessed 

Malta has defined in the reporting sheets a number of assessment areas for specific pressures, 
features and economic sectors. These assessment areas were to the extent possible delineated 
with existing boundaries such as the boundaries of the protected areas and the boundaries of 
the coastal water bodies as identified in Malta’s Water Catchment Management Plan.  

Reference to these assessment areas however is not systematic in the initial assessment or in 
the reporting on GES and targets.  

Regional Cooperation 

Malta  describes  efforts  for  regional  cooperation  made  in  the  framework  of  the  Barcelona 
Convention and in particular the Ecosystem Approach (EcAp) process. Efforts have been also 
made  at  a  bilateral  level  with  Italy.  However,  Malta  acknowledges  that  due  to  delays  in 
reporting on Articles 8, 9 and 10, it has not been able to take into account the whole regional 
scale for its initial assessment and describes regional cooperation as ‘incomplete’.  

Other features 

No  paper  report  on  socio-economic  analysis  is  provided  although  it  was  available  since 
September  2013  and  uploaded  on  the  national  website.  The  reporting  sheets  on  socio-
economic analysis are almost empty, except for metadata, as there have been some technical 
problems during the conversion of files to XML schemas that led to loss of data. 

DETERMINATION OF GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS (ART 9) 

Strong points 

Almost  all  the  descriptors  under  the  MSFD  are  covered  with  the  exception  of  marine  food 
webs (Descriptor 4). For some descriptors, GES is defined at descriptor, criteria and indicator 
level  (biological  diversity  (Descriptor  1),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  sea  floor  integrity 
(Descriptor 6), contaminants (Descriptor 8) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9)) and 
in other cases GES is defined at descriptor level only (non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), 

102 

 
 
 
 
commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  litter 
(Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11)). 

Weak points 

The GES definitions are mainly qualitative and in some cases contain caveats that indicate a 
low  level  of  ambition.  In  addition,  the  approach  used  to  define  GES  varies  (either  at 
descriptor,  criteria  and  indicator  level  or  only  at  descriptor  level).In  most  of  the  cases  no 
threshold values, baselines or trends are provided. Thus, GES definition is not measurable. 

The definition of GES for biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) does not contain any reference 
to other Union legislation or to any regional or international agreements. For non-indigenous 
species  (Descriptor  2),  it  focuses  specifically  on  "invasive"  non-indigenous  species  and  for 
commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) it covers only "selected" commercial species. 

Overall score  

Three  GES  definitions  are  considered  as  partially  adequate,  namely  biological  diversity 
(Descriptor  1),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8)  and  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  as 
GES  is  defined  at  qualitative  level.  For  D4  (marine  food webs)  Malta  has  not  defined  GES 
due to a lack of information and knowledge. 

For  the  remaining  descriptors  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  sea  floor  integrity  (Descriptor  6), 
hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  litter  (Descriptor  10)  and  energy,  including 
underwater noise (Descriptor 11), the determination of GES is assessed as inadequate since it 
does not meet the minimum requirements.  

INITIAL ASSESSMENT (ART 8) 

Strong points 

The  initial  assessment  is  mainly  descriptive  but  there  is  a  good  attempt  to  use  existing 
qualitative  and  quantitative  data  where  it  is  available.  For  a  few  descriptors  (e.g.  biological 
diversity (Descriptor 1), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) and contaminants (Descriptor 
8) Malta has made a judgment on current status in relation to GES. 

In particular, for non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) the main vectors have been identified 
and  a  trend  and  judgment  is  provided.  For  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  a 
comprehensive assessment of fleets, fishing stocks and fisheries impacts has been performed. 
Malta  has  reported  on  all  relevant  pressures,  including  microbial  pathogens  and  ocean 
acidification and has reported extensively on acute pollution events. 

In  most  cases,  the  initial  assessments  describe  extensively  the  existing  legal  and  policy 
frameworks.  

Weak points 

103 

 
 
The reporting on the impacts from pressures is very limited and in many cases, no judgment 
on the level of pressure or trends is provided. Assessments on the current status in relation to 
GES  are  made  mainly  based  on  expert  judgment.  Malta  has  not  made  an  assessment  of  the 
contamination of its marine waters by radionuclides. 

Overall score  

Three  initial  assessments  are  considered  as  adequate,  namely  non-indigenous  species 
(Descriptor  2),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  litter  (Descriptor  10)  thanks  to 
the assessment of pressures and related impacts, the provision of judgment in relation to GES 
on trends, and identification of knowledge gaps. 

Five initial assessments for the pressure/impact are considered as partially adequate, namely 
biodiversity  (Descriptors  1,  4  and  6  ),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5)  and  contaminants 
(Descriptor 8) mainly due to the lack of quantitative data and judgment in relation to GES and 
to limited assessment of impacts. 

Three  initial  assessments  (hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  contaminants  in  seafood 
(Descriptor  9)  and  energy,  including  underwater  noise  (Descriptor  11)  are  considered  as 
inadequate mainly due to limited information and the lack of judgment of status in relation to 
GES. 

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (ART 10) 

Strong points 

Malta  has  set  environmental  targets  for  almost  all  descriptors  except  D9  (contaminants  in 
seafood).  For  biological  diversity  (Descriptor  1)  targets  cover  the  main  ecosystem 
components, and in the case of seabirds are specific and measurable, requiring a reduction in 
the  level  of  pressure.  For  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  one target  is  more  stringent  than  the 
GES definition, ensuring its achievement. 

Weak points 

Although Malta has set environmental targets for all descriptors, in some cases indicators still 
need to be developed or choices need to be made in the final parameter to be measured.  

Many  environmental  targets  are  knowledge  targets  related  to  better  knowledge  (i.e.  non-
indigenous species (Descriptor 2), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), contaminants 
(Descriptor 8), litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 
Some targets are phrased very similar to the GES definitions (i.e. eutrophication (Descriptor 
5).  

Generally, the targets show a low level of ambition.  

In most cases, neither threshold values nor baselines are provided. 

104 

 
 
Overall score 

Targets  related  to  biological  diversity  (Descriptor  1)  and  contaminants  (Descriptor  8)  are 
partially adequate. Targets for contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) are not reported. 

The  targets  of  all  the  remaining  descriptors  (non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2), 
commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  marine  food  webs  (Descriptor  4), 
(eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  sea  floor  integrity  (Descriptor  6),  hydrographical  changes 
(Descriptor 7), litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11)) 
are considered as inadequate, mainly due to the fact that they are not SMART, they are vague, 
and they are unclear on how they will achieve GES. 

CONSISTENCY 

For  biodiversity  and  contaminants,  Malta  has  taken  an  approach  of  coupling  the  GES 
definition  with  the  targets,  keeping  the  GES  at  high  qualitative  level  and  providing  more 
specific  targets.  For  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2)  the  consistency  between  the 
assessment of pressures and impacts and the definition of GES and setting of environmental 
targets  is  high.  Low  consistency  has  been  reported  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish 
(Descriptor  2),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  litter)  (Descriptor  10)  and  energy, 
including  underwater  noise  (Descriptor  11).  For  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5)  it  was  not 
possible to assess consistency, since it was unclear what Malta intends to monitor and use as 
indicators for the assessment of the relevant pressures and their impacts. 

IDENTIFIED GAPS AND PLANS TO ADDRESS THEM 

Data  gaps  are  well  identified  and  explained  for  all  different  pressures  and  features  of  the 
initial assessment. However, plans to address data gaps have not been clearly addressed and 
knowledge targets remain very general. Malta specifies that the  monitoring programme will 
address  the  data  gaps  in  order  to  apply  the  criteria  and  indicators  missing  in  the  next 
implementation cycle. 

RECOMMENDATIONS  

Malta should: 

(a) Improve GES definitions focusing on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the aim 

to make GES measurable.  

(b) Address identified knowledge gaps identified in the initial assessment, i.e. through the 
monitoring programme under the MSFD and research programmes, focusing on those 
descriptors considered as inadequate or partially adequate. 

(c) Further  develop  its  approaches  to  assessing  (quantifying)  impacts  from  the  main 
pressures  to  lead  to  improved  and  more  conclusive  assessment  results  for  2018 
reporting. 

105 

 
 
 
 
(d) Ensure  that  the  targets  cover  all  relevant  pressures,  are  measurable,  SMART  and 
sufficiently ambitious in order to achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD.  

106 

 
 
 
4. Portugal (Azores and Madeira) 

GENERAL ISSUES 

Marine waters 

Portugal  reported  for its continental sub-division (i.e. mainland waters) and for its extended 
continental shelf area beyond 200 nm in 2012. The reports on the Azores and Madeira islands 
(Macaronesia) were submitted on 9 January 2015. 

Areas assessed 

Regarding  the  continental,  Azores  and  Madeira  sub-divisions,  Portugal  has  used  various 
assessment areas depending on the descriptor, based on the geographical boundaries and the 
specificities  of  the  descriptor.  For  the  extended  continental  shelf,  Portugal  chose  five  areas 
corresponding to the OSPAR marine protected areas. However, it does not focus specifically 
on the subsoil and seabed, which is precisely where its jurisdictional rights are when it comes 
to the extended shelf. 

Regional cooperation 

Portugal  shows  efforts  to  ensure  regional  coordination,  within  regional  conventions  and 
through  bilateral  contacts  with  Spain  and  France.  These  are  extensively  described.  Portugal 
also  refers  often  to  OSPAR  and  ICES  background  documents,  mainly  in  the  initial 
assessment. 

Other features 

Portugal  has  followed  a  water  account  approach  for  its  economic  and  social  analysis.  The 
methodology has been comprehensively described for each of the marine sub-divisions. The 
average  level  of  confidence  in  the  results  is  high  as  they  are  based  on  statistical  and  other 
credible sources. The cost of degradation has been estimated following a cost-based approach. 
Portugal intends to develop further the analysis of the cost of degradation by the end of 2013 
so that the results are available on time for the preparation of the programme of measures. 

DETERMINATION OF GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS (ART. 9) 

Strong points 

Portugal has reported on GES for all descriptors in the continental and Madeira subdivisions. 

Weak points 

In general terms the report is unclear with regards to the definition of GES. Moreover, there 
are  insufficient  details  provided  so  as  to  evaluate  if  and  when  GES  level  is  achieved.  In 
addition, Portugal reported on GES only for eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants 
(Descriptor 8) in the Azores subdivision. 

107 

 
 
 
Overall score 

Contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor9)  is  partially  adequate  since  it  refers  to  official  levels 
and is measurable.  All  the  other descriptors are inadequate as  they are defined at descriptor 
level only and lack specificity and baselines. 

INITIAL ASSESSMENT (ART. 8) 

Strong points 

Portugal has made a comprehensive assessment of the relevant types and causes of pressures, 
physical loss  and damage  in  its  marine waters, including  microbial pathogens. It provides a 
detailed  description  of  the  assessment  of  contamination  in  fish  and  seafood.  Portugal 
acknowledges  that  information  on  the  full  spatial  distribution  and  intensity  of  physical  loss 
and  damage  is  not  homogeneous  and  therefore  the  assessment  areas  vary  depending  on  the 
specific indicators and the information available. 

Weak points 

The main pressures on each seabed habitat type have not been identified. 

Portugal  considers  that  GES  is  currently  achieved  for  several  descriptors  in  spite  of 
acknowledging  that  due  to  insufficient  information  it  is  not  possible  to  draw  conclusive 
judgment on the physical losses and damages. 

Overall score 

An  assessment  of  underwater  noise  was  not  made.  Five  descriptors  have  been  assessed 
partially  adequate,  namely  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  eutrophication 
(Descriptor  5),  hydrographical  changes  (Descriptor  7),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8)  and 
contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  because  of  lack  of  information  on  impacts.  The 
remaining descriptors are assessed as adequate. 

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (ART. 10) 

Weak points 

Portugal has in many cases defined targets as plans to address information and data gaps or to 
increase the knowledge rather than as targets defined to reach GES. Portugal has set a limited 
number  of  specific targets  which are  in  most  cases  neither  state, impact  or  pressure  targets, 
and not measurable. Portugal did not define specific environmental targets for the biodiversity 
descriptors in the continental subdivision. 

Overall score 

108 

 
 
 
All the environmental targets are assessed as being inadequate or not reported on, except for 
D3  (commercial  fish  and  shellfish)  which  is  assessed  to  be  partially  adequate  in  the 
continental subdivision. 

CONSISTENCY 

The approach used by  Portugal for  defining GES  and setting targets  is inconsistent.  GES is 
defined in general terms and at high level and targets are missing. 

IDENTIFIED GAPS AND PLANS TO ADDRESS THEM 

Portugal discusses data and knowledge gaps in a very comprehensive manner. Logically, the 
extended continental shelf is the area where information is most scarce. Many targets aim at 
addressing  data  and  knowledge  gaps  through  research  and  monitoring.  However,  they  are 
very  general  and  are  not  time-bound.  Several  gaps  in  knowledge  have  no  specific  plans  to 
address the problems. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Portugal should: 

(a) Provide additional GES definitions in the Azores subdivision; 

(b) Strengthen the GES definition of the biodiversity descriptors which goes beyond what 

is in existing legislation; 

(c) Improve GES definitions including through regional cooperation using the work of the 
Regional  Seas  Convention  as  much  as  possible  focusing  on  quantitative  aspects  and 
baselines,  with  the  aim  to  make  GES  measurable,  focusing  especially  on  those 
descriptors assessed as inadequate or partially adequate; 

(d) Address  knowledge  gaps  identified  in  the  initial  assessment,  i.a.  through  the 
monitoring programme under the MSFD and research programmes, focusing on those 
descriptors considered as inadequate or partially adequate; 

(e) Ensure  that  the  targets  cover  all  relevant  pressures,  are  SMART  and  sufficiently 

ambitious in order to achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD; 

(f) Improve  the  consistency  between  the  criteria  used  in  GES,  the  assessment  of  the 

impact and the proposed targets. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. United Kingdom (Gibraltar) 

GENERAL ISSUES 

Marine waters 

The UK's marine waters fall within the North-East Atlantic Ocean region and two of its sub-
regions  (the  Celtic  Seas  and  the  Greater  North  Sea),  and  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  region 
within the Western Mediterranean Sea subregion. 

Their  marine  waters  in  the  North-East  Atlantic  Ocean  region  include  coastal  waters,  as 
defined under the Water Framework Directive, and a Renewal Energy Zone (REZ). An area 
of  Continental  Shelf  beyond  the  REZ  (the  Hatton  Rockall  area)  is  also  included,  whilst 
another Continental Shelf area beyond the REZ awaits the outcomes of UNCLOS processes 
and so is not yet included in the UK's MSFD marine strategy. In the Mediterranean Sea region 
their marine waters extend out to 3 nautical miles of Territorial Seas around Gibraltar. 

There  are  areas  of  overlap  and  gaps  with  the  marine  waters  reported  by  Ireland  at  both  the 
coastal boundaries with Ireland and the median line boundary in the Irish Sea and Celtic Sea. 
The marine waters around Gibraltar overlap with those claimed by Spain.  

Areas assessed 

For the purposes of reporting on MSFD Articles 9 and 10 the UK has defined GES and targets 
for the UK marine waters in the North-East Atlantic Ocean region as a whole, but reflecting 
significant  biogeographical  differences  between  the  two  subregions,  if  needed.  For  MSFD 
Article 8, the UK has used eight biogeographically-defined assessment areas for their marine 
waters of the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas subregions. 

The  UK  indicates  that  the  boundaries  between  the  Celtic  Seas  and  Greater  North  Sea 
subregions are still under consideration. 

The waters around Gibraltar are reported separately as a single assessment area for Articles 8, 
9 and 10. 

Regional cooperation 

The  UK  is  party  to  the  OSPAR  Convention.  Efforts  for  regional  coordination  within  the 
OSPAR  convention,  as  well  as  bilaterally  with  neighbouring  countries  in  the  North-East 
Atlantic Ocean region, are extensively described. 

In  the  Mediterranean,  the  UK  is  seeking  to  become  a  party  to  the  Barcelona  Convention  to 
enable them to take a more active role in regional coordination. 

Other features 

110 

 
 
 
For the North-East Atlantic Ocean region, the UK has used the ecosystem-services approach 
for  their  economic  and  social  assessment  and  to  estimate  the  costs  of  degradation,  with  its 
assessment undertaken  at  the UK  level. It notes that  it will develop its  data at a scale  more 
suited to MSFD implementation in time for the next (2018) assessment. 

Only a brief socio-economic assessment, addressing water desalination and port facilities, has 
been presented for Gibraltar. 

DETERMINATION OF GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS (ART. 9) 

For  the  North-East  Atlantic  Ocean  region,  please  refer  to  the  Commission  Staff  Working 
Document accompanying the Commission Report on the first phase of implementation of the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC), published on 20 February 2014132. 

For the Mediterranean region (relevant for Gibraltar): 

Strong points 

The  UK  addresses  GES  for  all  descriptors,  excepting  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish 
(Descriptor  3)  and  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9),  even  though  the  UK  indicates 
there  are  commercial  fishing  activities  in  their  marine  waters.  The  Decision  criteria  for  D1 
biological  diversity  (Descriptor  1),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  sea  floor  integrity 
(Descriptor  6),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  and  energy, 
including  underwater  noise  (Descriptor  11)  are  incorporated  (typically  into  a  more  general 
GES definition). 

They have used existing Union standards for contaminants (Environmental Quality Standards 
values) under D8 (contaminants); further, concentrations of contaminants should not increase, 
even if currently below regulatory maximum levels. 

Weak points 

GES is defined mainly at the descriptor level and is generally only qualitative and therefore 
not measurable. There is limited or no use of the Decision criteria for non-indigenous species 
(Descriptor 2), marine food webs (Descriptor 4) and hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7). A 
determination  of  GES  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3)  and  contaminants 
(Descriptor  9)  may  be  applicable  for  Gibraltar's  waters,  even  though  there  is  no  UK 
commercial fishing and a majority of seafood for sale comes from beyond Gibraltar's waters. 

Overall score 

Energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) is assessed as adequate. 

132

 Commission Staff Working Document - Annex Accompanying the document "Commission Report 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", 20.2.2014, SWD(2014) 49 final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014SC0049&from=EN  

111 

 
 
                                                 
Biological  diversity  (Descriptor  1),  non-indigenous  species  (Descriptor  2),  contaminants 
(Descriptor  8)  and  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  are  assessed  as  partially  adequate,  as  they 
either do not fully address the Decision criteria or they lack key elements or specificity. 

Commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), marine food webs (Descriptor 4), eutrophication 
(Descriptor 5), sea-floor integrity (Descriptor 6), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and 
contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) are assessed as inadequate, as they either do not cover 
all criteria, are not specific enough to be measurable, or have not been reported. 

INITIAL ASSESSMENT (ART. 8) 

For the North-East Atlantic Ocean, please refer to the Commission Staff Working Document 
accompanying  the  Commission  Report  on  the  first  phase  of  implementation  of  the  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC), published on 20 February 2014. 

For the Mediterranean region (relevant for Gibraltar):: 

Strong points 

The initial assessment addresses all descriptors; most main pressures have been identified and 
reported on. Biodiversity assessments make use of Habitats and Birds Directive assessments. 

Weak points 

For most descriptors, assessments are generally qualitative, with few conclusive judgments on 
current  environmental  status.  There  is  limited  or  no  assessment  of  physical  disturbance 
pressures, non-indigenous species, commercial fish species and litter. Overall, there is limited 
assessment of impacts from pressures. 

Overall score 

For biological diversity (Descriptor 1), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), marine 
food  webs  (Descriptor  4),  sea  floor  integrity  (Descriptor  6),  hydrographical  changes 
(Descriptor  7),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8)  and  energy,  including  underwater  noise 
(Descriptor  11)  the  initial  assessment  is  considered  partially  adequate,  with  several  key 
elements missing or poorly assessed and limited assessments of impacts. 

For physical loss and damage, and for non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), eutrophication 
(Descriptor  5),  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9)  and  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  the 
initial  assessment  is  considered  inadequate,  due  to  the  limited  information  provided  on  the 
pressures, on their impacts and to a lack of conclusion on current environmental status. 

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (ART. 10) 

112 

 
 
For the North-East Atlantic Ocean: please refer to the Commission Staff Working Document 
accompanying  the  Commission  Report  on  the  first  phase  of  implementation  of  the  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC), published on 20 February 2014. 

For the Mediterranean region (relevant for Gibraltar):: 

Strong points 

Environmental targets are provided for D2 (non-indigenous species), D4 (marine food webs), 
D6 (sea floor integrity) and D7 (hydrographical changes). 

Weak points 

The targets provided are not sufficiently clear or SMART to be measurable, or do not address 
key elements (e.g. mobile species groups). There are no targets provided for commercial fish 
and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  eutrophication  (Descriptor  5),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8), 
contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9),  marine  litter  (Descriptor  10)  and  energy,  including 
underwater  noise (Descriptor  11)  or  for  water  column  and  seabed  habitats (Descriptors  1,  4 
and    6).  The  targets  for  marine  birds,  mammals  and  fish  are  mostly  best  considered  as 
expressions of GES. 

Overall score 

The targets for biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) have been assessed as partially adequate 
since  they  lack  some  coverage  (e.g.  water  column  and  seabed  habitats),  or  are  better 
considered as GES definitions. 

The targets for non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) and hydrographical changes (Descriptor 
7) are considered inadequate as they lack specification and are therefore not measurable. 

There  are  no  targets  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (Descriptor  3),  eutrophication 
(Descriptor 5),  contaminants  (Descriptor  8),  contaminants  in  seafood  (Descriptor  9),  marine 
litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). 

CONSISTENCY 

For  the  Mediterranean  region,  there  are  a  number  of  inconsistencies  between  the 
determinations  of  GES,  the  initial  assessments  and  the  environmental  targets  (e.g.  for  non-
indigenous species (Descriptor 2), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), contaminants (Descriptor 8).  

IDENTIFIED GAPS AND PLANS TO ADDRESS THEM 

For  the  North-East  Atlantic  Ocean  region,  as  a  rule,  extensive  justification/explanation  is 
provided on gaps in data/knowledge and assessment methodology, accompanied most of the 
time by plans to close these gaps, albeit generally rather vague. This aspect is less clear for 
Gibraltar. 

113 

 
 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

The UK should: 

For  the  North-East  Atlantic  Ocean  region,  please  refer  to  the  Commission  Staff  Working 
Document accompanying the Commission Report on the first phase of implementation of the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC), published on 20 February 2014. 

For the Mediterranean region (relevant for Gibraltar): 

(a) Strengthen  the  GES  determinations  for  all  descriptors,  making  them  more  clearly 

assessable by focusing on quantitative aspects and baselines; 

(b) Improve the coherence of the GES definitions by linking them, where appropriate, to 
existing EU legislation, and by improving their consistency in the region or subregion, 
including  through  regional  cooperation  using  the  work  of  the  Regional  Sea 
Convention; 

(c) Further  develop  its  approaches  to  assessing  (quantifying)  impacts  from  the  main 

pressures to lead to improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018; 

(d) Strengthen  the  measurability  of  the  environmental  targets,  introducing  them  where 
currently lacking, and ensuring they focus on the reductions in pressures and impacts 
that are needed to achieve GES. 

114