REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL assessing Member States' programmes of measures under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Date: 2018-07-31
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, 31.7.2018 COM(2018) 562 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL assessing Member States' programmes of measures under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive {SWD(2018) 393 final}  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
TO THE COUNCIL 

assessing Member States’ programmes of measures under the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive 

Marine life and resources: a lifeline for our planet 

The importance of the seas and oceans to the well-being of our planet is by now an undisputed 
fact.  Human  activities  exert  pressures1  that  affect  marine  life  and  their  habitats  and  the 
essential functions of our oceans. Recent initiatives have raised awareness on the health and 
state of our seas and oceans. These include the adoption of Sustainable Development Goal 142 
to  conserve  and  sustainably  use  the  oceans,  seas  and  marine  resources;  the  joint 
Communication on International Ocean Governance3; ‘The Ocean Conference’ on Sustainable 
Development Goal 144; and the Our Ocean conference series, of which the most recent was 
hosted by the Union in October 20175. 

Over the past 6 years, EU Member States have been developing marine strategies to comply 
with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive6. The Directive requires them to assess the 
quality  status  of  the  marine  environment,  determine  good  environmental  status,  set 
appropriate  environmental  targets  and  draw  up  adequate  monitoring  programmes  and 
implement measures to achieve the Directive’s key goal of securing the ‘good environmental 
status’  of  all  EU  marine  waters  by  2020.  The  concept  of  ‘good  environmental  status’  is 
defined  by  the  Directive  through  descriptors7,  such  as  conserving  biodiversity  or  tackling 
anthropogenic pressures that include fisheries, seabed damage, marine litter and contaminants. 
A new Commission Decision8, in force since June 2017, requires Member States to abide by 
common  criteria  and  methodological  standards  when  defining  the  concept  of  ‘good 

1  For  a  list  of  anthropogenic  pressures,  see  Commission  Directive  (EU)  2017/845  of  17  May  2017  amending 
Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the indicative lists of elements 
to be taken into account for the preparation of marine strategies, (OJ L 125, 18.5.2017, p. 27). 
2 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg14. 
3 Joint Communication on International ocean governance: an agenda for the future of our oceans, JOIN(2016)49 
final. 
4 https://oceanconference.un.org/. 
5 http://www.ourocean2017.org . 
6 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. 19-40. 
7 The 11 qualitative descriptors are defined in Annex I of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and further 
specified in Commission Decision 2017/848/EU. They include D1– Biodiversity, D2 — Non indigenous species 
(NIS), D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish, D4 — Food webs, D5 — Eutrophication, D6 — Sea-floor integrity, 
D7 — Hydrographical changes, D8 — Contaminants, D9 — Contaminants in seafood, D10  — Litter, D11 — 
Energy, including underwater noise. For the purpose of this report, the Biodiversity descriptors (D1, D4 and D6) 
have  been  grouped  according  to  the  main  species  groups  and  habitat  types,  as  follows:  birds,  mammals  and 
reptiles, fish and cephalopods, seabed habitats and water column habitats. This additional grouping results in a 
total of 13 descriptor categories. . 
8 Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 of 17 May 2017 laying down criteria and methodological standards on 
good  environmental  status  of  marine  waters  and  specifications  and  standardised  methods  for  monitoring  and 
assessment, and repealing Decision 2010/477/EU (OJ L 125, 18.5.2017, p. 43). . 

1 

 
 
 
                                                            
environmental  status’  in  quantitative  terms  for  the  marine  waters  under  their  territorial 
competence.  Importantly,  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  explicitly  requires 
Member States to work with their neighbours in each marine region or sub-region9. 

This report builds on the Commission's 2014 and 2017 assessments of Member States’ marine 
strategies10 and assesses the programmes of measures, which all Member States had to report 
to  the  Commission  by  31  March  201611.  Generally  applicable  guidance  on  modifications 
necessary to improve the coherence and effectiveness of their measures is included as a set of 
recommendations  to  Member  States  at  the  end  of  this  assessment.  Country  specific 
recommendations are included in the staff working document accompanying this report12.  

Regretfully, only 6 Member States13 reported their national programme of measures on time. 
Thus, the Commission launched the appropriate infringement procedures. By the cut-off date 
of  February  201714,  a  total  of  16  out  of  the  23  marine  EU  Member  States15  had  eventually 
reported  their  national  programmes.  Programmes  submitted  by  the  other  7  Member  States16 
beyond that cut-off date could not be assessed in time for this report. 

The  Commission's  2014  assessment  had  concluded  that the  definitions  and  targets  linked to 
the  ‘good  environmental  status’  goal17  varied  considerably  among  the  Member  States. 
Therefore, the present assessment also looks at the extent to which Member States’ measures 
allow for a  better comparability  of  their efforts in  tackling relevant pressures on the  marine 
environment.  It  also  assesses  for  each  relevant descriptor to  what  extent  Member  States  are 
likely to achieve good environmental status by 2020, as required by the Directive18.    

Which  measures  have  Member  States  so  far  taken  to  achieve  good  environmental 
status? 

In their programmes of measures, Member States often present existing initiatives or ongoing 
policy  implementation  as  measures.  This,  for  example,  includes  actions  taken  under  EU 
environmental legislation or other laws such as the Waste Framework Directive19, the Water 
Framework  Directive20,  the  Birds  Directive21,  the  Habitats  Directive22,  the  Urban  Waste 

9 Article 4 of Directive 2008/56/EC lists the relevant EU marine regions and subregions. The four EU marine 
regions are the Baltic Sea, North-east Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea. 
10 COM(2014) 97 final and COM(2017)03 final. 
11 Article 16 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires that the Commission assess programmes of 
measures. 
12 SWD(2018)393 
13 Belgium, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
14  The  Malta  report  was  submitted  in  April  2017,  but  was  included  in  this  assessment  as  it  required  no 
translation. . 
15  i.e.  in  addition  to  the  6  Member  States  mentioned  above:  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Finland,  France,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Latvia, Malta, Poland and Spain. 
16 Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Romania and Slovenia. 
17 As required under Articles 8 and 9 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, assessed in COM(2014) 97 
final. 
18 Article 1 of Directive 2008/56/EC, defining the subject matter. 
19  Directive  2008/98/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19  November  2008  on  waste  and 
repealing certain Directives (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3). 
20  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). 

2 

 
 
                                                            
Water  Treatment  Directive23,  or  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  Regulation24.  Existing 
international commitments, such as those under the International Maritime Organisation, have 
also  been included in  Member  States’  programmes.  Additionally, Member  States  frequently 
refer to initiatives taken under the Regional Sea Conventions25. It is positive to see Member 
States refer, in a few instances, to measures specifically agreed with neighbours within an EU 
marine  region,  notably  through  the  relevant  Regional  Sea  Conventions,  or  within  a  sub-
region.  Around  25 %  of  the  measures  have  been  defined  as  ‘new’  measures,  meaning  they 
were put into place specifically for the purposes of the Directive. It is also positive to see that, 
thanks  to  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive,  Member  States  have  progressively 
moved from a piecemeal approach to protecting the marine environment to a more strategic 
approach, by bringing together various work-strands26. 

Exceptions 

The  Directive  also  allows  Member  States,  in  well-defined  circumstances,  to  apply 
exceptions27  to  the  achievement  in  every  aspect,  or  within  the  relevant  timeline,  of  the 
targets  or  good  environmental  status.  Such  well-defined 
envisaged  environmental 
circumstances include the fact that achieving such goals is related to action or inaction which 
is beyond their responsibility, force majeure events, or the fact that natural conditions do not 
allow for a timely improvement in the status of their marine waters. Eight28 of the 16 Member 
States at stake report exceptions. Other Member States declare not having applied exceptions 
because  gaps  in  knowledge  and  data  do  not  allow  them  to  conclude  whether  or  not  an 
exception is required at this stage of implementation. 

Types of measures 

Member  States  have  mainly  devised  measures  which,  through  a  legal  or  technical 
intervention, directly help to reduce the pressure (referred to as ‘direct measures’ in Figure 
1). These entail, for example, technical solutions (e.g. less noisy ship engines) or restrictions 
to  the  spatial  scope  of  certain  activities  (e.g.  through  licensing  procedures).  However,  some 

21  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). 
22 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). 
23 Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, 
p. 40). 
24 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). 
25 Four Regional Sea Conventions cover EU marine waters: (1) The Convention on the Protection of the Marine 
Environment  in  the  Baltic  Sea  Area  (HELCOM);  (2)  The  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  the  Marine 
Environment  of  the  North-east  Atlantic  (OSPAR);  (3)  The  Barcelona  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  the 
Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean; (4) The Convention on the Protection of the 
Black Sea Against Pollution (Bucharest Convention). The Union is a contracting party to the first three. 
26 Note that this report refers to but does not assess measures introduced via other legislative initiatives, such as 
the  Water  Framework  Directive’s  river  basin  management  plans.  Conclusions  in  these  instances  are  therefore 
only partial.  
27 Article 14 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 
28 Cyprus, Finland, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.  

3 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
Member  States  have  also  reported  measures  which  would  indirectly  help  to  address  the 
pressure  in  question  (referred  to  as  ‘indirect  measures’  in  Figure  1).  These  include 
governance actions, awareness-raising or communication campaigns (e.g. to reduce littering). 
Where Member States do not have sufficient knowledge about a particular pressure (e.g. non-
indigenous  species,  underwater  noise),  they  have  identified  the  need  for  further  research  to 
better  inform  future  measures  and/or  put  in  place  further  monitoring.  Such  measures  would 
have been more appropriately reported as part of their monitoring programmes29.  

In  compliance  with  what  is  required  by  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive30,  all 
Member  States  report,  in  their  programmes  of  measures,  on  the  use  of  spatial  protection 
measures.  These  are  measures  meant  to  create  coherent  and  representative  networks  of 
marine  protected  areas,  such  as  special  areas  of  conservation  in  line  with  the  Habitats 
Directive,  special  protection  areas  in  line  with  the  Birds  Directives  or  other  protected  areas 
agreed within regional or international agreements. Such spatial measures were often reported 
in  connection  with  fisheries,  or  the  protection  of  certain  habitats;  they  are  dealt  with  in  the 
relevant sections below and further described in the technical assessments31. While 2 Member 
States32  clearly  list  new  marine  protected  areas,  another  833  reported  they  were  planning  or 
designating  new  marine  protected  areas  as  measures.  The  overall  coverage  has  increased 
significantly34 through the Birds and Habitats legislation35 and international conventions. 

at 

are 

found 

29 Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 
30 As required by Article 13(4) of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 
31 The technical Member State-specific assessments were prepared for the Commission by an external consultant 
and 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-
policy/implementation/reports_en.htm  
32 Portugal and the United Kingdom. 
33 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, Spain and Sweden. 
34  On  average  coverage  increased  by  4.9 %  between  2012  and  2016:  Agnesi,  S.,  Mo,  G.,  Annunziatellis,  A., 
Chaniotis,  P.,  Korpinen,  S.,  Snoj,  L.,  Globevnik,  L.,  Tunesi,  L.,  Reker,  J.  2017,  Spatial  Analysis  of  Marine 
Protected Area  Networks  in Europe’s  Seas  II,  Volume  A,  2017,  ed. Künitzer, A.,  ETC/ICM Technical  Report 
4/2017, Magdeburg: European Topic Centre on inland, coastal and marine waters, 41 pp. 
35  For  more  information,  see  the  Spatial  Analysis  of  Marine  Protected  Area  Networks  in  Europe’s  Seas  II, 
ETC/ICM Technical Report 4/2017, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322759892. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                            
Share of direct and indirect measures in the programmes of 
measures across the EU 

Horizontal measures

D2 Non-indigenous species

D3 Commercial fish and shellfish

D5 Eutrophication

D7 Hydrographical changes

D8 Contaminants

D9 Contaminants in seafood

D10 Marine litter

D11 Underwater noise and energy

D1, 4 Birds

D1, 4 Fish (and cephalopods)

D1, 4 Mammals (and reptiles)

D1, 4 Water column habitats

D1, 4, 6 Seabed habitats

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Direct (%)

Indirect (%)

Figure 1 Share of direct and indirect measures in the programmes of measures across the EU 

Measures taken to address pressures on the marine environment 

This  section  looks  at  measures  put  in  place  to  address  the  descriptors  of  the  Directive 
specifically dealing with such anthropogenic pressures. 

Non-indigenous species 

Non-indigenous  species  can  threaten  marine  biodiversity  when  they  become  ‘invasive’.  In 
Union waters, Member States identify shipping and aquaculture as the two main activities that 
can lead to the introduction and spread of non-indigenous species. 

Ballast  water  management36  is  used  by  13  Member  States37  to  tackle  species  introduced 
through  shipping.  Additional  measures,  such  as  adherence  to  the  International  Maritime 
Organisation’s Biofouling guidelines38, may, however, better address the pressure as it limits 
fouling  through  a  ship’s  hull.  Measures  mentioned  by  the  16  Member  States  in  their 
programmes of measures often draw on regional work and existing EU law, such as the EU 

36 The management and control of water and sediments loaded and unloaded from the ship. 
37 Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden 
and the United Kingdom. 
38 Resolution MEPC.207(62). 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
regulations  on  invasive  alien  species39  and  alien  species  in  aquaculture40.  Some  Member 
States41  have  already  introduced  targeted  measures  to  reduce  the  risk  of  introducing  non-
indigenous species through aquaculture farms, while several others report that they still need 
to do further research to better understand the pressure. 

The newly-introduced measures range from the direct targeting of non-indigenous species by 
fishermen  to  providing  incentives  for  ‘eco-friendly’  ships  and/or  carrying  out  awareness-
raising initiatives, mostly targeting recreational activities. 

That Member States will achieve good environmental status by 2020 for pressures from non-
indigenous  species,  as  required  by  the  Directive,  cannot  be  answered  given  that  Member 
States  either  could  not  or  did  not  report  on  this.  Poland,  Cyprus  and  Malta  have  reported 
justified  exceptions  to  achieving  good  environmental  status,  stating  that  the  introduction  of 
non-indigenous  species  is  due  to  situations  beyond  their  control  (e.g.  in  the  case  of  the 
Mediterranean Sea, such species may enter through the Suez Canal). 

Measure → Sweden: national warning and response system for early detection, handling and 
emergency plans 

Sweden has set up a national warning and response system in its waters that will immediately 
alert  authorities  when  a  new  non-indigenous  species  is  spotted.  This  will  trigger  rapid 
response  measures  for  their  eradication,  control  or  any  other  action  deemed  appropriate, 
linked  to  contingency  plans.  The  system  will  be  connected  to  Sweden’s  monitoring 
programme. 

Exploitation of commercial fish and shellfish 

Overfishing can have serious consequences leading to the progressive depletion and eventual 
collapse of stocks. All 16 Member States whose programmes are assessed in this report have 
introduced measures  to  minimise the pressure from commercial fisheries. Fourteen Member 
States42 also included specific measures to reduce impacts from recreational fishing. 

Fishing  pressure  affects  all  EU  marine  regions,  although  it  is  particularly  acute  in  the 
Mediterranean  Sea.  In  their  national  programmes,  Member  States  consistently  refer  to  the 
measures they have taken to comply with the common fisheries policy, which requires that a 
maximum sustainable  yield  for fishing  stocks be achieved by 2020, thus  contributing  to  the 
good  environmental  status  goal  set  by  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive.  Such 
national  measures  include  reducing  the  size  of  the  fishing  fleet,  reducing  the  total  catch, 
banning fishing or some types of fishing practices (e.g. trawling) in certain areas. 

39  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). 
40 Council Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 of 11 June 2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent species in 
aquaculture (OJ L 168, 28.6.2007, p. 1). 
41 Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Malta, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and 
the United Kingdom (for the North East-Atlantic). 
42 Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the 
United Kingdom. 

6 

 
 
                                                            
Most  Member  States43  have  also  introduced  new  measures  to  reduce  the  pressure  on  over-
exploited stocks, e.g. by requiring the use of specific fishing gear44, or by introducing targeted 
temporal/spatial  restrictions  or  bans45.  Most  Member  States46  have  put  in  place  spatial 
protection  measures,  either  within  the  Natura  2000  network  or  by  strengthening  the 
management  plans  for  existing  marine  protected  areas.  Several  Member  States  have  also 
introduced  measures  to  raise  awareness  of  destructive  fishing  practices.  Many  of  them 
explicitly link the measures taken to agreements made at regional and international level, such 
as  within  the  context  of  the  Regional  Fisheries  Management  Organisations  in  the 
Mediterranean Sea47 or the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. 
Actions undertaken through Regional Sea Conventions, notably HELCOM and the Barcelona 
Convention, also feature in the programmes. 

Although  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  achieve  good  environmental  status  for 
pressure from fishing by 2020, there must also be a good synergy with the requirements of the 
common fishery policy in their national programmes, and most Member States have not yet 
determined  when  such  a  goal  will  be  achieved.  Three  Member  States  have  reported 
exceptions, justifiably declaring that good environmental status will be achieved after 2020: 
Finland and the United Kingdom state that good environmental status for the exploitation of 
commercial fish and shellfish will not be achieved due to natural conditions, while Malta cites 
the need for transboundary and regional efforts to achieve the objective. 

Measure → Belgium: better control and monitoring of recreational fishing 

Belgium has recently introduced a legal measure that makes it easier to monitor recreational 
fishing,  an  activity  which  can  have  a  significant  impact  on  the  marine  environment  but  is 
often  not  regulated  by  Member  States.  This  national  measure,  which  goes  beyond  the 
requirements of the common fisheries policy, will improve data collection, crucial not only to 
understand  the  state  of  fish  stocks  but  also  to  regulate,  if  needed  and  in  a  more  targeted 
manner, certain fishing activities. 

Nutrient input 

Excessive  inputs  of  nutrients  and  organic  substances  into  the  sea  promote  algal  blooming, 
leading to eutrophication. This pressure can stifle marine life, especially around coastal areas 
and in deeper waters. While it affects all marine waters in the EU to some extent, its impacts 
are  most  notable  in  the  Baltic  Sea.  Nutrient  enrichment  has  mainly  been  attributed  to 
agriculture,  industry,  urban  discharge,  aquaculture  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  shipping.  The 
problem is compounded by the accumulation of such nutrients in the seabed. 

43 Germany, Latvia and Poland did not introduce specific measures, but they refer to the overall implementation 
of the common fisheries policy, which could potentially address the pressure. 
44 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands and Spain. 
45 Bulgaria, France, Ireland and Portugal; Belgium introduced quotas. 
46 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United 
Kingdom. 
47 General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, GFCM. 

7 

 
 
                                                            
In  their  national  programmes,  all  Member  States48  have  referred  to  measures  taken  in  their 
river  basin  management  plans  to  achieve  compliance  with  the  ‘good  ecological  status’  goal 
laid down by the Water Framework Directive49 and to comply with the parameters laid down 
by  other  water-related  legislation50.  Some  Member  States  have  also  included  more  specific 
measures  in  their  marine  strategies,  such  as  promoting  sustainable  aquaculture51  and 
agricultural52  practices,  establishing  Nitrogen  Oxides  (NOx)  emissions  control  areas  for 
shipping53,  constructing  appropriate  port  infrastructure  for  liquefied  natural  gas54  and 
controlling the  discharge of untreated sewage from ships55.  

The outlook for Member States to achieve good environmental status for the management of 
nutrient inputs by 2020 is coherent within the individual marine regions. For example, most 
Member  States  in  the  Baltic  Sea  do  not  expect  to  achieve  this  by  2020,  while  in  the 
Mediterranean Sea most Member States have indicated that it has already been achieved. 

No  less  than  5  Member  States56  have  invoked  exceptions  for  pressure  from  nutrient  input. 
However,  different  reasons  have  been  cited,  showing  a  less  consistent  regional  approach 
despite the transboundary nature of the pressure. In the Baltic Sea, Finland, Latvia and Poland 
referred to justified situations beyond their control, with Poland invoking natural conditions as 
an  additional  justification,  just  like  Sweden.  For  the  North-east  Atlantic,  Sweden  and  the 
Netherlands use arguments similar to those invoked to justify exceptions in the Baltic Sea. 

Measure → Finland: reducing nutrient inputs to the environment 

By spreading gypsum in fields, this direct measure aims to reduce the concentration in the soil 
of phosphorus — a nutrient used in agriculture that can lead to eutrophication. Using gypsum 
reduces  leaching  of  phosphorus  into  freshwater  systems  and  therefore  into  the  marine 
environment. It has the advantage of improving the properties of soil and as a result reduces 
erosion. 

Hydrographical changes 

Human  activities  such  as  coastal  infrastructural  development,  dredging,  sand  extraction  and 
desalination can impact on the physical properties of marine waters. Impacts can be seen in 
changes  to  sea  currents  or  wave  action,  tidal  regimes,  temperature,  pH  levels,  salinity  or 
turbidity  and  can  all  adversely  affect  marine  species  and  habitats.  Most  of  the  measures 
reported  by  Member  States  relate  to  existing  regulatory  frameworks,  such  as  the  Water 

48  While  Belgium,  Finland,  Germany,  France,  Italy,  Malta,  Poland,  Portugal  and  Sweden  do  not  specifically 
mention the river basin management plans, they refer to Water Framework Directive measures. 
49 Under 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). 
50  Urban  Wastewater  Treatment  Directive  (91/271/EEC),  the  Nitrates  Directive  (91/676/EC),  Industrial 
Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU), the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC). 
51 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Spain and Sweden. 
52 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Malta, Spain, Sweden, the 
United Kingdom and in part Portugal. 
53 Bulgaria, Germany, Finland, France, the Netherland, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
54 Finland and Poland. 
55 Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands and Poland. 
56 Finland, Latvia, Poland, the Netherlands and Sweden. 

8 

 
 
                                                            
Framework  Directive,  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  Directive57  and  the  Strategic 
Environmental  Assessment  Directive58  and  licencing  procedures that should  generally cover 
all possible pressures and impacts. However, it is not always clear how Member States plan to 
apply the measures taken under these Directives in the marine context. Some Member States59 
have  also  reported  that  they  are  in  the  process  of  developing  guidance  for  relevant 
infrastructure projects as part of their measures. Only two Member States60, however, clearly 
address the cumulative impacts of such infrastructures.   

For  anthropogenic  pressures  leading  to  hydrographical  changes,  Member  States  did  not 
invoke  any  of  the  Article  14  exceptions  to  achieving  good  environmental  status.  Of  the  16 
Member  States  whose  national  programmes  are  assessed  in  this  report,  4  Member  States61 
have  stated  that  good  environmental  status  has  already  been  achieved,  while  2  Member 
States62 claim that it will be reached by 2020. Other Member States have either not specified 
when good environmental status will be achieved or cannot estimate it. 

Measure → France: assessment of cumulative impacts 

France  is  currently  developing  a  guidance  document  to  help  the  relevant  authorities  and 
stakeholders assess the cumulative impacts of human activities, especially for those projects 
that would require an environmental impact or a strategic environmental assessment. This will 
be  particularly  relevant  for  hydrological  pressures  for  which  cumulative  impacts  have  until 
now rarely been addressed. 

Contaminants in the sea and in seafood 

Most contaminants, mainly from agricultural pesticides, ship anti-foulants63, pharmaceuticals, 
industry and urban effluents, including heavy metals, end up in the sea. This discharge turns 
seas  and  oceans  into  an  environment  that  is  likely  to  harm  marine  life,  and  ultimately 
contaminate seafood for human consumption. It is therefore important for both environmental 
and human health reasons to ensure that the levels of contaminants in the marine environment 
remain low and within safe limits. 

Of all the sources of contaminants, atmospheric deposition in the marine environment is the 
source least addressed in the national programmes reported by the Member States. 

Their programmes also contain very few measures directly targeting contaminants in seafood 
intended for human consumption as measures taken for contaminants in general are argued to 
be likely to also reduce any negative impact on seafood. Among the measures reported in this 

57 Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment 
of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1). . 
58 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the 
effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30). 
59 Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
60 France and Germany. 
61 Finland, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. Italy considers that good environmental status has been reached 
in the Adriatic Sea but does not specify for other regions. 
62 France and the United Kingdom. 
63 Paints applied to the hull of vessels that slow the growth of aquatic organisms or aid their detachment. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
context,  Member  States  refer  to  those  needed  to  secure  compliance  with  EU  food  safety 
legislation64  and  other  regulatory  standards  applicable  to  fished  and  aquaculture  products, 
notably  on  traceability,  health  quality  requirements,  breeding  and  farming  conditions,  risk 
assessments and management measures. 

For  actions  more  generally  aimed  at  reducing  the  presence  of  contaminants  in  the  sea,  a 
number of Member States report several measures which stem from EU requirements, such as 
those needed to achieve compliance with the Directives on nitrates65, urban waste water66, air 
emissions67,  ship  source  pollution68,69  and 
the  REACH  regulation70,71.  International 
commitments either under MARPOL72 or the Regional Sea Conventions are also referred to, 
although  the  national  programmes  are  often  unclear  as  to  which  concrete  actions  are 
specifically planned for such international commitments. In addition to these existing EU or 
international requirements, 10 Member States  73 have introduced some direct measures, such 
as further regulating the discharge of contaminants, reducing the use of pesticides, improving 
aquaculture  and  dredging  practices,  and  some  indirect  measures,  such  as  awareness-raising 
and research activities. 

Exceptions to achieving good environmental status for contaminants have been requested by 
Poland and Sweden in the Baltic and by the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Sweden in 
the  North-east  Atlantic  Ocean  region.  The  justifications  invoked  to  benefit  from  such 
exceptions do not always appear to be technically convincing, for example when it comes to 
citing disproportionate costs without providing sufficient justification, including a cost-benefit 
analysis  and  an  analysis  of  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  alternative  remediation 
actions. In addition to this, timelines for achieving good environmental status vary across the 
regions, which is worrying for such a well-referenced pressure —subject to a long list of laws 
and policy initiatives at both EU and international level. 

64  Notably  referring  to  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). 
65 Bulgaria, Germany, Italy and Spain. 
66 Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Finland, France, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden 
and the United Kingdom. 
67  Directive  (EU)  2016/2284  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  December  2016  on  the 
reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing 
Directive 2001/81/EC (OJ L 344, 17.12.2016, p. 1). 
68 Directive 2009/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Directive 
2005/35/EC  on  ship-source  pollution  and  on  the  introduction  of  penalties  for  infringements  (OJ  L  280, 
27.10.2009, p. 52). 
69 Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, 
Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
70  Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  December  2006 
concerning  the  Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and  Restriction  of  Chemicals  (REACH),  establishing  a 
European  Chemicals  Agency,  amending  Directive  1999/45/EC  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission 
Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. 
71 Cyprus, Germany, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
72 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). 
73 Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Finland, France, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. 

10 

 
 
                                                            
Two  Member  States74  justify  their  exceptions  to  achieving  good  environmental  status  for 
contaminants  in  seafood  on  the  grounds  that  the  relevant  polluting  sources  are  also  found 
outside their marine waters. Most75 of the North-east Atlantic Member States seem to agree 
that  good  environmental  status  will  be  achieved  by  2020,  while  in  the  other  three  regional 
seas this either cannot be estimated or is expected to happen only after 2020. 

Measure → Poland: targeting different sources of contaminants 

Poland has adopted a mix of measures to target different contaminants that find their way into 
its  marine  waters.  Its  programme  includes  measures  that  regulate  contaminants  such  as 
dredged  materials,  paraffin  and  their  derivatives.  It  is  also  embarking  on  reconstructing  its 
storm  water  and  sewage  systems,  while  introducing  measures  to  reduce  contaminants  from 
water  discharged  from  the  exhaust  treatment  systems.  It  also  reports  new  actions  to  reduce 
risks  from  oil  pollution  and  other  harmful  substances.  Other  measures  include  plans  to 
modernise  its  inland  waterway  fleet,  permitting  provisions  for  discharging  industrial  waste 
water and improving the water management of seven river basins. 

Marine litter 

Litter is a pressure on the marine environment that eventually finds its way to the seafloor and 
onto  beaches.  Implementation  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  has  led  to  an 
improved understanding of macro- and micro-litter, notably from plastics. Sources of marine 
litter have been mostly attributed to the following human activities: tourism and recreational 
activities, urban waste, industrial activities, shipping and commercial fishing. To fight marine 
litter, Member States draw on a number of existing EU laws, notably on waste management, 
urban waste water or port reception facilities76, as well as on international agreements and the 
action plans of Regional Sea Conventions77. Based on their national programmes, it appears 
that all 16 Member States are taking, or plan to take, measures to improve waste management 
in the fisheries sector. The most common measures notified are beach clean-ups, ‘fishing for 
litter’  and  communication  initiatives.  While  these  have  a  modest  impact  on  reducing  the 
pressure, they help to raise awareness and thus to prevent future pollution. However, targeted 
measures for beach litter, such as limiting the proliferation of single-use plastics or reducing 
microplastics  and  litter  from  aquaculture,  appear  to  be  underdeveloped.  For  example,  only 
five Member States78specifically addressed aquaculture. 

Measure → France: marine waste reduction & shellfish farming 

France  has  two  noteworthy  measures  for  marine  litter.  The  first  one  is  part  of  the  national 
waste  prevention  programme  and  consists  of  four  actions:  (1)  extending  producers’ 

74 Finland and Malta. 
75 Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. 
76 Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception 
facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 81-90. 
77 Regional action plans exist for the North-east Atlantic, Baltic and Mediterranean regions, while the action plan 
for the Black Sea is being developed. 
78 France (in the North-east Atlantic), Ireland, Italy, Spain and Sweden. 

11 

 
 
                                                            
responsibility;  (2)  limiting  certain  products,  such  as  single-use  plastic bags;79  (3)  promoting 
voluntary  actions  to  reduce  and  recycle  marine  litter;  and  (4)  aligning  regional  litter 
prevention  and  management  plans  with  the  water  and  marine  policy  tools,  the  port  waste 
reception and treatment plans. The second measure tackles shellfish aquaculture, an activity 
which can be a significant source of litter, but which is only rarely addressed in other Member 
States’  programmes  of  measures.  France  plans  to  limit  the  degradation  of  the  impacted 
habitats by limiting access to the relevant marine culture plots in tidal areas, and by collecting 
and recycling litter generated by them. 

The  programmes  of  measures  for  marine  litter  have  to  be  seen  in  the  wider  context  of 
developments at EU level, which led to the adoption of the Circular Economy Package80, the 
European  Strategy  for  Plastics81  and  a  legislative  proposal  on  marine  litter  and  single-use 
plastics82. 

Of the 16 Member States, only 683 expect to achieve good environmental status for litter by 
2020.  Malta  is  the  only  Member  State  having  applied  for  an  exception  on  the  grounds  that 
actions  from  neighbouring  countries  would  allegedly  hamper  its  efforts;  however,  such 
proposed justification does not appear to be fully substantiated and no alternative timeline is 
reported. 

Energy, including underwater noise 

Energy use, for example in the form of heating and electricity systems, noise, electromagnetic 
radiations, radio waves or  vibrations, can also be a pressure on the marine environment. So 
far,  most  Member  States  have  focused  their  efforts  on  underwater  noise,  whose  effects  are 
complex  and  not  yet  fully  understood.  Noise  may,  for  example,  chase  away  marine  species 
from their breeding grounds, impact their hearing and therefore make them more vulnerable. 
The  effect  also  depends  on  the  type  of  noise,  continuous  or  impulsive,  and  the  frequency. 
Noise  may  come  from  shipping,  marine  research,  offshore  energy  platforms,  construction 
operations and defence activities. Member States have yet again drawn on EU legislation such 
as  the  Habitats  Directive  and  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  Directive.  Again, 
international agreements and initiatives taken through the Regional Sea Conventions are also 
featured  in  their  programmes  of  measures.  Measures  include  protecting  specific  areas  from 
both  impulsive  and  continuous  noise;  developing  ‘eco-friendly’  ships;  limiting  the  use  of 
certain types of lights on oil and gas platforms; and raising awareness, carrying out research 
and developing  guidelines for noise assessments.  While  most  pressures are addressed, these 

79  Meanwhile,  France  has  also adopted  an  unreported  measure  that bans  non-biodegradable  single-use  plastics 
from  2020  and  another  which  bans  non-biodegradable  plastic  cotton  buds  and  microbeads  in  certain  cosmetic 
products. 
80 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Closing the loop — An EU action plan for the Circular 
Economy, COM(2015) 614 final. 
81 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, 
COM(2018) 28 final. 
82  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  reduction  of  the  impact  of 
certain plastic products on the environment, COM(2018) 340 final. 
83 Belgium, Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. 

12 

 
 
                                                            
are  often  covered  indirectly  through  research  which  Member  States  have  reported  together 
with their measures. 

Six  Member  States84,  mostly  from  the  North-east  Atlantic  Ocean  region,  expect  to  achieve 
good  environmental  status  by  2020.  However,  given  the  current  knowledge  gaps,  some85 
cannot  estimate  when  it  will  be  achieved  or  have  not  specified  a  date  for  when  it  is  to  be 
achieved86. No Member State has applied for an exception. 

Measure → Cyprus: noise from hydrocarbon exploration 

Cyprus  reports  a  measure  that  addresses  impulsive  underwater  noise,  by  requiring  ‘soft-
start/slow-start’ conditions in the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons. This includes 
seismic  surveys  at  sea,  as  defined  in  the  Strategic  Environmental  Assessment  and 
Environmental Impact Assessment Directives and in the Offshore Protocol of the Barcelona 
Convention. 

Measures taken to address the state of marine biodiversity 

Curbing  the  negative  impacts  of  pressures  on  the  marine  environment  should  improve 
conditions for marine species and habitats. Therefore, the measures described in the previous 
sections  should  help  maintain  or  improve  the  state  of  marine  biodiversity.  Most  Member 
States, however, do not make sufficient links between the two, which limits the effectiveness 
of  the  programmes.  Member  States  have,  nevertheless,  earmarked  measures  that  deal  with 
various  marine  habitats,  such  as  spatial  protection  measures,  although  these  are  limited  in 
spatial  scope  and  may  not  be  targeting  areas  where  pressures  are  most  predominant  (e.g. 
seabed trawling outside protected areas).    

Birds 

Incidental  by-catch  from  commercial  fishing  activities  was  the  predominant  pressure  that 
Member  States  reported  was  affecting  birds.  Other  pressures  they  reported  included  marine 
litter,  non-indigenous  species,  oil  pollution  and  visual  light  disturbance.  Despite  the 
prevalence  of  habitat  loss  due  to  human  activity,  contaminants  in  the  sea  and  hunting, 
Member States cited them less often as pressures. It is not surprising that most measures relate 
to  implementation  of  the  Birds  Directive  and  the  Habitats  Directive,  and  therefore  to  the 
creation of special protection areas and special areas of conservation87 to protect bird habitats, 
breeding, nesting and feeding grounds. Member States also report that they are applying the 
rules of the common fisheries policy to address by-catch, which means restricting the use of 
certain  fishing  gear,  for  example,  to  reduce  the  chance  of  birds  being  caught  or  promoting 
sustainable  fishing  tools  and  techniques.  Member  States  only  occasionally  refer  to  the 

84 Belgium, Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. 
85 Germany, Malta and Sweden. 
86 Cyprus, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain. Bulgaria and Latvia had not determined their good environmental 
status. 
87 As established under the Birds Directive and the Natura 2000 Network respectively. 

13 

 
 
                                                            
Maritime Spatial Planning Directive88, which could help to designate areas for fishing while 
reducing the impacts on birds. 

All North-east Atlantic Member States also link their measures to OSPAR recommendations 
on conservation, whereas some89 of the Baltic Sea Member States refer to HELCOM’s ‘Baltic 
Sea Action Plan’. In the Mediterranean, most Member States generally refer to the Barcelona 
Convention’s action plans for bird species and marine protected areas. 

Ten  Member  States90  do  not  report  when  they  will  reach  good  environmental  status,  citing 
either  gaps  in  knowledge  as  the  reason  or  providing  no  further  justification.  No  exceptions 
have been reported. 

Measure → Malta: protecting birds from predators 

Malta  is  applying  a  measure91  to  protect  the  Yelkouan  shearwater  (Puffinus  yelkouan)  from 
predator rats. Food litter from human recreational activities in a special protection area has led 
to  an  increased  presence  of  rats,  which  cause  significant  predation  pressures  on  birds.  To 
more  effectively  protect  the  bird  species  and  their  habitats,  the  project  aims  at  increasing 
people's awareness of the problem and therefore changing their behaviour in protected sites to 
reduce littering and the presence of pests. The measure goes beyond what is already addressed 
under the Birds Directive. 

Fish and cephalopods 

In addition to the obvious pressure from fishing for commercial species, by-catch is one of the 
most  important  pressures,  followed  by  contaminants.  Habitat  loss  and  damage,  litter  and 
underwater  noise  are  less  often  cited  by  Member  States  in  their  programmes.  Commercial 
species are generally well addressed through the measures for commercial fish and shellfish, 
as  discussed  above.  These  measures  include  fishing  bans  in  certain  areas  and/or  banning 
fishing  practices  like  trawling.  However,  non-commercial  species  are  not  always  covered. 
Thirteen  Member  States92  also  restrict  the  use  of  certain  fishing  techniques,  therefore  also 
targeting by-catch. Most Member States report using spatial protection measures based on the 
Habitats Directive’s Natura 2000 network to protect some fish species and to a lesser extent, 
the Water Framework Directive to protect migratory pathways for fish. Spatial measures have 
also  been  used  to  protect  certain  seabed  habitats  which  act  as  fish  breeding  and  nursery 
grounds. In addition to linking their measures to Regional Sea Conventions, like in the case of 
birds,  Mediterranean  Member  States,  in  particular,  also  refer  to  initiatives  with  regional 
fisheries management organisations. Awareness-raising93 campaigns, such as those informing 
consumers  about  sustainable  fishing  practices  or  targeting  professional  and  recreational 

88  Directive  2014/89/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23 July  2014  establishing  a 
framework for maritime spatial planning, (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 135). 
89 Latvia, Poland and Sweden. 
90 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Latvia, Malta, Spain and Sweden. 
91 Financed through the LIFE programme. 
92  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  France,  Ireland,  Italy,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Spain,  Sweden 
and the United Kingdom. 
93 Bulgaria, France, Italy, Germany, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 

14 

 
 
                                                            
fishermen,  provide  added  value  to  the  other,  more  direct  measures.  Some94  Member  States 
mention  the  need  for  more  research,  especially  to  understand  what  impacts  the  pressures 
affecting this species group are having.   

Poland has claimed an exception to achieving good environmental status, as it maintains that 
other  environmental  factors,  such  as  climate  change  and  salinity,  prevent  it  from  doing  so. 
This is only partially justifiable with the information provided (without evidence for changing 
trends  in  indicators  linked  to  predictable  changes  in  temperature  and  salinity).  The  United 
Kingdom reports a justified exception due to the time needed for fish populations (biomass) to 
react to changes in fishing rates, coupled with other biological and climatic conditions. Three 
Member States95 report that they will achieve good environmental status by 2020. 

Measure → Germany: raising consumer awareness of sustainable fishing 

A  new  measure  in  Germany  consists  of  an  information  campaign  targeting  a  variety  of 
seafood consumers to raise their awareness of ‘sustainable and ecosystem-friendly fisheries’. 
The campaign will develop teaching and information material based on the best scientific data 
available  and  on  the  current  state  of  research.  The  aim  is  consumer  behaviour  that  is  more 
environmentally friendly and supportive of sustainable fishing techniques. Indirectly, it aims 
to  use  consumer  demand  as  an  incentive  for  the  fishing  industry  to  adopt  more  sustainable 
fishing practices.   

Mammals and reptiles 

Marine mammals and reptiles, such as whales, seals and turtles, are affected by incidental by-
catch  from  commercial  fishing  activities,  and  by  habitat  loss,  contaminants,  marine  litter, 
collisions  with  vessels  and  underwater  noise.  Most  Member  States  report  they  have  taken 
spatial  protection  measures  through  the  Habitats  Directive  to  protect  habitats,  including 
breeding, feeding, and nesting sites. In fact, most new measures focus on spatial protection, 
including  those  to  reduce  underwater  noise.  Incidental  by-catch  is  regulated  through  the 
common fisheries policy with new measures on using more selective fishing gear. However, 
few  Member  States96  make  the  link  between  marine  litter  and  mammals  and  turtles,  even 
though these species are likely to be ingesting litter or getting entangled in lost or abandoned 
fishing  gear.  Several  Member  States  have  also  linked  measures  to  the  Maritime  Spatial 
Planning  Directive97  and  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  Directive98.  In  addition  to 
linking their measures to Regional Sea Conventions, most Member States link measures to the 
Agreement  on  the  Conservation  of  Small  Cetaceans  of  the  Baltic  and  North  Seas 
(ASCOBANS)  and  the  Agreement  on  the  Conservation  of  Cetaceans  of  the  Black  Sea, 
Mediterranean  Sea  and  contiguous  Atlantic  area  (ASCOBAMS).  Other  measures  include 
reducing  the  impact  from  lost  fishing  gear  and  mitigating measures  in  case  of  oil pollution. 

94 Bulgaria, France, Italy, Latvia, Poland and Portugal. 
95 Belgium, France and Ireland. 
96 Bulgaria, France (for the North-East Atlantic), Spain and Sweden. 
97 Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Finland, France (for the Mediterranean), Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
98  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Germany,  France  (for  the  North-East  Atlantic),  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Malta,  the 
Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 

15 

 
 
                                                            
Awareness-raising activities such as informing fishermen of the impact of aggressive fishing 
techniques  on  mammals  and  turtles  or  encouraging  tourists  to  opt  for  sustainable  tourist 
activities are also among the measures reported.   

Only a handful of Member States99 claim that they will achieve good environmental status by 
2020. Poland reported an exception stating that it will not achieve good environmental status 
by 2020 for harbour porpoises given the migratory nature of the species and the fact that most 
by-catch occurs outside its marine waters, a justification that does not appear grounded as the 
issue  of  by-catch  from  outside  its  waters  can  be  adequately  controlled  through  cross-border 
partnership processes. 

Measure → Italy: reducing collisions with ships 

Vessels  are  responsible  for  a  significant  number  of  mortalities  of  cetaceans  in  the 
Mediterranean.  Through  the  REPCET  project  100,  Italy  aims  to  place  software  on  board  all 
vessels to help identify the presence and location of cetaceans underwater, thus reducing the 
number of collisions and the mortality rate. The measure will also train vessel operators to use 
such software. 

Water column habitats 

Species  living  in  water  column  habitats  face  multiple  pressures,  such  as  contaminants, 
eutrophication,  non-indigenous  species,  fish  extraction,  by-catch  and  litter.  Member  States’ 
programmes rarely link the measures for these pressures to water column habitats, making it 
difficult for Member States to determine how good environmental status will be achieved for 
these habitats. Very few specific measures have therefore been reported. 

Nevertheless,  management  plans  for  marine  protected  areas,  the  implementation  of  the 
Habitats  Directive’s  Natura  2000  Network  and  the  adoption  of  other  national  spatial 
protection  measures  contribute  to  the  well-being  of  these  habitats.  The  Water  Framework 
Directive  also  plays  a  role  by  reducing  the  concentration  of  nutrients  and  contaminants  and 
improving  hydrological  conditions,  thus  reducing  eutrophic  conditions  and  the  pollution  of 
marine waters. Regional links were also drawn for other habitat types. Again, only 3 Member 
States101  report  they  will  achieve  good  environmental  status  by  2020,  but  no  Member  State 
has applied for an exception. 

Measure → Sweden: pressure-state relationships for the water column habitats 

Sweden has strongly linked its biodiversity measures to measures tackling specific pressures 
in  water  column  habitats,  therefore  looking  at  pressures  cumulatively  to  safeguard  marine 
biodiversity. This thorough approach in achieving good environmental status for biodiversity 
also follows the rationale behind Decision 2017/848/EU. These measures address: 

99 Belgium, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom. 
100 http://www.repcet.com . 
101 Ireland, France and the United Kingdom. 

16 

 
 
                                                            
• 

• 

• 

• 

commercial  fish  and  shellfish  through  fishing  regulations  and  management,  marine 
protected areas and seasonal closure areas; 
eutrophication by reducing long-term nutrient load locally in eutrophic bays and in the 
Baltic Sea; 
contaminants by managing the discharge of hazardous substances, such as antifouling 
substances and sewage; 
non-indigenous  species  through  indirect  measures  that  include  awareness-raising, 
management plans and risk-reduction measures. 

Seabed habitats 

There  are  various  human  activities  that  impact  the  seabed,  particularly  through  physical 
disturbance, the most widespread being bottom-trawl commercial fishing. Over time, this has 
led  to  a  significant  loss  of  sensitive  seabed  habitats  and  caused  long-lasting  widespread 
damage  to  seabed  habitats.  Other  potentially  harmful  activities  include  land  claim,  port 
operations,  solid  waste  disposal  (including  dredged  material),  marine  mining  of  sand  and 
gravel,  the  laying  of  submarine  cables  and  pipelines  and  renewable  energy  operations. 
Regulatory approaches were included in the programmes of measures to address most of these 
activities. For example, spatial protection measures are the primary tool of choice, including 
those  under  the  Habitats  Directive.  All  16  Member  States  reported  on  initiatives  to  protect 
vulnerable  habitats  from  fishing  activities  which  are  harmonised  with  measures  for 
sustainable fishing (mostly drawing on the common fisheries policy such as banning certain 
types  of  fishing,  including  bottom-trawl  fishing,  and  introducing  less  seabed-destructive 
fishing gear). Other regulatory tools referred to include environmental impact assessments for 
other pressures such as nutrient levels from aquaculture. For other pollution effects, Member 
States cite measures under the Water Framework Directive. Regional links were also drawn 
for other habitat types. Seabed damage may also occur through recreational activities, such as 
the anchoring of recreational boats or recreational fishing, for which 4 Member States102 have 
reported  measures.  However,  these  measures  were  often  confined  to  specific  areas.  As  a 
result, a significant proportion of seabed habitats occurring outside of spatial protection areas 
and  which  are  impacted  by  human  activities,  will  likely  remain  largely  unaddressed  by 
Member States. 

Several Member States also pursued activities to raise awareness103 of the destructiveness of 
certain  commercial  fishing  methods  on  seabed  habitats  and  performed  research104  that 
included, for example, mapping seabed habitats. 

Five  Member  States105  reported  that  they  will  achieve  good  environmental  status  by  2020, 
with  Poland  requesting  an  exception  and  linking  this  to  natural  conditions  such  as  slow 
recovery  of  the  marine  environment,  non-indigenous  which  have  spread  significantly  in 
Polish  waters  and  areas  with  naturally  occurring  seasonal  low  oxygen  levels.  However,  the 
justification  only  partly  supports  the  exception  as  no  efforts  are  made  to  identify  specific 

102 Belgium, Bulgaria, France and Spain. 
103 Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Malta and Portugal. 
104 Bulgaria, France, Germany, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. 
105 Belgium, Finland, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom. 

17 

 
 
                                                            
habitats  affected  by  the  non-indigenous  species  and  the  fact  that  vast  majority  of  oxygen 
depletion in the Baltic is considered to be due to nutrient enrichment. 

Measure → Spain: guidelines for recreational marine activities 

The anchoring of boats physically damages the seabed and may even lead to seabed habitat 
loss  given  its  vulnerable  state.  These  impacts  are  most  severe  in  seagrass  beds  (Posidonia 
oceanica and Cymodocea nodosa) and on certain species included in the Spanish catalogue of 
threatened  species,  such  as  the  noble  pen  shell  (Pinna  nobilis)  and  the  cushion  sea  star 
(Asterina pancerii). For this reason, Spain embarked on guidelines for authorities to regulate 
this activity in protected seabed habitats. It goes beyond activities that are usually addressed 
under the Habitats Directive. 

How do Member States perform? 

Measures against pressures 

In their programmes of measures, Member States have at least partially addressed a number of 
pressures:  the  introduction  of  non-indigenous  species,  commercial  fisheries,  nutrient  input, 
pressures on seabed habitats, hydrographical changes, contaminants and marine litter. Figure 
2  shows  how  many  of  the  pressures  Member  States  reported  in  their  Article  8  assessments 
have been appropriately addressed by measures.  

Overview of assessment of the Member States' programmes 
of measures against pressures 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

FI

EE

LV LT

PL DE DK SE NL BE UK IE

FR ES PT

IT MT HR SI

EL CY BG RO

Appropriate

Partially appropriate

Not appropriate

Figure 2 Appropriateness of Member State measures against pressures (Member States are presented in 
geographical order per marine region) 

For  each  Member  State,  the  number  of  times  the  descriptor-specific  measures  have  been 
assessed as addressing (green), partially addressing (orange) and not addressing (red) what the 

18 

 
 
 
Member  State  reported  in  Article  8  (e.g.  100 %  ‘addressing  pressures’  means  that  the 
programme addresses the reported pressures for all descriptors). 

Timelines, implementation of measures and their effectiveness 

The  timelines  reported  by  Member  States  provide  a  mixed  picture  for  when  good 
environmental  status  will  be  achieved,  as  explained  in  the  relevant  sections  above  and 
summarised  in  Figure  3.  This  may  in  part  be  because  Member  States  report  that  some 
measures were not operational by 2016 as required by the Directive. It should also be noted 
that  the  measures  reported  are  not  always  directly  linked  to  the  determinations  of  good 
environmental status and the environmental targets. Furthermore, the lack of consistency at a 
(sub)regional  level106  in  defining  their  good  environmental  status  and  the  varying  level  of 
ambition by Member States, adds to the uncertainty over whether measures are sufficient to 
achieve  good  environmental  status  by  2020.  The  full  implementation  of  Decision 
2017/848/EU  is  expected  to  provide  for  a  more  comparable  and  coherent  approach  to 
subsequent  updates  of  these  determinations  and  thereby  support  the  assessment  of  the 
sufficiency of the measures.   

Reported timelines for achieving good environmental status 

D2 Non-Indigenous Species

D3 Commercial fish and shellfish

D5 Eutrophication

D7 Hydrographical changes

D8 Contaminants

D9 Contaminants in seafood

D10 Marine litter

D11 Underwater noise and energy

D1, 4 Birds

D1, 4 Fish (and cephalopods)

D1, 4 Mammals (and reptiles)

D1, 4 Water column habitats

D1, 4, 6 Seabed habitats

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Already achieved

By 2020

After 2020

Reports it cannot estimate

Does not report any information

Figure 3 Timelines for achieving good environmental status as reported by Member States 

106 COM(2014) 97 final. 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
The  second  observation  relates  to  the  likelihood  these  measures  will  be  implemented, 
especially  the  new  measures  (given  that  other  measures  were  reported  to  be  ongoing,  for 
example, through other policy frameworks). Three groups of Member States are observed. 

Highly 
likely 

Likely 

These Member States made a cost-benefit analysis when 
introducing new measures and have indicated those entities 
that would be responsible for implementing them. They also 
reported that implementation had already started in 2016, 
though some measures were slightly delayed (2017 or 2018). 

Belgium, 
Finland, 
France, 
Germany, 
Italy, Spain, 
Sweden, 
United 
Kingdom 

Bulgaria, 
Latvia, Malta, 
The 
Netherlands, 
Poland, 
Portugal 

The cost-benefit analysis as reported does not cover all new 
measures and not all timelines have been indicated by these 
Member States. Of those reported, a large number are expected 
to be implemented after 2018, with some going beyond 2020. 
Member States have generally indicated the entities responsible 
for implementing these measures. 

No 
conclusion 

Cyprus, 
Ireland 

Information provided by these Member States does not allow 
for a conclusion to be reached. 

Table 1 — Likelihood of implementation of new measures107 

However,  the  cost-benefit  assessments,  where  these  were  done,  do  not  tell  the  whole  story. 
Also, the implementing authority, the funding and the budgetary allocations were not always 
indicated, casting doubt on the likelihood the measures in question will be implemented. The 
potential impacts of the measures were not quantified either and at best were described in a 
qualitative manner. 

Reporting at an appropriate level of detail would have allowed for a better  understanding of 
what the measure was striving to achieve. Also, the effects of ongoing measures on the marine 
environment could not  be  gauged.  Therefore, quantifying how  much of the pressure will be 
reduced  and  whether  the  measures  themselves  are  sufficient  to  achieve  good  environmental 
status was not possible. While acknowledging that this could not be done for some measures 
due to, for example, gaps in knowledge, it would have strengthened the assessment if Member 
States’ efforts could be translated into a tangible assessment of the positive effects they will 
have on the marine environment. 

Another observation is that while most Member States refer to their respective Regional Sea 
Conventions and to international agreements, some Member States cite regional action plans 
and regional or international commitments only in general terms without specifying what kind 
of  measures  are  being  implemented.  Yet  again,  what  such  measures  are  meant  to  achieve 

107 No Member States were assessed as unlikely to implement their new measures. 

20 

 
 
                                                            
could not be pinned down. In most cases, measures do not look at a region or sub-region but 
are limited to a geographical scope within national waters. 

Conclusions and recommendations 

Member  States  have  made  considerable  efforts  to  develop  their  programmes  of  measures. 
They  have  integrated  different  national,  EU  and  international  policies  and  processes  for  the 
sole purpose of protecting the marine environment. Most Member States have also established 
new measures to specifically target pressures on the marine environment that would otherwise 
not be covered, thus showing the added value of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 
However,  for  certain  pressures  of  transboundary  nature,  the  lack  of  regional  or  EU 
coordination  potentially  leads  to  a  fragmented  and  ineffective  approach  to  tackling  the 
pressure.  In  the  case  of  plastic  marine  litter,  the  problem  is  now  being  addressed  through 
action at EU level, notably through the European strategy for plastics in a circular economy 
and its subsequent actions. 

Nevertheless, the assessment shows that not all the pressures on the marine environment are 
covered  properly  through  the  measures  adopted  by  Member  States.  The  programmes 
themselves  have  varying  levels  of  ambition.  Achieving  good  environmental  status  by  2020 
across  all  European  marine  regions  and  for  all  the  11  descriptors  of  the  Directive  remains 
unlikely.  Even  though  it  is  known  that  ecosystems  are  slow  to  respond  to  change,  this  is 
disappointing as it means the main obligation of the Directive  — good environmental status 
— is unlikely to be fulfilled on time. In 2018, Member States are expected to report108 on the 
state  of  implementation  of  their  programme  of  measures.  This  should  provide  a  clearer 
understanding of where they stand with the implementation of all of their measures. 

Member  States  are  also  expected  to  report  updates  of  their  determination  of  good 
environmental status, targets, and assessment of environmental status by October 2018109. The 
Commission will build on these different elements to issue an implementation report in 2019 
which will review progress110, ahead of the 2020 deadline for achieving good environmental 
status.   

In  conclusion,  the  Commission's  assessment  is  that  improvements  -  of  varying  degrees  for 
different countries - are needed for all programmes of measures if they are to be considered as 
an appropriate framework to meet the requirements of the Directive. Applicable guidance on 
modifications necessary is included as a set of recommendations in the table below. Country 
specific guidance is provided in the form of recommendations included in the staff working 
document accompanying this report111: 

Category 

Recommendations 

108 Article 18. 
109 Article 17(2)(a) & (b). 
110 Article 20. 
111  The  Annex  to  this  report  (SWD(2018)393)  contains  further  specific  conclusions  and  recommendations  per 
descriptor and per Member State.  

21 

 
 
                                                            
Measuring 
effectiveness: 
International & 
regional references 

Measuring 
effectiveness: 
Implementation 
timelines, funding 
and entity 
responsible 

Measuring 
effectiveness: 
Link with targets 

Measuring 
effectiveness: 
Link with 
monitoring 
programmes 

Measuring 
effectiveness: 
Quantification of 
pressures and link 
with good 
environmental 
status 

Tackling 
pressures: 
Addressing 
pressures that have 
been inadequately 
covered 

Tackling 
pressures: 
Spatial coverage 
for species and 
habitats 

In measuring the effectiveness of measures Member States should: 

 

identify  measures  for  each  marine  region  or  sub-region 
concerned, for example, by using regional action plans; 

  explain  what  specific  measures  stemming  from  regional  or 
international  initiatives  are  being  implemented  as  part  of  their 
programme and do not refer to regional and international action 
plans in general terms; 

 

identify  the  timelines  for  implementation,  secured  funding,  and 
the entities in charge of implementation for all their measures; 
  estimate the alternative dates of when good environmental status 

will be achieved if it is not expected by 2020; 

  systematically use targets as milestones towards achieving good 

environmental status through the measures; 

  better connect their measures with their monitoring programmes 
when  these  are  next  updated  in  2020,  to  evaluate  their  effects 
and  hence  efficiency  and  effectiveness  in  meeting  targets  and 
good environmental status;  

  quantify the pressures present in their waters and their expected 
level  of  reduction  as  a  result  of  the  established  measures.  This 
could  be  facilitated  by  further  efforts  to  address  gaps  in 
knowledge  and  define  the  methodology  for  such  estimations  at 
regional  or  EU  level.  Such  quantification  will  also  help  to  link 
the measures to achieving good environmental status. 

In tackling pressures, Member States should: 

  cover  pressures  and  associated  human  activities  better, 
including:  the  introduction  of  non-indigenous  species  from 
shipping  because  of  bio-fouling,  recreational  fishing,  nutrient 
enrichment from atmospheric sources, cumulative impacts from 
individual  projects  on  hydrographical  conditions,  contaminant 
inputs from atmospheric sources, the introduction of macro- and 
micro-litter  into  the  marine  environment  from  coastal  and 
offshore  activities,  and  the  generation  of  underwater  noise  (as 
well  as  heat  and  energy  if  feasible)  in  the  marine  environment 
from various sources; 

  ensure that prevalent pressures in the same marine region or sub-

region are covered by all Member States in the region; 

  ensure wider geographic coverage when addressing pressures on 
marine  species  and  habitats,  especially  in  the  open  sea,  so  that 
measures are not only limited to spatially protected areas;  

22 

 
 
Tackling 
pressures: 
Combination of 
direct & indirect 
measures 
(intervention vs 
governance/aware
ness) 

Tackling 
pressures: 
Art.11 vs Art.13 

Tackling 
pressures: 
Pressure-state 
relationship 

Tackling 
pressures: 
Spatial scope of 
measures 

Tackling 
pressures: 
Exceptions 

 

implement  measures  that  regulate  or  guide  those  activities  that 
impact  on  the  marine  environment,  in  addition  to  more 
horizontal measures that  improve  governance, coordination and 
promote awareness-raising;  

 

report  data  collection  and  monitoring  efforts  under  their 
monitoring  programmes  for  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive (Article 11) and not under the programme of measures 
(Article 13). However, when knowledge is too scarce to design 
effective  measures,  it  is  useful  to  indicate  actions  taken  via 
research initiatives to address these gaps; 

 

improve  the  links  between  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for 
pressure  descriptors  and  their  potential  benefits  for  the  state 
descriptors, to enable a comprehensive overview of the impacts; 

  define the spatial scope of measures in detail; 
  expand  the  spatial  scope  of  measures  to  cover  marine  waters 
beyond coastal waters, where relevant pressures are present; 

 

further justify Article 14 exceptions that are considered 
technically ungrounded or partially grounded in the assessment.  

23