In-depth assessment of the Member States’ reporting for the marine strategy’s biodiversity monitoring : support to the Member States’ monitoring reporting.
Date: 2019-07-31
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: EU Member State, biodiversity, data collection, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, marine ecosystem, marine environment, marine pollution, research report

the 
In-depth  assessment  of 
Member  States’  reporting  for  the 
Marine  Strategy’s  biodiversity 
monitoring 

Support  to  the  Member 
States’ 
monitoring 
reporting 

Andreas Palialexis, Vasiliki Kousteni and 
Francesca Somma 

2019 

1 

EUR 29767 EN 

 
 
 
This publication is a technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and 
knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. 
The  scientific  output  expressed  does  not  imply  a  policy  position  of  the  European  Commission.  Neither  the 
European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might 
be made of this publication. 

Contact information 
Name: Andreas Palialexis 
Address: Via E. Fermi 2749, TP 270, I-21027 Ispra (VA) — Italy 
Email: andreas.palialexis@ec.europa.eu 
Tel. +39 0332 78 9206 

EU Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC116892 

EUR 29767 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-07986-6 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/051785 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 

© European Union, 2019 

The  reuse  policy  of  the  European  Commission  is  implemented  by  Commission  Decision  2011/833/EU  of 
12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Reuse is authorised, 
provided the source of the document is acknowledged and its original meaning or message is not distorted. The 
European  Commission  shall  not  be  liable  for  any  consequence  stemming  from  the  reuse.  For  any  use  or 
reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from 
the copyright holders. 

All content © European Union, 2019, except: cover page, Ioannis Issaris, 2014. Source: issaris.com 

How to cite this report: Palialexis, A., V. Kousteni and F. Somma, In-depth assessment of the Member States’ 
reporting  for  the  Marine  Strategy’s  biodiversity  monitoring,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-07986-6, doi:10.2760/051785. 

i 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

List of acronyms .................................................................................................... 3 

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ 4 

1.  Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5 

1.1. Scope of the work ........................................................................................ 5 

2.  Materials and methods ....................................................................................... 6 

2.1. Sources of information ................................................................................. 6 

2.2. Screening and assessment of the reported information ..................................... 7 

2.3. Evaluation of the identified categories ............................................................ 7 

3.  Results ............................................................................................................. 9 

3.1. General description of the monitoring programmes .......................................... 9 

3.2. Reporting on monitoring programmes .......................................................... 13 

3.3. Reporting on subprogrammes ..................................................................... 23 

4.  Discussion ...................................................................................................... 35 

4.1. Consistency and completeness in the reports ................................................ 35 

4.2. Evaluating the methodological approaches for monitoring ............................... 36 

4.3. Implementation of monitoring programmes .................................................. 36 

4.4. Evaluating the criteria elements reported for D1 ............................................ 37 

5.  Conclusions .................................................................................................... 38 

5.1. General comments ..................................................................................... 38 

5.2. For the next cycle ...................................................................................... 38 

References ......................................................................................................... 39 

Annex 1. ............................................................................................................ 40 

ii 

List of acronyms 

CFP 

common fisheries policy 

DPSIR 

drivers, pressures, state, impact and response 

EEA 

EU 

GES 

MS 

MSFD 

RSC 

European Environment Agency 

European Union 

good environmental status 

Member State 

marine strategy framework directive 

regional sea convention 

WG DIKE 

Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange Working Group 

XML 

Extensible Markup Language 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to thank the European Environment Agency and particularly Irene 
Del  Barrio  for  providing  access  to  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  reporting 
databases. In addition, they would like to thank the Directorate-General for Environment, 
Unit C.2, for their comments on the document and the process. 

Authors 

Andreas PALIALEXIS 

Vasiliki KOUSTENI 

Francesca SOMMA 

4 

1. Introduction 

Article 11  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD)  obliges  Member  States 
(MSs)  to  monitor  the  environmental  status  of  their  marine  waters.  The  Joint  Research 
Centre  (JRC)  has  performed  an  in-depth  analysis  on  the  MSs’  reports  for  2014.  This 
analysis was focused on the biodiversity descriptor. 

1.1. 

Scope of the work 

This work aims to develop recommendations and propose emerging reporting requirements 
for  the  update  of  the  monitoring  programmes  pursuant  to  Article 17  of  the  MSFD.  Such 
recommendations will improve consistency, comparability and coherence in the monitoring 
and  assessment  of  marine  biodiversity.  The  results  are  tailored  in  accordance  with  the 
requirements  of  the  new  Commission  Decision  (2017/848/EU)  (European  Commission, 
2017a) for criteria and methodological standards to determine good environmental status 
(GES). The application of the  risk-based approach to  European marine  waters is among 
the  emerging  reporting  requirements,  as  it  was  not  sufficiently  applied  less  in  the  first 
MSFD cycle. 

The analysis goes deeper than the evaluation under Article 12 of the MSFD performed by 
the European Commission (European Commission, 2017b, c) after the MSs’ reporting. Its 
scope  goes  beyond  the  evaluation  of  the  individual  MSs’  performance  and  compliance, 
being focused on the technical assessment and evaluation of the reports at regional/sub-
regional scales. The aim of this analysis is to provide the basis for an improved approach 
to monitoring of descriptor 1, but the conclusions are relevant to all MSFD descriptors. 

5 

2. Materials and methods 

2.1. 

Sources of information 

The main source of information was the  2014  MSs’  reporting on monitoring pursuant to 
Article 11 of the MSFD. The MSFD Common Implementation Strategy Groups developed a 
guidance  document  to  facilitate  the  MSs’  reporting  procedure  (European  Commission, 
2014a).  The  reporting  was  structured  around  a  number  of  questions  that  collectively 
provide a comprehensive view of the ongoing and planned monitoring programmes. The 
reporting format was organised in three sections: 

a)  a general one, where the MSs provided general information in relation to the MSFD 

descriptors and their monitoring programmes; 

b)  a monitoring programme section, where the MSs have organised their existing or 
new  monitoring  programmes  according  to  the  MSFD  assessment  elements  (e.g. 
marine mammals, marine birds); 

c)  a  third  section,  where  the  monitoring  programmes  are  split  into  subprogrammes 
providing detailed technical information organised in accordance with the reporting 
guidance document (European Commission, 2014a). 

To this end, we compiled the information from the three databases and integrated it with 
the reporting information from other available sources (e.g. paper  reports  submitted by 
the MSs). The outcome was the basis for extracting, analysing and quantifying the reported 
information. 

Data were retrieved from the European Environment Information and Observation Network 
Central Data Repository (Eionet CDR), which is the MSFD’s official reporting platform. 

The electronic reporting was made with the use of Extensible Markup Language (XML) files 
as the means to introduce information to the monitoring databases. The generation of XML 
files requires the reported information be held in a structured database. There were three 
options for reporting applications, according to the European Commission (2014a): 

Option A. In the  Web-form application developed for  article 11 reporting, managed 
by the European Environment Agency (EEA), which automatically generates 
the XML and submits it to ReportNet (see DIKE 8_2013_051); 

Option B. In a web-based application (e.g. Content Management System), managed 
at Member State or Regional level, capable of exporting the information in 
the XML format; 

Option C. In a non-web-based application (e.g. database), managed at Member State 
or Regional level, capable of exporting the information in the XML format. 

An  additional  option  (Option  D)  was  to  use  formats  that  do  not  allow  the  generation  of 
standard XML files; this could include provision as PDF files or other electronic formats. 

It  was  expected  that  many  MSs  would  use  Option A,  especially  those  that  did  not  have 
bespoke information management systems in place for MSFD implementation. 

Option B  has  been  discussed  within  the  Working  Group  on  Data,  Information  and 
Knowledge Exchange (WG DIKE) and encouraged by the Commission as part of a forward 
process  to  modernise  reporting  processes  using  decentralised  systems  (as  the  systems 
that  hold  the  information  are  held  by  the  competent  authorities  in  the  MSs  or  anyone 
mandated  by  them).  The  benefits  of  this  option  are  listed  by  the  European  Commission 
(2014a). 

1https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/84faaec7-815b-4ae5-9082-5ca2df7514c6/DIKE-

8_2013_05_Art11WebForms_Schemas.doc 

6 

                                           
Option C was expected to be used by those MSs that maintain internal data management 
systems for policy delivery (and have not yet developed web-based systems — Option B 
— with similar purposes). 

The final option, Option D, does not allow the generation of standard XML files. While the 
use of such formats may be helpful to prepare draft material (e.g. prior to its incorporation 
into  any  of  the  three  database  options  above),  it  was  not  the  Commission’s  preferred 
format  for  final  transmission  of  the  information.  It  usually  had  a  different  reporting 
structure and the information could not be directly integrated with other MSs’ submissions 
and further analysed. 

Twenty-three  MSs  have  reporting  obligations  under  the  MSFD  and  all  of  them  provided 
paper reports, in 15 languages. Only 11 MSs out of the 23 reported in a format suitable 
for transferring information to the database. 

Details  on  the  technical  preparation  of  the  reports,  including  use  of  the  web-form 
application  for  reporting  and  preparation  of  XML  schemas  can  be  sought  on  the  EEA 
ReportNet resource page (http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas/dir200856ec/resources2014). 

2.2. 

Screening and assessment of the reported information 

The  compilation  of  the  reporting  information  was  made  by  combining  the  database 
generated from the XML files and the paper  reports,  for those  MSs that did not provide 
XML. Using common keys, we merged several tables of the database to encompass most 
of the required information, which was considered critical for the technical assessment of 
the  monitoring  information.  The  selection  and  prioritisation  of  the  analysed  information 
was  based  on  the  questions  of  the  monitoring  guidelines  for  the  web-forms  (European 
Commission,  2014a).  We  eventually  generated  three  tables:  a  general  one,  one  for  the 
monitoring  programmes  and  one  for  the  monitoring  sub-programmes.  The  extraction  of 
the analogous information from the paper reports completed the reported information in 
the three tables. In many cases, the information reported in XML files was cross-checked 
with the paper reports, where available, because of the inconsistencies and lack of clarity 
that were noticed in the web-forms information. 

2.3. 

Evaluation of the identified categories 

The reporting sheet was to provide the information content in a standard format through 
a few relevant and agreed questions to the monitoring schemes (European Commission, 
2014a).  These  questions  were  analysed  to  raise  issues  of  general  interest  on  the  MSDF 
implementation and specific issues related to the biodiversity descriptors. Good practices 
and standardised or harmonised methods across the MSs were sought from the compiled 
reporting information. Moreover, technical monitoring gaps and reporting methodological 
deficiencies were identified. 

The  analysis  followed  two  different  approaches  (Figure  1).  The  first  one  entailed  three 
different dimensions: 

a)  to identify good practices and lessons learnt for the monitoring process, to support 

the MS’s preparation for the coming obligations by 2020; 

b)  to  identify  good  practices,  in  terms  of  monitoring  approaches  at  regional  or 
ecosystem-component level, that could be applied to other regions or other species 
and habitat groups; 

c)  to consult on consistency and compliance with the MSFD requirements, aiming to 

improve the implementation in the second cycle. 

The second approach referred to the perspectives applied in the analysis: 

a)  the MSs’ perspective, aiming to enhance potential joint monitoring efforts and adopt 

good practices from neighbouring states; 

7 

b)  the regional perspective, aiming to harmonise monitoring programmes, especially 

for highly mobile species with distributions beyond national waters; 

c)  the European Commission’s perspective, aiming to identify gaps and drawbacks in 
the implementation, to facilitate the prioritisation of efforts in the preparation of the 
second MSFD cycle. 

Figure 1. The two approaches followed to analyse the information reported for MSFD monitoring; 
each axis provides a unique perspective. 

8 

 
 
3. Results 

The results follow the structure of the questions in the reporting sheet in the MSFD art. 11 
guidance (European Commission, 2014a). The first part of the results refers to the general 
characteristics  of  the  monitoring  programmes,  the  second  refers  to  the  individual 
monitoring programmes and the third one is dedicated to the characteristics of the reported 
sub-programmes.  Each  question  in  the  reporting  sheet  and  the  associated  guidance  is 
assessed  based  on  MSs’  reports.  Suggestions  for  improvement  are  provided  after  each 
assessment. 

A key issue in the reporting sheet is the definition of ‘programme’ and ‘sub-programme’. 
A  common  understanding  of  these  definitions  is  a  prerequisite  for  consistent  reporting 
across the MSs. Moreover, different understandings affect the level of  detail reported  in 
each section of the reporting sheet. The following definitions should be considered. 

a)  The programmes are organised around the GES descriptors, reflecting the different 

aspects of GES for which the monitoring needs to provide data. 

b)  The  sub-programmes  are  organised  around  the  technical  characteristics  of 
monitoring, reflecting different data types and ways of collecting these data. More 
than one sub-programme can be allocated to each monitoring programme. 

3.1. 

General description of the monitoring programmes 

(Questions 1-4 of the Reporting sheet) 

According to the European Commission (2014a, p. 14), the purpose of the general section 
of the reporting sheet is to: 

a)  Ask general questions that do not relate to a specific monitoring programme, such 
as  the  overall  adequacy  of  the  monitoring  programmes  for  assessing  progress 
towards GES and achievement of the targets, and to describe how the monitoring 
programmes will be able to identify new and emerging issues. 

b)  Identify any gaps in coverage of the monitoring programmes and explain how and 

when these will be addressed. 

Question 1: Overall adequacy of the programmes 

No  Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

1a 

Overall 
adequacy 

Yes/No 

Do  the  monitoring  programmes  as 
a  whole  constitute  an  appropriate 
framework 
the 
meet 
requirements of the MSFD? 

to 

If  not,  please 
questions on gaps below. 

complete 

the 

1b 

Gaps:  GES 
descriptors 
and 
(art. 9) 

criteria 

Which  GES  descriptors  and  criteria 
relevant for your marine waters (as 
included  in  your  MS  report for  art. 
9)  are  not  yet  adequately  covered 
by your Monitoring Programmes? 

For each Descriptor and Criterion indicate one of 
the following: 

a.  It  is  adequately  covered  in  your  2014 

monitoring programmes; 

b.  It will be addressed: 

  In time for the next assessment due in 2018 

  In  time  for  the  updating  of  monitoring 

programmes due on 2020 

  Later than 2020 

c. 

It is not relevant. 

Evaluation. The reported overall adequacy is characterised by subjectivity and variance 
in the way the MSs have conceived it. The subjectivity was obvious when the coverage of 

9 

the monitoring programmes and subprogrammes analysed across the MS and the replies 
were  not  comparable.  The  gaps  in  GES  descriptors  and  criteria  constitute  very  handy 
information about the fields that require more effort in terms of monitoring. However, as 
the in-depth assessment of the 2012 reporting (Palialexis et al., 2014) indicated, the GES 
determination was not consistently reported (different levels of determination - indicators, 
versus criteria versus descriptors;  quantitative versus qualitative), and the direct link of 
the  monitoring  reporting  with  art.  8,  9  and  10  does  not  allow  for  a  wide  regional 
comparison. 

Suggestion for improvement. The harmonisation of GES determination can improve the 
comparability and use of the reported information. The date when GES will be adequately 
covered  for  each  descriptor  and  criterion  is  important  information,  which  should  be  re-
assessed in the updates of the monitoring programmes to indicate the progress in the gap 
filling. 

Box 1. The new GES Decision (2017/848/EU) 

Beyond the harmonisation of the GES determination, it is essential to consider that the updates of 
the monitoring programmes due in 2020 will be based on the new Decision (European Commission, 
2017a), which will jeopardise direct comparison with 2014 reporting and evaluation of the progress 
during the first MSFD cycle. 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

1c 

Gaps: 
targets 
(art. 10) 

Which  targets  and  associated 
indicators for your marine waters 
(as  included  in  your  Member 
State  report  for  art. 10)  are not 
yet  adequately  covered  by  your 
Monitoring Programmes? 

For each target, indicate one of the following: 

a. It is adequately covered in your 2014 monitoring 

programmes 

b. It will be addressed: 

  In time for the next assessment due in 2018 

  In time for the updating of monitoring 

programmes due in 2020 

  Later than 2020 

c.  It is not relevant 

1d 

Gaps: 
Annex 
elements 
(art 8) 

III 

from  MSFD 
Which  elements 
Annex  III  relevant 
for  your 
marine  waters  (as  reported  in 
your  Member  State  report  for 
art. 8)  are  not  yet  adequately 
covered  by  your  Monitoring 
Programmes? 

For each Annex III element indicate one of the 
following: 

a. It is adequately covered in your 2014 monitoring 

programmes 

b. It will be addressed: 

  In time for the next assessment due in 2018 

  In time for the updating of monitoring 

programmes due in 2020 

  Later than 2020 

c.  It is not relevant 

Evaluation. Questions 1c and 1d are analogous to Question 1b for GES, but they refer to 
targets (art. 10 of the MSFD) and MSFD Annex III elements, respectively. The monitoring 
programmes  are  not  directly  comparable,  because  of  the  inconsistencies  in  the  way  the 
targets were conceived and reported by the MSs in 2012. 

Suggestion for improvement. Once again, the harmonisation of the target setting, at 
least regionally, will improve the evaluation and comparability of the updated monitoring 
programmes.  The  new  revised  MSFD  Annex III  should  be  considered  and,  if  possible, 
embedded in the reporting, e.g. as a drop-down menu, to enhance the comparability of 
the monitoring programmes and the consistency of the reporting. 

10 

 
No 

Topic 

Question 

1e 

Gaps  and 
plans 

Explain the gaps and describe your plans to complete coverage. 

for  not 

justification 

including  specific  GES  criteria, 
Provide 
environmental  targets  and  Annex  III  characteristics 
in  your 
monitoring programmes which you have reported under art. 8, 9 and 
10 as being relevant to your Member State waters (e.g. based on risk 
assessment) 

Summary 
information 

Free text 
description or URL 
link or section in 
paper report 

Evaluation. This question is crucial to identify and prioritise the gaps in the adequacy of 
the programmes. However, many MSs did not answer. When gaps and plans were reported, 
no  details  were  provided,  but  references  to  the  paper  reports  or  other  documents, 
preventing a regional or sub-regional overview of gaps and plans. 

Suggestion for improvement. Although we acknowledge the importance of the detailed 
information on gaps, it would be more useful to insert an intermediate step, whereby the 
gaps can be grouped spatially (for each MS and region/sub-region) in several predefined 
categories (e.g. gaps at the level of descriptor, criterion, elements or method). 

Question 2: Public consultation 

The  public  consultation  questions  were  not  evaluated,  because  they  are  more  of 
administrative than technical interest. This information can be archived for the updates of 
the monitoring programmes due in 2020. 

Question 3: Other information 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

3a 

Regional 
cooperation 

your 

regional 

Where can additional information be found 
on 
on 
monitoring  programmes  (if  information  is 
additional  to  that  already  provided  under 
art. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10)? 

cooperation 

Provide URL web link or section in paper 
report. 

Describe  issues  on  cooperation  that  have 
not been reported before (under art. 7 or 
art. 8,  9  and  10),  such  as  consistency  in 
methodology. 

Evaluation. The reported information for Question 3a is useful with reference to regional 
sea conventions (RSCs); however, similar information is reported at the level of monitoring 
programmes  or  sub-programmes,  where  it  is  more  relevant  to  assign  RSC  activities  to 
existing monitoring schemes. This information is essential to build an overview in light of 
potential regional collaborations. 

Suggestion  for  improvement.  To  avoid  potential  duplications  in  the  reporting  it  is 
suggested to limit the regional cooperation information at the level of sub-programmes. 
Then this information can be automatically aggregated to the higher levels. 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

3b 

Transboundary 
impacts and features 

Where can additional information be found on your 
consideration  of 
impacts  and 
features in monitoring programmes (art. 11.2b)? 

transboundary 

Provide  URL  web  link  or 
section in paper report 

11 

 
 
 
3c 

Major environmental 
changes 
and 
emerging issues 

Where can additional information be found on  the 
ability  of  the  monitoring  programmes  to  identify 
major  changes  in  the  environment  (Annex  V.11) 
and on the ability of the monitoring programmes to 
identify new and emerging issues (Annex V.11)? 

Provide  URL  web  link  or 
section in paper report 

Evaluation. The transboundary impacts and features were not consistently conceived by 
the MSs, which reported them in the following ways, among others: 

a)  references to RSCs; 

b)  references to their paper reports; 

c)  no specific information on impacts and features, but general references; 

d)  not reported at all. 

There  was  no  consistent  reporting  regarding  the  major  environmental  changes  and 
emerging issues, including mostly references to RSCs and to the paper reports. The major 
environmental changes and emerging issues reported were also inconsistent, showing once 
again the different perspectives of the MSs (partially reflecting the differences between the 
four regional seas of Europe in terms of pressures and priorities). 

Suggestion for improvement. Both topics in 3a and 3b are very important, identifying 
needs for potential regional actions and driving the focus on specific regional/sub-regional 
environmental  changes  and  issues.  Moreover,  this  knowledge  constitutes  a  suitable 
reference,  against  which  the  existing  monitoring  programmes  can  be  evaluated.  The 
transboundary  impacts  and  features  are  essential  to  achieve  GES  at  regional  level; 
however,  this  perspective  and  information  should  be  generated  through  regional 
cooperation (significant progress has already been done through the RSCs). More guidance 
is required to indicate potential transboundary impacts on each region or sub-region and 
to determine the major environmental changes that should be considered for the updating 
of the monitoring programmes. 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

3d 

of 

Source 
contaminants 
in seafood 

Where  can  additional  information  be  found  on  chemical 
contaminants  in  species  for  human  consumption  linked  to 
commercial fishing areas (Annex V.5)? 

Provide  URL  web  link 
or  section  in  paper 
report  or  reference 
sub-
the 
relevant 
for 
programme 
Descriptor 9 

3e 

Access and use 
rights 

Where can additional information be found on how you intend 
to  provide  access  and  use  rights  in  respect  of  data  and 
information from the monitoring programmes (article 19 (3)), 
including: 

Provide  URL  web  link 
or  section  in  paper 
report 

— the type of data 

— method/mechanism used to make it available 

— use rights for EC [European Commission]/EEA 

— INSPIRE (DIR 2007/2/EC)standards used 

— when the data will first be available 

— frequency of update of the data. 

Evaluation. Regarding the sources of contaminants in the seafood, there are references 
to reports, to national links or to the RSCs. Overall, the reported information is not readily 
accessible for immediate analysis. 

12 

 
Not all MSs reported the access and use rights, and those that provided information did so 
in a general manner without linking access and rights to particular data. 

Suggestion  for  improvement.  Question  3d  should  be  omitted,  as  this  information  is 
reported at the sub-programme level. 

Question 3e on the access and use rights, which is relevant to article 19(3) of the MSFD, 
is already reported at the sub-regional level, where it is more relevant and detailed. It can 
be omitted from the general questions. 

Question 4: Competent authorities 

The question on the competent authorities should be directly linked with the MSFD article 7 
reporting,  from  which  this  information  can  be  extracted  and  maintained  for  the  coming 
reporting obligations. 

3.2. 

Reporting on monitoring programmes 

(Questions 4-8 of Reporting sheet) 

According  to  the  European  Commission  (2014a),  the  reporting  at  the  level  of  the 
monitoring  programmes  is  organised  based  on  the  GES  Descriptors.  Exceptionally,  the 
biodiversity Descriptors (D1, 4 and 6) are grouped according to the main species groups 
and habitat types. The following monitoring programmes are to be reported: 

Descriptor  MSFD Monitoring Programme 

D1, 4 

D1, 4 

D1, 4 

D1, 4 

Biodiversity — birds 

Biodiversity — mammals and reptiles 

Biodiversity — fish and cephalopods (2) 

Biodiversity — water column habitats 

D1, 4, 6 

Biodiversity — seabed habitats (3) 

D2 

D3 

D5 

D7 

D8 

D9 

D10 

D11 

Non-indigenous species 

Commercial fish and shellfish 

Eutrophication 

Hydrographical changes 

Contaminants 

Contaminants in seafood 

Litter 

Energy, including underwater noise 

According to the European Commission (2014a, p. 20) the purpose of this section of the 
reporting sheet is to: 

a.  Ask questions that are specific to each programme, but apply generally to  all its 

sub-programmes; 

b.  This includes aspects on the adequacy of the programme for assessment against 
GES  and  progress  with  targets,  (optional)  links  to  (existing)  measures  and  to 
existing monitoring programmes for other policies. 

The  information  collected  in  this  section  of  the  reporting  sheet  aims  to  describe  the 
individual  monitoring  programmes  in  a  more  detailed  and  systematic  manner  than  the 
general  questions,  with  the  intention  that  all  questions  are  typically  relevant  to  each 
programme. For each monitoring programme there are fields for a general description and 
metadata. 

(2)  Refers to pelagic cephalopods. 
(3) 

Including seafloor integrity. 

13 

                                           
The  main  purpose  of  the  monitoring  programmes  is  to  provide  data  to  enable  an 
assessment  of  environmental  status  in  relation  to  the  GES  standard  and  to  enable 
assessment of progress on the environmental targets set to achieve GES. Each monitoring 
programme is therefore assigned to a GES descriptor (or several for biodiversity topics), 
and  potentially  to  specific  criteria  and/or  GES  characteristics  (indicators).  It  is  also 
necessary to link the monitoring programme to the features (e.g. species, habitats) and/or 
pressures to which it is relevant. Lastly, many programmes will also aim to provide data in 
relation to particular environmental targets, and this linkage should be indicated. 

Question 4: About the programme 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

4d 

Programme name 

Give  name  of  monitoring 
programme 

Select one from List: Monitoring programmes 

4e 

Programme ID 

Provide a unique identifier 
for programme 

Use  sub(region)  and  MS  code  (e.g.  BALDE)  plus  MS-
defined alpha-numeric code (e.g. MADIT-D08) 

Evaluation.  Not  all  MSs  strictly  followed  the  guidance  to  name  their  monitoring 
programmes,  causing  problems  in  the  analysis  and  the  grouping  of  the  monitoring 
programmes at regional and sub-regional levels. 

Suggestion for improvement. The options for Question 4d can be organised in a drop-
down menu to facilitate the reporting and ensure consistency. The programme ID can be 
automatically assigned by selecting region or sub-region, country name and programme 
from drop-down menus. Such actions will ensure consistency in the reported information. 

Box 2. Electronic versus paper reports 

A general remark on the assessment of the monitoring reports is that those MSs that did not provide 
an electronic report deviated the most from the guidelines on the organisation and reporting of their 
monitoring programmes. 

No  Topic 

Question 

Summary 
information 

Additional guidance 

4f   Programme 
description 

Describe 
overall 
the 
approach  of  the  monitoring 
programme, including: 

for  your 
·  The  rationale 
balance  between  monitoring 
of  state/impact,  pressures, 
activities and measures? 

·  How  it  adapts  to  new  and 
environmental 
emerging 
problems 
(pressures  and 
impacts)  in  relation  to  the 
relevant Descriptor(s). 

Include references/web-links 
where possible. 

text 
Free 
or 
description 
URL 
or 
link 
section  in  paper 
report 

The  description  of  the  approach  to  the 
indicate 
monitoring  programme  should 
which  parts  of 
[drivers, 
the  DPSIR 
pressures,  state,  impact  and  response] 
model  are  being  addressed,  and  any 
reasoning for not addressing all parts. More 
information on the DPSIR model is available 
here.  It  is  not  intended  that  responses 
should be lengthy, but rather that the issues 
raised have been considered. 

Care  should  be  taken  not  to  repeat 
information  that  is  required  later  under 
other  questions  about 
the  monitoring 
programme or at the sub-programme level. 

Evaluation. The description of the monitoring programmes was, in most cases, lengthy 
and  not  always  very  informative,  revealing  the  efforts  of  MSs  to  adapt  their  existing 
programmes to the MSFD concepts and structure. In other cases, the MSs provided web 
links to their paper reports or other national monitoring documents. 

14 

 
 
Suggestion for improvement. This entry provides interesting information; however, in 
the way it is reported it is impossible to extract and analyse it. Box 3 includes two general 
remarks in relation to this question. 

Box 3. Free text and selecting the proper level for reporting 

When free text is required, it should have word limits. Moreover, URLs can be useful as references 
or to avoid copying information from developed and agreed documents but are inappropriate for this 
kind of analysis. On the other hand, it is essential to have the monitoring programme’s description 
well organised, considering the importance of the knowledge in relation to: 

— the balance between monitoring of state/impact, pressures, activities and measures, 

— the basic MSFD concepts, such as the DPSIR. 

An option to better organise this reporting field is to split the question into well-defined subquestions 
at a lower level, including the details described in the guidance on the question. 

Each  monitoring  programme  includes  a  different  set  of  subprograms  covering  a  mixture  of 
state/impact, pressures, activities and measures  for each  descriptor. Therefore,  it  would  be  more 
efficient if this information  were  reported  at the  subprogramme  level  and  then aggregated to the 
monitoring  programme  level.  This  remark  can  be  generalised  to  many  questions  covering  the 
monitoring programmes. 

Question 5: Links to Articles 8 and 9 (GES and its assessment) 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information Additional guidance 

5a 

Relevant 
GES criteria 

Which  GES  criteria 
are addressed by the 
monitoring 
programme? 

Select  all  relevant  from 
list in Decision 

5b 

Relevant 
GES 
characteristi
cs 
[indicators] 

Which 
characteristics 
(indicators) 
addressed  by 
programme? 

are 
the 

GES 

Select  all  relevant  from 
list in Decision. 

Select  all  relevant  from 
those  defined  by  your 
art. 9 report 

Q5b  should  reflect  what  was  reported  under 
art. 9,  but  the  monitoring  programmes  may 
include additional indicators (e.g. from more 
recent  work  in  Regional  Sea  Conventions) 
which  will  be  used 
future  (2018) 
assessments,  as  well  as  indicators  which 
provide  supplementary  information  (e.g.  on 
salinity  and  sea  temperature)  to  support 
assessments. 

in 

Evaluation. Some monitoring programmes were not linked with criteria and indicators. In 
some cases, the reported criteria correspond to the wrong indicators. In other cases, the 
criteria and indicators are not assigned to each monitoring programme but are reported in 
a general manner or with different descriptions, not allowing easy quantification. 

Suggestion  for  improvement.  Prefilled  drop-down  menus  for  criteria,  in  line  with  the 
new  Commission  decision  (European  Commission,  2017a)  would  improve  completeness 
and consistency in reporting. Linking the monitoring programmes with articles 8, 9 and 10 
of the MSFD is essential to guarantee a smooth implementation across the three reporting 
obligations.  This  way,  all  elements  and  assessments,  as  well  as  the  gaps,  will  be  well 
reflected in the monitoring programmes. 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary 
information 

Additional guidance 

15 

 
 
 
5c 

Relevant 
features, 
pressures  and 
impacts 
from 
MSFD Annex III 

elements 

of 
Which 
Annex  III  (ecosystem 
components, 
pressures/impacts)  are 
addressed 
the 
programme? 

by 

Select  all 
features 
pressures 
Lists: 

relevant 
and 
the 

from 

The  categories  provided  under  Q5c  are 
broad  (as  per  the  term  lists  for  2012 
reporting),  e.g.  synthetic/non-synthetic 
substances.  The  specific  elements  being 
monitoring  within  these broad  categories 
should be reported under Q9a. 

The  functional  group  categories  should 
only be used for birds, mammals, reptiles, 
fish  and  pelagic  cephalopods.  Benthic 
invertebrates and macrophytes are part of 
the  seabed  habitats.  Pelagic  phyto-  and 
zooplankton are part of the water column 
habitats.  Use 
‘reduced  salinity’ 
category for water column habitats in the 
Baltic and Black Seas. 

the 

-  Functional groups 

-  Predominant 
habitats 

-  Physico-chemical 

features 

-  Pressures  

Evaluation. Lack of harmonisation in the reported elements — either too general groups 
or too detailed lists of species — makes the data difficult to process. In several cases this 
field contains information irrelevant to the question’s requirements. 

Suggestion for improvement. A detailed list of species, habitats and the revised MSFD 
Annex III elements should be assigned to each monitoring programme, using drop-down 
menus.  This  information  could  also  be  derived  from  the  aggregation  of  the  information 
reported at the subprogramme level. 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary 
information 

Additional guidance 

5d 

Adequacy: 
assessment 
GES (art. 8 & 9) 

for 
of 

Will  the  programme 
provide 
adequate 
data  to  enable  the 
periodic  assessment 
of 
environmental 
status,  and  distance 
from  and  progress 
towards 
GES, 
including  whether 
environmental 
status  is  improving, 
stable 
or 
deteriorating? 

Adequate data: Yes or 
no? 

‘Data  and  information’  refers  to  the 
information  needed  to  assess  whether 
GES  has  been  achieved  and  if  not,  the 
distance to GES. 

Established  methods 
for assessment: 

Yes or no? 

If the answer is ‘no’ to one or more of the 
questions  within  Q5d,  it  suggests  there 
are  some  gaps  in  the  programme;  some 
explanation of how the inadequacy will be 
addressed should be given in Question 5h. 

If not, then complete 
Q5h.  

Adequate 
understanding of GES: 
Yes or no? 

‘Capacity’  in  this  question  refers  to  the 
necessary  expertise  and  resources  being 
available to perform assessments. 

Adequate  capacity  to 
perform  assessments: 
Yes or no? 

Evaluation. This question was well addressed by the MSs and it can be easily quantified. 
However, when the information is integrated at regional level and compared with the more 
detailed information reported at the subprogramme level, it becomes obvious that the four 
categories  (adequate  data,  established  methods,  adequate  understanding  of  GES  and 
capacity) are differently conceived and measured by the MSs. This information is essential 
to  show  commonalities  across  the  MSs  and  gives  an  alternative  perspective  on  gaps, 
developed methods and concepts in the GES determination. 

Suggestion for improvement. GES determination needs to be further harmonised both 
conceptually and methodologically. The ongoing work on the harmonisation of the methods 

16 

 
  
to set thresholds for several descriptors will facilitate the reporting of this field. The MSs 
followed  the  sequence  of  the  summary  information  column;  however,  to  refine  the 
monitoring reporting guidance we would suggest the logic described in the decision tree in 
Figure 2. 

Figure 2. Decision tree to support the structure for reporting regarding adequacy for GES assessment.  

No 

5e 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

Natural 
variability 

How does the programme 
address 
natural 
variability? 

Select all relevant from List: Monitoring natural variability 

Evaluation. Most of the MSs reported consistently on natural variability. The information 
is easily quantified and presented at different spatial scales. 

Suggestion  for  improvement.  The  added  value  of  this  question  at  the  level  of  the 
monitoring  programme  is  questionable.  Moreover,  the  natural  variability  in  the 
subprogrammes can be aggregated at the programme level and include more than one of 
the given options on the list. 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary 
information 

Additional guidance 

5f  

Description_GES 

Describe 
programme: 

how 

the 

Free  text  or  URL 
or 
web 
section  in  paper 
report 

link 

The  determination  of  whether  a 
descriptor is at GES or not is one of 
the  main  purposes  of  establishing 
monitoring  programmes  under  the 
MSFD;  this  question  should  be 
answered so that it can be seen how 
the  monitoring  programme  will 
contribute  to  determining  GES.  If 
GES  has  not  been  achieved, then  it 
should  be  possible  to  establish  the 
distance from GES. 

a. addresses assessment 
needs for the relevant 
Descriptor(s) and targets; 

b. meets the needs of 
providing data/information 
to support assessment of the 
Descriptor (or particular 
biodiversity component 
programme for D1, 4, 6); 

c. contributes to determining 
distance from GES and 
trends in status; 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
d. addresses natural and 
climatic variability and 
distinguish this from the 
effects of anthropogenic 
pressures; 

e. responds to risks of not 
achieving GES. 

Evaluation. This is a  key question for MSFD implementation, covering many aspects  of 
GES. The MSs provided free text with URL web links, which did not allow quantification, 
evaluation and grouping of the reported information. The level of detail and the way each 
of the subquestions was reported were highly varied. 

Suggestion  for  improvement.  The  work  on  the  harmonisation  of  the  methods  to  set 
thresholds for GES can harmonise the input for this field. Once again, word limits should 
be  applied.  The  structure  of  the  question  and  subquestions  should  be  reconsidered,  to 
facilitate  the  extraction  of  the  appropriate  information  for  evaluation  and  comparison 
purposes.  

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

5g 

Gap-filling 
date_GES 

considered 
yet 
If 
not 
adequate 
and 
data 
for 
information  needs,  when  will 
the programme be considered 
fully adequate? 

Select one: 

a. Considered adequate in 2014 

b. In time for the next assessment due in 2018; 

c.  In  time  for  the  updating  of  monitoring  programmes 
due in 2020; 

d. Later than 2020 

5h 

Plans_GES 

If  the  programme 
is  not 
fully  adequate, 
considered 
what  plans  are  in  place  to 
make  it  adequate  (e.g.  to  fill 
gaps 
in  data,  methods, 
understanding or capacity)? 

Free text or URL web link or section in paper report 

Evaluation.  The  gap-filling  date  for  GES  comes  from  the  predefined  list  and  is  easy  to 
quantify.  However,  GES  refers  to  different  sets  of  criteria,  indicators  and  elements, 
depending  on  what  each  MS  has  included  in  each  monitoring  programme.  Varying 
information  was  reported  for  the  MSs’  plans  to  fully  cover  GES  when  their  monitoring 
programmes did not yet cover GES. Many MSs did not report anything in answer to this 
question. 

Suggestion  for  improvement.  Once  again,  the  work  on  the  harmonisation  of  the 
methods to set thresholds for GES can be useful to harmonise the input for this entry. 

Question 6: Links to Article 10 targets 

No  Topic 

Question 

Summary information  Additional guidance 

6a 

Relevant 
targets  (from 
art. 10) 

Which target(s) are 
addressed by your 
programme? 

Select all relevant target(s) 
(from  the  MS  report  on 
art. 10) 

The  list  of  targets  provided  is  as 
reported by the MS in 2012. 

18 

 
 
6b 

Adequacy:  for 
assessment  of 
progress  with 
targets 
(art. 10) 

Will the programme provide 
suitable and sufficient data 
and  information  to  enable 
assessment  of  progress 
towards achievement of the 
environmental 
relevant 
targets  (using 
indicators 
identified  by  the  Member 
State under art. 10) 

Suitable and sufficient data: 

Yes or No? 

‘Suitable  and  sufficient  data  and 
information’ 
the 
refers 
information  needed 
to  assess 
whether  the  targets  are  being 
achieved. 

to 

Established  methods 
assessment: Yes or No? 

for 

capacity 

Adequate 
to 
perform  assessments:  Yes 
or No? 

If the answer is ‘no’ to one or more 
of  the  questions  within  Q6b,  it 
suggests  there  are  some  gaps  in 
the programme; some explanation 
of  how  the  inadequacy  will  be 
addressed  should  be  provided  in 
Q6f. 

Evaluation. This question refers to the targets reported in 2012. Since the targets were 
reported using the 2012 labelling, it was challenging to immediately identify the monitoring 
programmes  with  the  associated  targets  for  each  monitoring  programme  and  evaluate 
them. The adequacy for assessing progress towards the targets was easy to quantify, like 
the GES adequacy. 

Suggestion for improvement. The comments made about GES (Article 9 of the MSFD) 
reporting  and  its  link  with  the  monitoring  programmes  are  also  valid  for  the  targets 
(Article 10). Acknowledging the inconsistency in the target setting for Article 10 in the 2012 
reporting  (Palialexis  et  al.,  2014;  European  Commission,  2014b)  this  entry  is  not  very 
reliable  for  comparisons  and  evaluation.  However,  the  progress  made  in  the  common 
understanding of the targets during the first cycle of MSFD implementation will improve 
the consistency in the updates for 2020. Once again, the new Commission decision should 
be considered in the guidelines for monitoring, but also in the structure of criteria in relation 
to the targets. 

No  Topic 

Question 

Summary 
information 

Additional guidance 

6c 

Target updating 

Will  the  data  and 
information  collected 
enable  the  regular 
updating of targets?  

Yes or No? 

6d  Description_Targets 

how 

Explain 
programme 
contribute 
assessment 
progress with targets. 

the 
will 
the 
of 

to 

Free  text  or  URL 
web link or section 
in paper report 

of 

linking 

The 
monitoring 
programmes to targets, and showing 
how 
the 
assessment  of  progress  with  the 
targets is one of the main purposes of 
the monitoring programmes. 

contribute 

they 

to 

Evaluation. Question 6c was easy to quantify. Question 6d entailed a direct link to targets, 
causing similar issues to those mentioned in 6a regarding the inconsistency of the targets 
reported in 2012. 

Suggestion  for  improvement.  Same  suggestions  as  made  for  the  previous  questions 
(6a, 6b). 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

6e 

Gap-filling 
date_Targets 

If  not yet  considered  adequate  for 
data  and  information  needs,  when 
will  the  programme  be  considered 
fully adequate? 

6f  

Plans_Targets 

If the programme is not considered 
fully  adequate,  what  plans  are  in 
place to make it adequate (e.g. to 
in  data,  methods  or 
fill  gaps 
capacity)? 

Select one: 

a. Considered adequate in 2014 

b. In time for the next assessment due in 2018; 

c.  In  time  for  the  updating  of  monitoring 
programmes due in 2020; 

d. Later than 2020 

Free  text  or  URL  web  link  or  section  in  paper 
report 

Evaluation.  Question  6e  was  easy  to  quantify,  like  GES  adequacy.  The  reported 
information for Question 6f was useful, but impossible to assess and quantify in the way it 
was reported as free text or URL web link. 

Suggestion for improvement. Same suggestions as made for Questions 6a and 6b. In 
addition, the comments made about questions requiring free text or URL web links are also 
valid for this one. 

Question 7: Links to Article 13 measures  

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

7a 

7b 

Relevant 
activities 
(from 
Art. 8.1c) 

Description_
Activities 

Which 
programme address? 

activities  will 

the 

List of relevant activities to be monitored (select from 
List: Activities from Art. 8.1c reports) 

Free text or URL web link or section in paper report 

Describe  the  nature  of  activity 
and/or pressure monitoring (e.g. 
addressing  spatial  distribution, 
intensity and/or frequency of the 
activity) and how the programme 
is considered adequate to assess 
which activities and/or pressures 
are 
environmental 
change (degradation) and hence 
help 
identify  possible  new 
measures, if needed. 

causing 

Evaluation. For Question 7 an indicative list of the reported information is in Table 1. The 
list  of  possible  activities  to  be  reported  in  the  guidance  document  greatly  facilitated 
consistency in the reporting. For the description of the activities, the input varied, making 
it difficult to assess and quantify the reported information. 

Suggestion  for  improvement.  The  activities  can  be  easily  grouped  and  consistently 
reported with the use of a drop-down menu. The comments about the questions requiring 
free text or URL web links are also valid for the description of the activities. At this reporting 
phase, this entry was optional, and therefore not very informative or complete, since the 
programme of measures under Article 13 of the MSFD was not yet reported. However, we 
expect  that  in  the  coming  updates  of  the  MSFD  reporting  this  question  will  be  very 
indicative of the progress of the implementation and for the accuracy of the links between 
the three MSFD reporting obligations per cycle. 

20 

 
 
Table 1. Indicative list of activities reported in 2012 for Article 8(1)(c) 

AgricultForestry 
Anchorage area and places of refuge 
Aquaculture 
BeachNourishment 
Biofuels: Ecosystem services 
CablesPipelines 
Carbon Sequestration: Ecosystem services 
Coastal erosion 
Coast Degradation 
Cultural/Spiritual Well-Being: Ecosystem services 
Defence 
Desalination 
Dredging 
DumpingMunitions 
EnvironmentForTourismAndRecreation(C1, C2) 
Eutrophication 
Extraction of non-living resources — other (sea salt extraction) 
Fertiliser/Feed: Ecosystem services 
Fisheries 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information Additional guidance 

7c 

Relevant 
measures 

Optional:  Which 
existing  measures 
will 
the 
programme 
address? 

relevant 
List  existing 
measures 
the 
monitoring  programme 
addresses 

that 

As measures under MSFD Article 13 are to be 
defined  for  the  first  time  by  2015,  any 
existing measures reported here are without 
prejudice to Member State decisions on what 
is  relevant 
for  MSFD  under  Article 13. 
However,  where  monitoring  of  existing 
measures  is  already  in  place  and  these 
measures  are  expected  to  be  included  as 
can 
MSFD  measures 
(optionally) be identified here. 

in  2016, 

they 

In  subsequent  reporting  rounds  (i.e.  2020 
update on monitoring programmes), links to 
MSFD  measures  reported  in  2016  can  be 
made. 

Evaluation. The reported information was varied and was difficult to assess and quantify. 

Suggestion for improvement. Same suggestion as above (7a, 7b). 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

7d 

Description_Measures Optional: Describe the nature of monitoring of 
measures  and  how  the  programme  enables 
their  effectiveness  (impact)  in  relation  to 
delivering  desired  changes  in  environmental 
status to be assessed (e.g. what processes are 
in  place  to  prove  corrective  measures  are 
having  the  desired  effect,  and  how 
is 
uncertainty quantified)? 

Free text or URL web link or section 
in paper report 

21 

 
 
7e 

Adequacy for 
assessment of 
measures (Art. 13) 

the  programme  provide 
Optional:  Will 
adequate  data  and  information  to  enable  the 
identification  of  activities  and/or 
their 
pressures  that  are  causing  environmental 
degradation 
suitable 
measures  if  needed)  and  the  effectiveness  of 
existing measures? 

consequently 

(and 

Adequate data: Yes or no? 

Established methods for 
assessment: Yes or no? 

Adequate understanding of GES: 
Yes or no? 

Adequate capacity to perform 
assessments: Yes or no? 

Addresses activities/pressures: Yes 
or no? 

Addresses effectiveness of 
measures: Yes or no? 

Evaluation. Neither question was addressed by most of the MSs. Since they were optional, 
and given the lack of information on the measures available by the reporting time, these 
questions were unlikely to be answered in the first MSFD cycle. 

Suggestion for improvement. Same suggestion as those made for Questions 7a and 7b. 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary 
information 

Additional guidance 

7f  

Gap-filling 
date_Activitie
s_Measures 

If  not  yet  considered 
adequate  for  data  and 
needs, 
information 
the 
when 
be 
programme 
considered 
fully 
adequate? 

will 

Select one: 

a. 
adequate in 2014; 

Considered 

b. In time for the next 
assessment  due 
in 
2018; 

The ‘data and information needs’ are what 
the Member State considers necessary to 
meet  the  objectives  of  the  monitoring 
programme  (i.e.  here  in  relation  to 
assessing the effectiveness of measures). 

c.  In  time  for  the 
updating 
of 
monitoring 
programmes  due 
2020; 

in 

d. Later than 2020. 

Evaluation. Not all MSs have reported; however, the reported information can be easily 
quantified. The available information does not allow an adequate overview across regions 
or sub-regions regarding the date of the assessment of the effectiveness of the measures. 

Question 8: Links to existing monitoring 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary 
information 

Additional guidance 

8a 

to 

Links 
existing 
monitoring 
programme
s 

Which  existing  monitoring 
programmes 
already 
established under Community 
international 
legislation  or 
agreements contribute to and 
are  compatible  with  your 
MSFD programme? 

Select  the  relevant 
from 
instrument 
List: 
Monitoring 
other 
Directives/Conventi
ons 

is 

or 

relevant 

These are existing programmes for EU 
international 
policies 
for 
conventions.  This  question 
to 
provide a high-level link only to these 
other 
monitoring 
programmes.  As  each  policy  may 
encompass  a  number  of  different 
monitoring 
specific 
details  on  which  of  these  is  being 
included  in  the  MSFD  programmes 
should be captured at sub-programme 
level under Q4l. 

programmes, 

Note:  specific  details  are 
captured  at  sub-programme 
level — question 4m) 

22 

 
 
Evaluation. Most of the MSs followed the guidelines. The quantification of this information 
is  easy  and  informative  (see  Figure  3),  allowing  direct  comparisons  and  indicating 
opportunities for harmonisation. 

Mediterranean Sea

WFD

UWWTD

UNEP/MAP

TWSC

RAMSAR

OSPAR

Natura 2000

HELCOM

HD

CFP-DC-MAP

CBD

BWD

BuchCon

BSC

BD

BarCon

ASCOBANS/ACCOBAMS

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Birds

Fish and cephalopods

Marine mammals and reptiles

Seabed habitats

Water column habitats

Figure 3. Quantification of the Mediterranean MSs’ references to existing monitoring programmes 
for the Descriptor 1 species groups. The abbreviations of the Directives and Conventions comes 
from the ‘List: Monitoring other Directives/Conventions’ of the European Commission (2014a). 

3.3. 

Reporting on subprogrammes 

(Questions 4, 9 and 10 of Reporting sheet) 

According  to  the  European  Commission  (2014a),  the  purpose  of  this  section  of  the 
reporting sheet was to: 

a.  Ask questions that are specific to each sub-programme; 

b.  This will typically address the specific aspect or features being addressed and the 

methods, spatial resolution and temporal periodicity of the monitoring. 

Some basic characteristics of the subprogrammes are: 

a)  multiple subprogrammes  can be associated with  a single monitoring programme, 
indicating, for example, different frequencies of sampling and methodologies; 
b)  subprogrammes  need  to  cross-reference  multiple  monitoring  programmes,  when 
their  monitoring  surveys  collect  data  of  relevance  to  several  descriptors  (e.g. 
plankton monitoring for use in D1, D4 and D5) for any step of the implementation 
(e.g. targets, GES or activities and measures); 

23 

 
 
c)  the  reporting  on  the  monitoring  subprogrammes  focuses  on  the  actual  data  and 
information collected and is organised by similarity of purpose, elements monitored, 
data type and methodology. 

The  structure  of  the  reporting  of  the  subprogrammes  for  biodiversity,  shown  in  Table  2 
consists of the following questions: 

  Question 4 requires metadata, and refers to the scope of the sub-programme; 
  Question 9 describes the methodology of the sub-programme; 
  Question 10 addresses the data generated by the sub-programme. 

Table 2. Indicative list of MSFD monitoring sub-programmes for biodiversity. 

Sub-programme Purpose 

Elements/features 
monitored 

Parameter(s) 

Descriptor  Criteria 

Q4g 

Q4k 

Mobile  species 
— 
abundance 
and/or biomass 

Mobile  species 
— 
population 
characteristics 

Mobile  species 
— health status 

Mobile  species 
— 
of 
state 
habitats 

Mobile  species 
— 
mortality/injury 
from 
rates 
fisheries 
(targeted 
and/or 
incidental) 

Mobile  species 
— 
mortality/injury 
rates from other 
human 
activities 

s
t
c
a
p
m

i
/
e
t
a
t
S

Q9a 
Only broad categories noted 
here 

Q9b 
Typical  parameters 
measured 

Indicative only 

Species  composition 
Species  abundance 
of 
(numbers 
individuals 
and/or 
biomass) 
Species  distribution 
(location) 

D1, D2, D3, 
D4 

1.1,  1.2, 
2.1,  4.1, 
4.3 

Body  size  (length, 
weight),  age,  sex, 
rate, 
fecundity 
survival 
rate, 
mortality rate 

D1, D3, D4 

1.3,  3.2, 
3.3, 4.2 

D8 

8.2 

Habitat 
species 
suitability) 

for 

the 
(extent, 

D1, D3 

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

e

l
i

b
o
m
y
h
g
H

i

l

Species 
groups/functional 
groups 
or 
individual species 
birds, 
of 
mammals, 
reptiles, 
(including 
commercial 
species), 
cephalopods 

fish 

D1, D3 

1.2, 3.1 

Rates  of  mortality, 
injury 
other 
or 
adverse effects from 
anthropogenic 
activities 

D1, D10 

1.2, 10.2 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
Question 4: About the sub-programme 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

4g 

Sub-
Programme ID 

Provide  a  unique  identifier  for  sub-
programme. 

Use  sub(region)  and  MS  code  (e.g. 
BALDE)  plus  MS-defined  alpha-numeric 
code (e.g. MADIT-D08-01) 

Evaluation.  The  MSs  reported  inconsistently,  because  they  did  not  always  follow  the 
guidelines for the subprogramme identifiers. 

Suggestion for improvement. The IDs for monitoring programmes and subprogrammes 
can  be  automatically  assigned,  using  prefilled  parts  for  the  MSs,  their  region  and  sub-
regions and descriptor. 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

4h 

Temporal 
scope 

Provide  the  start  date  of  the  sub-
programme  (past  or  future)  and,  if 
appropriate,  an  end  date,  or  indicate 
the programme is ongoing 

Start date: YYYY 

End Date: YYYY, 9999 (ongoing) 

Evaluation.  This  is  very  useful  information,  providing  an  overview  of  the  range  of 
subprogrammes’  duration.  The  analysis  of  these  data  indicated  the  differences  in  the 
number  of  new  subprogrammes  across  regions,  and  also  highlighted  the  different 
capacities  in  the  assessments  and  the  GES  determination  in  relation  to  data  availability 
(e.g. Figure 4 for fish- and cephalopod-monitoring subprogrammes). 

Suggestion for improvement. No suggestions for this question. However, the outcome 
of the analysis indicates that, the sooner we ensure full data coverage for GES and targets, 
the better for the harmonised and comparable implementation of the MSFD in all regions. 

Fish and cephalopods

15

10

5

0

1
9
7
1

8
4
9
1

8
5
9
1

1
6
9
1

7
6
9
1

0
7
9
1

3
7
9
1

6
7
9
1

0
8
9
1

4
8
9
1

7
8
9
1

0
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

2
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

1
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

Mediterranean Sea Black Sea NE Atlantic Ocean Baltic Sea

Figure 4. Temporal range of existing (before 2014) and future (after 2014) monitoring 
subprogrammes for fish and cephalopods, as reported by the MSs 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

4i 

Spatial scope 

Indicate  the  coverage  of  the  sub-programme 
according to the four jurisdictional zones of MSFD 
Marine Waters (or outside this, either landward or 
beyond  marine  waters  if  appropriate,  e.g.  for 
pressures). 

Select  all 
relevant 
from  List:  Monitoring 
zones 

4j 

Description_Spatial 
Scope 

Briefly  describe  the  rationale  for  the  geographic 
scope  of  the  programme  (e.g.  in  relation  to 
relevant  environmental  characteristics,  such  as 
distribution of a species or habitat, to pressures or 
to relevant activities and measures). 

Free  text or  URL web 
in 
link  or  section 
paper report 

Evaluation. Question 4i provided useful information, which could not be quantified, either 
because of the many different options reported or because free text was inserted instead 
of  the  reference  list.  The  structure  of  the  reporting  should  foresee  that  some 
subprogrammes might cover more than one category from the reference list in Table 3. 

Suggestion  for  improvement.  It  would  be  useful  to  have  this  information  (as  well  as 
any spatial information in relation to the monitoring subprogrammes) on maps (e.g. GIS 
layers), to get an overview of coverage for each element group. Question 4j can be more 
specific  and  be  reported  in  steps  of  prefilled  information  (e.g.  step  1,  ecosystem 
component:  marine  mammals;  step  2,  species  group:  baleen  whales;  step  3,  criterion: 
distribution),  which  can  be  linked  with  Question  4i  and  the  coverage  of  the  appropriate 
monitoring zone. 

Table 3. Reference list of monitoring zones to support the reporting of Question 4i 

MS terrestrial part 

Water  Framework  Directive 
Transitional Waters 

WFD Coastal Waters 

Monitoring zones 

Territorial waters 

Exclusive  Economic  Zone  (or 
similar) 

Continental  Shelf 
Exclusive Economic Zone) 

(beyond 

Beyond MS waters 

No 

4k 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

Purpose 

For what purpose is this sub-programme 
aimed at collecting data and information? 

Select  all 
Monitoring purpose 

relevant 

from  List: 

Evaluation. The reported information was based on  Table 4, which includes very broad 
categories. The added value of this entry needs to be further justified. 

Suggestion for improvement. This information can be merged with Question 4f at the 
monitoring programme level and in relation to the DPSIR description. As was mentioned 
earlier, many different subprogrammes might be allocated to each monitoring programme, 

26 

 
so  it  is  more  suitable  to  have  this  information  at  the  subprogramme  level  and  then,  if 
needed, to integrate it at the programme level. 

Table 4. List of monitoring purposes for each sub-programme reported 

Monitoring purpose 

State/impact 

Environmental state and impacts 

Pressures 

Activities 

Measures 

Pressures 

Human  activities  causing 
pressures 

the 

Effectiveness of measures 

No 

Topic 

Question 

4l 

Links 
to 
programmes  of 
other  directives 
& conventions 

If  monitoring  for  other  Community  legislation  or  international  agreements  is 
contributing to your MSFD programme (as indicated in Question 8a), give details 
as follows: 

 

 

Name of other programme 

A  specific  URL  web  link(s)  to where  the  information required for  each 
part of Question 9 can easily be found and is directly relevant for your 
marine waters. 

  Describe  how  the  existing  monitoring  will  contribute  to  MSFD  needs 

including how it is integrated into your MSFD programme. 

This field can also be used to link to a national programme. 

If  the  information  required  for  each  part  of  Question  9  is  maintained  on  a 
permanent official website, Question 9 does not need to be completed. 

Evaluation. This question had hundreds of unique entries, because of the combinations of 
the reference information (Table 5). As a result it was hard to group the subprogrammes 
in  relation  to  the  relevant  policies  and  agreements  and  in  relation  to  their  regional 
relevance. 

Suggestion for improvement. The structure of the database where the XML responses 
are assembled can facilitate the data format for the required analysis. It is important to 
envisage  beforehand  the  type  of  information  that  can  be  extracted  from  the  reports,  at 
different spatiotemporal levels and for different groupings of MSs. 

Table 5. List of monitoring programmes under other policies or regional agreements for each 
subprogramme reported 

Monitoring 
Directives/Conventions 

other 

BWD 

CFP-DC-MAP 

Habitats 
Birds 
NiD 
UWWTD 
WFD 
BarCon 
BuchCon 
HELCOM 
OSPAR 
WaddenSea 
Other 

Bathing Water Directive 
Common Fisheries Policy — Data Collection Framework (DC-
MAP) 
Habitats Directive 
Birds Directive 
Nitrates Directive 
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 
Water Framework Directive 
Barcelona Convention UNEP/MAP 
Bucharest Convention 
Helsinki Convention 
OSPAR Convention 
Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation 
Other (specify) 

27 

 
 
Question 9: Methodology 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

9a 

Elements monitored 

elements 

Which 
(ecosystem 
components,  pressures  from  MSFD 
Annex III) are monitored? 

List  the  specific  elements  (e.g. 
particular  species  or  contaminants) 
within 
categories 
reported under Question 5c. 

broad 

the 

Evaluation. This information is very important, but the MSs’ answers ranged from specific 
elements (e.g. species) to broad categories (e.g. cetaceans or broad habitats) or free text 
(Table 6). The reported information could not be easily analysed or quantified. 

Suggestion for improvement. In updating the guidance for the monitoring reporting, it 
should be considered what the MSs have reported and a hierarchical structure should be 
built  with  predefined  options  following  the  new  Annex  III,  e.g.  theme/ecosystem 
element/parameter. 

Table 6. Indicative list of what the MSs have reported 

Diversity indices, species numbers, population abundance and habitat distribution, quality indices 

Population abundance, biomass, leaf surface area per shoot, epiphyte biomass, habitat distribution, quality index 
(PREI) 
Species group/Functional group: Seals — (Harbour seal Phoca vitulina) 

Species group/Functional group: Seals — (Grey seal Halichoerus grypus) 

Species group/Functional group: Turtles: Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 

Coastal fish 
Pelagic fish 
Pelagic elasmobranchs 
Demersal fish 
Demersal elasmobranchs  
Micromesistius poutassou (Risso, 1827) Blue whiting 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

9b 

Parameters measured  What  parameters  of 
elements are measured? 

the 

the 

from 

List:  Monitoring 
Choose 
parameters, 
in 
sediment,  population  size,  intensity  of 
pressure [full list to be developed]. 

concentration 

e.g. 

Evaluation. The reported information was very consistent and useful. The reference list 
with the monitoring parameters secured consistent reporting. 

Suggestion for improvement. No particular comments. The structure of this list and the 
philosophy  behind  it  constitute  a  good  practice  that  can  inspire  the  formation  of  other 
reference lists. 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

9c 

Monitoring 
method 

What  is  the  method  used  for  monitoring  (data 
collection) in the field and, where appropriate, any 
subsequent laboratory processing? 

Provide  a  reference 
published  method 
unpublished, 
method used. 

describe 

or, 

to  a 
if 
the 

9d 

Method 
alteration 

Describe  the  methods  used  if  they  deviate  from 
the published method provided. 

Free  text  or  URL  web  link  or 
section in paper report 

28 

 
 
 
If this field is left blank it is assumed the method 
used is according to the published  method given 
in Q9c. 

Evaluation. From the methodological perspective, this was the most useful information to 
evaluate and to compare the methods reported at regional level and across elements. As 
was  mentioned  earlier  for  other  questions  requiring  free  text  or  URL  web  links  and 
references,  the  reported  information  was  not  suitable  for  any  kind  of  analysis,  and  the 
extraction of the appropriate information required a significant amount of effort and time. 
Table 7 provides an indicative list of the types of information reported for Question 9c. The 
inconsistency of the reported information and the challenge of grouping and analysing this 
information are obvious. To this end, following a deeper analysis for selected species and 
regions, we concluded that in many cases MSs reported a method that is also included in 
a  national  report,  which  comes  from  a  regional  agreement.  In  other  cases,  there  are 
references to scientific papers describing methods that are adapted to national or regional 
monitoring without this adaptation being reported by the MSs. 

Suggestion for improvement. The methods that are described in the scientific literature 
and are included in national or regional documents or even EU guidance documents should 
be reported, citing all these sources. 

Table 7. Indicative list of what the MSs have reported 

The  monitoring  methods  of  the  Cyprus  Turtle  Conservation  Project  (Demetropoulos  and  Hadjichristophorou, 
1995, 2008) 

The monitoring methods are included in the MedITS survey instruction manual (MedITS WG, 2013). 

UNEP/MAP (2005) and DFMR (2012c) 

Cyprus MedITS annual reports 

Argyrou et al. (2011) 

Duck and Morris (2012a;b) 

NPWS (2010) 

Cadhla et al. (2013) 

Surveillance  monitoring:  No  national  monitoring.  However,  turtle  strandings  and  sightings  are  recorded  and 
reported to University College Cork (UCC) who occasionally carry out necropsies on dead turtles. All records of 
are submitted to the TURTLE database. 

ICES. 2014.ICES. 2013. 

ICES working group standard (Working Group for International Pelagic Surveys, WGIPS) 

Gerritsen and Lordan (2011) 

EU  logbooks  are  completed  by  the  masters  of  fishing  vessels  when  landing.  Monitoring  is  according  to 
specification  in  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 1224/2009  and  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU) 
No 404/2011 in relation to Electronic Recording Systems (ERS). 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

9e 

9f 

Quality 
(QA) 

Assurance 

In  addition  to  a 
specified method, is 
there any additional 
Quality  Assurance 
used? 

Select one from List: Monitoring QA 

Quality Control (QC)  What 

type 

of 
Quality  Control  is 
used? 

Select one from List: Monitoring QC 

29 

 
Evaluation. Not all MSs answered this question, most probably because this information 
was  not  available  for  all  monitoring  subprogrammes  (and  the  ‘unknown’  option  was  not 
selected). The available list of options was of great help. 

Suggestion  for  improvement.  A  way  to  improve  the  quality  assurance  and  quality 
control reporting is to enrich the reference list further (Table 8). 

Table 8. Indicative list of quality assurance and quality control options for reporting 

BEQUALM 

COMBINE 

Biological  Effects  Quality  Assurance  in  Monitoring 
Programmes 
Helsinki  Commission  Cooperative  Monitoring  in  the 
Baltic  Marine  Environment  manual  of  measurement 
protocols 

ICESDataTypeGuide 

ICES Data Centre Data Type Guides 

Monitoring QA 

IODE 

JGOFSL1 

QUASIMEM 

National 

Other 

Unknown 

IOC  Manual  of  Quality  Control  Procedures  for 
Validation of Oceanographic Data 
Joint  Global  Ocean  Flux  Study  core  measurement 
protocols 
Quality  Assurance  of 
Environmental Monitoring in Europe 

for  Marine 

Information 

National standard (specify) 

Other standard (specify) 

Unknown 

DelayedValidation 

Delayed mode validation on the data 

NoValidation 

No validation on the data 

Monitoring QC 

Real&DelayedValidation 

Real-time plus delayed mode validation on the data 

RealValidation 

Real-time validation on the data 

Other QC 

Unknown 

Other type of QC (specify) 

Unknown 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

9g 

Spatial resolution 
(density) 
of 
sampling 

What  is  the  proportion  of  the  geographic 
scope  (given  in  Q4i)  which  is  covered  by 
sampling? 

Approximate proportion (%) 

This question is intended to provide a broad 
indication only of expected sampling density, 
as information on actual sampling locations, 
once collected, should be linked to Art. 19.3 
on access to the monitoring data] 

What  is  the  density  of  sampling  within  the 
proportion given above? 

Approximate number of samples 
expected  to  be  taken  from  the 
assessment area (No./year) 

Evaluation. The spatial resolution of the sampling was always reported, but did not always 
refer to the same level of information. For example, the spatial resolution reported for seals 
referred to: 

a)  population abundance; 

b)  by-catch; 

c)  a subprogramme with no further specification about the sampling parameter. 

The density of the sampling was not reported consistently enough, because it referred to 
different parameters within the same subprogramme. 

30 

 
Suggestion  for  improvement.  The  sampling  strategy  (e.g.  random,  transects) 
determines the proportion of the area covered; however, the reported information revealed 
that  not  all  MSs  have  the  same  understanding  or  the  same  approach  to  reporting  the 
coverage, indicating that more guidelines are required. 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

9h 

Temporal  resolution 
(periodicity) 
of 
sampling 

What  is  the  temporal  frequency  of  the  sub-
programme? 

Select  one 
Monitoring frequency 

from  List: 

9i 

Description_Sub-
programme 

Where  the  information  for  Questions  9a-9h 
varies within the sub-programme (e.g. spatially 
or  temporarily),  provide  details.  This  could 
include, for example: 

Free text or URL web link 
or section in paper report 

 

 

variation in relation to risk across the 
area  (e.g.  coastal/offshore,  pressure-
related) 

variation due to differing management 
other 
regimes 
management zones) 

(e.g.  MPAs 

or 

Evaluation. Reporting was consistent across the MSs, but the temporal resolution might 
refer to different elements within the same subprogramme. The reference list of possible 
frequencies (Table 9) was very effective at ensuring a consistent approach. 

Suggestion for improvement. Once again, when the options are grouped properly and 
are included in the report process as drop-down menus, they facilitate an in-depth analysis 
of the  reporting, especially  between MSs.  Question 9i was not  answered by most of the 
MSs,  but  it  contains important  information.  More  guidelines  could  further  clarify  what  is 
expected for this question. 

Table 9. Indicative list of monitoring frequency options for reporting 

Monitoring 
frequency 

Every 6 years 

Every 3 years 

Every 2 years 

Yearly 

6-monthly 

3-monthly 

Monthly 

2-weekly 

Weekly 

Daily 

Hourly 

Continually 

One-off 

As needed 

Other (specify) 

Unknown 

31 

 
Question 10: Monitoring data 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

10a 

Aggregation of data 

At which scale can the data from the sub-
for 
programme 
environmental assessments? 

aggregated 

be 

one 

Select 
List: 
Monitoring  data  aggregation 
scale 

from 

10b 

Description_DataAggr
egation 

If ‘other’ is selected, describe the scale. 

If the data cannot be aggregated (beyond 
the national scale), give reasons? 

Free  text  or  URL  web  link  or 
section in paper report 

Evaluation. Most MSs reported ‘other’, indicating a lack of harmonisation in the way data 
are  aggregated.  Furthermore,  most  of  the  ongoing  monitoring  programmes  from  other 
legislation  cover  the  national  spatial  range.  At  the  reporting  period  the  RSCs  had  rarely 
discussed and agreed methods to aggregate information beyond national waters. The list 
in Table 10 shows the possible options for the data aggregation scales, which facilitated 
consistency in the reporting. 

Suggestion  for  improvement.  The  progress  in  the  first  MSFD  cycle  in  relation  to  the 
integration and aggregation of information and assessments across indicators, criteria and 
elements will improve the report updates for this entry. The aggregation and integration 
of information is essential for the harmonisation of the MSFD implementation, and the work 
done and coordinated by the RSCs should be reflected in the updates of this question. The 
comments about those entries requiring free text or URL links are also relevant to Question 
10b. More guidelines and options should be  included in the list to make this entry more 
informative. 

Table 10. Indicative list of options for the data aggregation scales 

Monitoring  data 
aggregation 
scale 

Sub-region 

Region  

EU  

Other 

Unknown 

No 

Topic 

Question 

Summary information 

Nature  of  data/information  to  be  made 
available: 

Select  one  or  more  from  List: 
Data type 

10c 

Access to data 

What  method/mechanism  will  be  used  to 
make the data available? 

Select  from  List:  Data  access 
mechanism 

Will the EC/EEA have use rights? 

Select  one 
access rights 

from  List:  Data 

Which INSPIRE standard is/will be used? 

Select  one  from  List:  INSPIRE 
standards 

32 

 
When will the data first become available? 

Date: MM/YYYY 

How frequently are the  data expected to be 
updated thereafter? 

Select one from List: Monitoring 
frequency 

Evaluation.  The  lists  (Table  11)  providing  possible  options  for  data  type,  data  access 
mechanisms and rights contributed to consistent reporting for Question 10c. 

Suggestion  for  improvement.  Once  again,  consistent  reporting  of  information  is 
essential to allow the direct analysis of the database generated from the XML files (or even 
the paper reports) and the in-depth assessment of the MSs’ reporting at regional or EU-
wide range. This kind of analysis will channel effort to the gaps, highlight good practices 
and  streamline  the  monitoring  methods  across  the  regions  and  elements.  However,  in 
many  cases  the  answer  to  a  simple  request  (e.g.  Date:  MM/YYYY  in  Question  10c)  was 
combined with extra information (especially text) or  was not reported consistently. As a 
result, even for a simple kind of information it becomes very challenging to provide an in-
depth  assessment  without  modifying  the  reported  information  in  the  proper  format  for 
analysis.  Table  12  shows  some  of  the  information  compiled  from  the  MSs’  monitoring 
reports, selected to exemplify the variety and inconsistency of information reported, in a 
case  where  the  expected  entry  is  a  single  date.  Automated  tools,  limited  entries  and 
selection menus could facilitate consistent and comparable reporting of information. 

Table 11. Indicative list of options for the data aggregation scales 

UnprocessedData 

Unprocessed/raw data 

ProcessedData 

Processed data sets 

Data type 

DataProducts 

Data products 

Modelled data 

Simulated (modelled) data 

URLview 

Providing URL to view data 

URLdownload 

Providing URL to download data 

Data  access 
mechanism 

Location national DC 

Provide location of data in national data centre 

Location international DC 

Provide  location  of  data  in  international  data  centre  (e.g. 
RSC, ICES, EEA, EMODnet) 

Open 

Open access 

Moratorium 

Moratorium 

Data  access 
rights 

RestrictedGeneral 

Restricted by general licence 

RestrictedSpecific 

Restricted by specific licence 

Not available 

Data will not be available 

33 

 
 
 
Table 12. Indicative list of options for the data aggregation scales 

06_2015 

2011 

1978 

1990 
(Data are typically made available within 4 months of survey end.) 

1995 (Data typically made available within 4 months of survey end.) 

2012 (Data typically made available within 4 months of survey end.) 

2006(Data typically made available 12 months after collation/download.) 

2009  (Dependant  on  data  call  and  analysis.  typically made  available  to STECF/ICES 12-18  months  after 
collation/collection.) 

2009 

12/1994 
(1994 for discard, 2010 for sampling at sea in its current format. Data typically made available 8 months 
after collection year). 

1999 
(Data available from 1999-present, updated on an annual basis to international data centres.) 

2002 
(HABs monitoring programme for shellfish and phytoplankton initiated since 2002.) 

2011 
(In general, data are made available 6-12 months after its collection and analysis.) 

2014 

2010  (Currents,  temperature  and  salinity  simulated  data  available  from  2010.  Wave  simulated  data 
available from mid-2010. Most recent data available from Marine Institute data access programme server.) 

Unknown. (Access to data from satellites is complex. Re-use and redistribution of data originating from EC 
funded activities such as Copernicus needs to be negotiated with the data originator at the EC level.) 

34 

4. Discussion 

4.1. 

Consistency and completeness in the reports 

A  key  aim  of  the  reporting  sheet  was  to  provide  the  information  content  in  a  standard 
format, as this has the following benefits (European Commission, 2014a): 

a.  The information is in a  structured  format to  enable  easier  review across multiple 

Member States; 

b.  The information can be readily aggregated into a common database for subsequent 

summary and analysis (e.g. for Article 12 assessment); 

c.  The information is in a common format for dissemination (e.g. through WISE [Water 

Information System for Europe]-Marine). 

The in-depth assessment of the MSs’ monitoring reports evaluates the level of achievement 
of the key aims of the reporting sheet. 

The  MSs  dedicated  an  outstanding  amount  of  effort  to  collecting,  analysing,  planning, 
establishing and reporting their monitoring programmes for the MSFD. This exercise adds 
value  to  the  high-level  objective  of  the  MSFD  —  to  achieve  or  maintain  GES  —  since  it 
provides an overview of the available information and gives the opportunity to fill in the 
gaps in any of the MSFD requirements. To this end, the first benefit of the reporting sheet 
is  verified,  as  we  were  able  to  straightforwardly  review  the  reported  information  across 
MSs. If all MSs had reported using the reporting sheet, then the in-depth assessment of 
the monitoring reports would be much easier and more informative. 

Box 4. Suggestion for reporting 

MSs  are  encouraged  to  organise  their  monitoring  reports  in  accordance  with  the  reporting  sheet, 
which provides the structure of the required information covering the needs of all relevant parties 
(the MSs, the European Commission and the RSCs). 

The second benefit of the reporting sheet relates to the aggregation of information into a 
common database for subsequent summary and analysis (e.g. for Article 12 assessment 
or for this exercise). The analysis showed that this was partially achieved. It is essential to 
keep in mind that at least the first cycle of the MSFD is a heuristic process. It was very 
challenging in  the  first  cycle  to  identify  the  information  needed  and  properly  synthesise 
this information in accordance with the MSFD concepts and nomenclature. Given this, only 
after  the  conclusion  of  the  reporting  are  we  in  a  position  to  completely  evaluate  the 
reporting sheet and whether or not the quality/type/format of the reported information is 
in  line  with  the  MSFD  expectation.  Some  of  the  reported  information  was  indeed 
immediately used for the Article 12 assessment (European Commission, 2014b). However, 
the deeper we go into the technicalities and details of the monitoring (sub)programmes, 
the less consistent and harmonised the information becomes, and thus less appropriate for 
aggregation and analysis. A major objective of the present document is to further improve 
and harmonise the level of consistency for each of the unclear entries. 

Regarding the last benefit of the reporting sheet, it definitely supports a common format 
for dissemination (e.g. through WISE-Marine); however, a lot of effort is required to ensure 
that  the  reported  information  will  have  the  right  quality  and  consistency  to  be 
disseminated,  as  a  concrete  and  meaningful  product.  The  refinement  of  the  reporting 
sheets based on our findings will contribute to this direction. 

The European Commission (2014a) had identified possible uses of the reported information 
on the monitoring programmes, beyond the legal obligation under Article 11 of the MSFD: 

a.  For  national  purposes  to  support  development  and  implementation  of  monitoring 

programmes, including use at policy level and for technical delivery; 

b.  For stakeholders and the public, to inform them of the programmes; 

35 

c.  For  neighbouring  countries  and  regional  organizations  (e.g.  Regional  Sea 

Conventions) to foster cooperation within the (sub)region; 

d.  For  EU  level  to  inform  the  Commission  and  others  of  the  Member  State 

implementation. 

The  in-depth  analysis  of  the  MSs’  reports  and  the  structure  of  the  reported  information 
indicated that all of those uses can be fully covered. Improvement in the consistency of 
the reporting will also benefit the MSs, the Commission and the  other stakeholders that 
can make use of the reported information. 

4.2. 

Evaluating 

the  methodological 

approaches 

for 

monitoring 

One of the basic objectives of this work was to identify best practices within the reported 
monitoring  methodological  standards  and  seek  for  potential  collaborations  for  joint 
monitoring  programmes  and  methods  to  fill  in  the  gaps  at  (sub)regional  level.  The 
extraction  of  methodological  approaches  had  to  be  focused  on  a  specific  parameter 
belonging  to  a  certain  criterion  in  a  single  descriptor,  because  of  the  vast  amount  of 
reported  information.  Consequently,  the  extraction  and  the  spatial  comparison  of  the 
methodological approaches resulted in the following conclusions. 

a)  The  reported  methodological  approaches  for  monitoring,  as  well  as  their 
characteristics  (frequency,  density,  etc.)  at  the  level  of  subprogrammes,  can  be 
reviewed and harmonised at (sub)regional level. 

b)  In many cases, the reported methodological standards are the same, which is not 
immediately  obvious,  because  the  same  methods  are  not  consistently  reported. 
These  were  usually  reported  by  reference  to  different  sources  (scientific 
publications,  national  and  regional  reports),  although  all  of  them  were  citing  the 
same method. 

c)  The MSs were forced to adapt established monitoring programmes, which had come 
into  force  before  the  MSFD,  to  the  MSFD  concepts  (e.g.  DPSIR)  and  structure 
(criteria  and  indicators).  The  data  collection  framework  of  the  common  policy 
framework and the RSC monitoring programmes are among these. The adaptation 
inconsistent  numbers  of 
effort  was  not  always  coherent,  resulting 
subprogrammes and different ways of structuring programmes’ characteristics and 
allocating them on the reporting sheet. 

in 

The  methodological  approaches  for  monitoring  provide  the  most  crucial  information  for 
evaluation  and  review,  from  the  technical  and  implementation  perspectives.  They  are 
linked  with  the  implementation  of  Article 9  of  the  MSFD  for  GES  determination,  the 
methods of setting thresholds, and the targets to achieve and maintain GES.  Given this, 
an overview of the methodological approaches to monitoring provides essential information 
about the quality of the data required for implementing the MSFD and for the information 
gaps that can be filled by the establishment of new monitoring programmes. 

4.3. 

Implementation of monitoring programmes 

The reporting sheet is closely linked to the implementation of the MSFD through the three 
reporting  obligations  (initial  assessment,  GES  determination,  targets;  monitoring 
programmes;  and  programmes  of  measures),  which  is  essential  to  secure  consistent 
connection with each step. The monitoring reporting provides the appropriate opportunity 
within  the  MSFD  cycle  for  the  MSs  to  cover  any  data  gap  that  emerges  from  the 
developments  and  progress  in  methodological  standards  and  assessment  methods. 
However, the current  reporting structure does not include a mechanism to  evaluate the 
progress of the implementation of the new monitoring programmes proposed by the MSs, 
at least not before the updates in the next cycle. 

36 

Annex  V  of  the  MSFD  sets  out  the  content  of  the  monitoring  programmes  in  respect  of 
implementation and reporting. The list of recommendations in Annex V of the MSFD can 
be applied to cross-check the completeness of the reporting. 

Box 5. Suggestion for the structure and content of the reporting sheet 

The  reporting  sheet  is  organised  top-down,  from  the  general  information  to  the  monitoring 
programmes  and  subprogrammes.  Our  analysis  showed  overlaps  in  the  last  two  levels  and 
inconsistencies in the allocation of information to the programme/subprogramme questions. It should 
be tested if another approach can be more effective for reporting. A suggestion is to: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

organise the relevant programmes; 

assign subprogrammes to them; 

fill in the technical characteristics of the subprogramme; 

d. 

aggregate (automatically if possible) the technical details for all subprogrammes at 
the programme level (e.g. if the ‘monitoring from other directives or conventions’ is under CFP for 
one subprogramme and under OSPAR for another, this information will be raised to the programme 
level as well). 

Another important suggestion for the preparation of the monitoring programme reporting is to update 
the  reporting  sheet,  acknowledging  all  the  changes  that  the  new  GES  Decision  (European 
Commission, 2017a) has brought about, but exploiting the current reported information in the best 
possible way. 

4.4. 

Evaluating the criteria elements reported for D1 

The  technical  evaluation  of  the  MSs’  monitoring  reports  was  focused  on  the  biodiversity 
descriptors. The amount of biodiversity information reported was huge, and the comparison 
of methodological approaches was feasible only at the level of specific species groups (e.g. 
the monitoring subprogrammes for marine turtles). Comparing both the ongoing and the 
future  monitoring  programmes  for  species  and  habitats  with  the  lists  of  species  and 
habitats that the MSs should consider for the MSFD (Palialexis et al., 2018), only a small 
proportion  is  covered  by  the  monitoring  programmes.  However,  in  many  cases  the 
monitoring  subprogrammes  referred  to  numerous  species  (e.g.  marine  birds)  without 
naming  them,  jeopardising  the  objectivity  of  the  comparison.  Nevertheless,  the  2014 
reporting provides a better understanding of the prioritisation of criteria elements in the 
coming  assessments  (MSFD  Common  Implementation  Strategy,  2017;  Walmsley  et  al., 
2017). 

Box 6. Reference lists of criteria elements 

The lists of criteria elements that facilitated the reporting for the MSFD Article 8, 9 and 10 updates 
in  2018  should  be  updated  and  applied  to  the  monitoring  reporting  as  well.  A  common  basis  of 
criterion elements (species and habitats for D1) can facilitate the effort to harmonise the methods 
for  monitoring,  for  assessments  and  for  setting  threshold  values.  In  addition,  the  methodological 
harmonisation will result in more consistent reporting. 

The new Commission Decision on GES (European Commission, 2017a) was enriched with 
significant guidelines on ‘Specifications and standardised methods for  monitoring’, which 
the MSs should consider. The biodiversity guidelines are compiled and listed in Annex 1 of 
this document. 

37 

5. Conclusions 

This  is  a  summary  of  the  general  findings  from  the  in-depth  assessment  of  the  MSFD 
monitoring reports, in relation to biodiversity (Descriptor 1). 

5.1. 

General comments 

a)  Most of the MSs made a great effort to fulfil the MSFD reporting requirements for 

the biodiversity descriptor. 

b)  The  evaluation  of  the  reporting  sheet  for  monitoring  programmes  revealed  some 
questions  that  were  differently  understood  by  the  MSs.  Given  this,  the  reporting 
information  for  these  questions  is  characterised  by  lack  of  consistency  and  of 
harmonisation. 

c)  The reported information did not fully succeed in providing a spatial overview of the 

current monitoring status of biodiversity, at (sub)regional level. 

d)  Revision and refinement of the reporting sheet will improve the monitoring updates 
for  the  MSFD  due  in  2020.  Some  questions  in  the  reporting  sheet  need  to  be 
reframed or further explained in an updated guidance document. 

e)  The  extraction  of  methodological  standards  for  monitoring  and  subsequently  the 
regional evaluation of potential synergies and good practices were not an easy task. 
Substantial  time  and  effort  was  invested  to  extract  monitoring  methods  and 
strategies for selected species groups and selected regions or sub-regions. 

f)  The  monitoring  programmes  constitute  a  powerful  method  for  the  MSs  to  tackle 
their  gaps  in  data  and  information.  However,  the  evaluation  of  the  MSs’  reports 
revealed that the new  monitoring programmes do not sufficiently cover the gaps 
reported at the beginning of the first MSFD cycle, at least in terms of species and 
habitats. 

g)  The  harmonisation  of  assessment  methods  across  the  MSs  becomes  very 
challenging considering the differences in data availability and in the length of the 
available data series. 

5.2. 

For the next cycle 

a)  The  reporting  sheet  should  be  in  line  with  the  new  requirements  derived  from 

Commission Decision 2017/848/EU. 

b)  The improved harmonisation of monitoring reports with GES (Article 9) and targets 
(Article 10), following the 2018 updated reports for Article 17, will have a positive 
impact on the future monitoring reports. These updates should be reflected in the 
prefilled entries for the monitoring reporting. 

c)  A bottom-up approach might increase consistency in the reporting, by aggregating 
the low-level information to the monitoring programmes. More guidance is required 
on  how,  for  example,  D1  monitoring  can  support  the  monitoring  for  other 
descriptors, e.g. D3 (fisheries) and D9 (contaminants in seafood). 

d)  It is essential to exploit synergies for joint monitoring at regional level. 

38 

References 

European Commission, 2014a, Reporting on monitoring programmes for MSFD Article 11, 
Directorate-General for Environment, Brussels. 

European  Commission,  2014b,  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. 

European Commission, 2017a, 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. L 125/43. 

European Commission,  2017b, Report  from the Commission to the  European  Parliament 
and  the  Council  assessing  Member  States’  monitoring  programmes  under  the  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). COM/2017/3. 

European  Commission,  2017c,  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. SWD/2017/1. 

MSFD  Common  Implementation  Strategy,  2017,  Background  document  on  the 
determination of good environmental status and its links to assessments and the setting 
of environmental targets, Brussels. 

Palialexis, A., A. C. Cardoso and F. Somma, 2018, JRC’s reference lists of MSFD species 
and habitats, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

Palialexis, A., V. Tornero, E. Barbone, D. Gonzalez, G. Hanke, A. C. Cardoso, N. Hoepffner, 
S.  Katsanevakis,  F.  Somma  and  N.  Zampoukas,  2014,  In-depth  assessment  of  the  EU 
Member States’ submissions for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive under Articles 8, 
9 and 10, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

Walmsley, S. F., A. Weiss, U. Claussen and D.  Connor, 2017, Guidance for assessments 
under  Article 8  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive:  Integration  of  assessment 
results, ABPmer Report No R.2733, produced for the European Commission, Directorate-
General for Environment. Online. [25/6/2019], [https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/cea61b55-
06df-4e9e-9830-b0f41ca46fbe/GES_17-2017-
02_Guidance_MSFDArt8_Feb2017TestVersion.pdf] 

39 

 
Annex 1. 

Commission Decision 2017/848/EU specifications and standardised methods for 
monitoring for species, pelagic and benthic habitats. 

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment relating to theme 
‘Species groups of marine birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods’ 

1.  For  D1C1,  data  shall  be  provided  per  species  per  fishing metier  for  each  ICES 
area  or  GFCM  Geographical  Sub-Area  or  FAO  fishing  areas  for  the  Macaronesian 
biogeographic  region,  to  enable  its  aggregation  to  the  relevant  scale  for  the  species 
concerned,  and  to  identify  the  particular  fisheries  and  fishing  gear  most  contributing  to 
incidental catches for each species. 

2.  ‘Coastal’  shall  be  understood  on  the  basis  of  physical,  hydrological  and  ecological 
parameters  and  is  not  limited  to  coastal  water  as  defined  in  Article 2(7)  of 
Directive 2000/60/EC. 

3. Species may be assessed at population level, where appropriate. 

4.  Wherever 
Directive 92/43/EEC, 
assessments 
Directive 2009/147/EC  and  Regulation  (EU)  No 1380/2013  shall  be  used  for  the 
purposes of this Decision:  

possible, 

under 

the 

(a)  for  birds,  criteria  D1C2  and  D1C4  equate  to  the  ‘population  size’  and  ‘breeding 
distribution map and range size’ criteria of Directive 2009/147/EC;  

(b)  for  mammals,  reptiles  and  non-commercial  fish,  the  criteria  are  equivalent  to  those 
used under Directive 92/43/EEC as follows: D1C2 and D1C3 equate to ‘population’, D1C4 
equates to ‘range’ and D1C5 equates to ‘habitat for the species’;  

(c) for commercially-exploited fish and cephalopods, assessments under Descriptor 3 shall 
be used for Descriptor 1 purposes, using criterion D3C2 for D1C2 and criterion D3C3 for 
D1C3. 

5. Assessments of the adverse effects from pressures under criteria D1C1, D2C3, D3C1, 
D8C2,  D8C4  and  D10C4,  as  well  as  the  assessments  of  pressures  under  criteria  D9C1, 
D10C3, D11C1 and D11C2, shall be taken into account in the assessments of species under 
Descriptor 1. 

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment relating to theme 
‘Pelagic habitats’ 

1.  ‘Coastal’  shall  be  understood  on  the  basis  of  physical,  hydrological  and  ecological 
parameters  and  is  not  limited  to  coastal  water  as  defined  in  Article 2(7)  of 
Directive 2000/60/EC. 

2. Assessments of the adverse effects from pressures, including under D2C3, D5C2, D5C3, 
D5C4, D7C1, D8C2 and D8C4, shall be taken into account in the assessments of pelagic 
habitats under Descriptor 1.  

Units of measurement for the criteria:  

—  D1C6:  extent  of  habitat  adversely  affected  in  square  kilometres  (km2)  and  as  a 
proportion (percentage) of the total extent of the habitat type. 

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment relating to theme 
‘Benthic habitats’ 

1. The status of each habitat type shall be assessed using assessments (such as of sub-
types of the broad habitat types) under Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2000/60/EC, 
wherever possible. 

2. Assessment of criterion D6C4 shall use the assessment made under criterion D6C1. 

40 

3. Criteria D6C4 and D6C5 equate to the ‘range/area covered by habitat type within range’ 
and ‘specific structures and functions’ criteria of Directive 92/43/EEC. 

4. For D6C5, assessments of the adverse effects from pressures, including under criteria 
D2C3, D3C1, D3C2, D3C3, D5C4, D5C5, D5C6, D5C7, D5C8, D6C3, D7C2, D8C2 and D8C4, 
shall be taken into account. 

5. For D6C5, species composition shall be understood to refer to the lowest taxonomic level 
appropriate for the assessment.  

Units of measurement for the criteria:  

— D6C4: extent of habitat loss in square kilometres (km2) and as a proportion (percentage) 
of the total extent of the habitat type,  

—  D6C5:  extent  of  habitat  adversely  affected  in  square  kilometres  (km2)  and  as  a 
proportion (percentage) of the total extent of the habitat type. 

41 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this 
service: 

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by electronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by 
contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en). 

 
 
 
 
K
J
-
N
A
-
2
9
7
6
7
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/051785 

ISBN 978-92-76-07986-6