COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Key stages and progress up to 2019 Accompanying the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC)
Date: 2020-06-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, application of EU law, biodiversity, environmental cooperation, marine ecosystem, marine environment, prevention of pollution, water pollution, water protection, water treatment

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.6.2020  SWD(2020) 60 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Key stages and progress up to 2019 Accompanying the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) {COM(2020) 259 final} - {SWD(2020) 61 final} - {SWD(2020) 62 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

ESTABLISHING  INITIAL  ASSESSMENTS  OF  MARINE  WATERS, 
CHARACTERISTICS  FOR  GOOD  ENVIRONMENTAL  STATUS  AND 
ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS ....................................................................................... 2 
1.1.  Legal requirement .................................................................................................................. 2 
1.2. 
Implementation process during the first MSFD cycle ........................................................... 3 
1.3.  Main conclusions about the initial assessment of marine waters .......................................... 5 
1.3.1.  Assessment methodology ........................................................................................... 5 
1.3.2.  Regional level ............................................................................................................. 6 
1.3.3.  EU level ...................................................................................................................... 6 
1.3.4.  Key recommendations .............................................................................................. 10 
1.3.5.  Main conclusions about access to data ..................................................................... 11 
1.4.  Main conclusions about GES determinations and environmental targets ........................... 12 
1.4.1.  Assessment methodology ......................................................................................... 12 
1.4.2.  Conclusions at regional level .................................................................................... 13 
1.4.3.  Conclusions at EU level............................................................................................ 13 
1.4.4.  Key recommendations .............................................................................................. 16 
1.5.  Kick off of the second MSFD cycle of implementation ...................................................... 16 
1.5.1.  State of play .............................................................................................................. 16 
1.5.2.  A note on timelines and deadlines within the MSFD ............................................... 18 
1.5.3.  Overview  of  EU  projects  specifically  designed 

to  support  MSFD 

implementation ......................................................................................................... 18 
2.  MONITORING THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT ....................................................... 20 
2.1.  Legal requirement ................................................................................................................ 20 
2.2. 
Implementation process ....................................................................................................... 20 
2.3.  Main conclusions from the assessment of monitoring programmes ................................... 22 
2.3.1.  Assessment methodology ......................................................................................... 22 
2.3.2.  Conclusions at EU level............................................................................................ 23 
2.3.3.  Regional coherence ................................................................................................... 26 
2.3.4.  Key recommendations .............................................................................................. 27 
2.3.5.  Availability of marine data in EU waters ................................................................. 28 
3. 
SETTING UP AND IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMMES OF MEASURES ............. 29 
3.1.  Legal requirement ................................................................................................................ 29 
3.2. 
Implementation process ....................................................................................................... 30 
3.3.  Main conclusions from assessment of the programmes of measures .................................. 33 
3.3.1.  Conclusions at EU level............................................................................................ 33 
3.3.2.  Spatial protection measures ...................................................................................... 38 
3.3.3.  Exceptions ................................................................................................................ 40 
3.3.4.  Progress in the implementation of the programmes of measures ............................. 41 
3.3.5.  Key recommendations .............................................................................................. 42 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  ESTABLISHING INITIAL ASSESSMENTS OF MARINE WATERS, CHARACTERISTICS FOR 

GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS 

1.1.  Legal requirement 

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)1 required Member States to make an 
initial assessment of their marine waters, in accordance with Article 8(1), to determine a 
set  of characteristics for good environmental status (GES)  for their marine waters, in 
accordance with Article 9(1), and to establish of a comprehensive set of environmental 
targets and associated indicators, in accordance with Article 10(1). These obligations 
do  not  apply  to  land-locked  states.  Annex  I  of  the  directive  listed  11  qualitative 
descriptors  which  form  the  basis  for  determining  GES.  Annex  III  provided  indicative 
lists  of  characteristics,  pressures  and  impacts,  which  are  relevant  to  the  marine  waters, 
are a basis for the initial assessment and are to be taken into account in determining GES 
and setting targets. 

Commission  Decision  2010/477/EU,  adopted  in  accordance  with  MSFD  Article  9(3), 
provided  criteria  and  methodological  standards 
the 
determinations  of  GES  and  to  allow  for  comparison  between  marine  regions  or 
subregions of the extent to which GES is being achieved. This Decision was eventually 
repealed  in  2017  and  replaced  by  Commission  Decision  (EU)  2017/8482,  which  laid 
down clearer and more comparable criteria and methodological standards on GES.  

to  ensure  consistency 

in 

By  15  October  2012,  Member  States  had  to  notify  to  the  Commission  the  initial 
assessment  of  their  marine  waters,  a  set  of  characteristics  for  GES  and  their 
environmental targets, in accordance with Articles 9(2) and 10(2), respectively.  

By  15  October  2018,  Member  States  had  to  review  and  update  the  initial  assessment, 
determination of GES and set of environmental targets, in accordance with Article 17 of 
the directive. These reviews and updates had to take into account, to the extent possible, 
a revised MSFD Annex III, as amended by the Commission Directive (EU)  2017/8453, 
and  the  criteria  and  methodological  standards  on  GES  and  specifications  and 
standardised methods for monitoring and assessment in the revised Commission Decision 
(EU) 2017/848.  

Article  19(2)  of  the  directive  requires  Member  States  to  publish  and  open  for 
consultation a summary of their assessment of marine waters, the determination of GES 
and  their  environmental  targets  (and  the  related  updates).  Article  19(3)  of  the  directive 
requires  Member  States  to  provide  the  Commission  and  the  European  Environment 

1 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a 
framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy, OJ L 164, 25.6.2008  
2 Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 of 17 May 2017 laying down criteria and methodological standards 
on good environmental status of marine waters and specifications and standardised methods for monitoring 
and assessment, and repealing Decision 2010/477/EU, OJ L 125, 18.5.2017  
3 Commission Directive (EU) 2017/845 of 17 May 2017 amending Directive 2008/56/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council as regards the indicative lists of elements to be taken into account for the 
preparation of marine strategies, OJ L 125, 18.5.2017 

2 

 
                                                 
 
Agency with access to the data and information resulting from the initial assessments in 
accordance with the INSPIRE Directive4.  

1.2. 

Implementation process during the first MSFD cycle 

Article 25 of the MSFD allows for reporting formats to be set through comitology. This 
option has not been pushed in favour of setting reporting structures through the Common 
Implementation  Strategy.  Often,  Member  States  submit  text-based  reports,  structured 
according  to  their  national  needs,  but  sometimes  following  a  structure  agreed  through 
discussions  with  the  Commission.  In  addition  to  these  text-based  reports,  the 
Commission  developed  and  agreed  with  Member  States  a  set  of  electronic  reports, 
intended to provide structured information that would facilitate the comparison and use 
of the information at regional and European levels5. 

In the first cycle of implementation of the MSFD, Member States reported the elements 
required under Articles 8, 9 and 10 between August 2012 and November 2015 (Figure 1). 
By 15 October 2012, the notification deadline for these articles, eight Member States had 
reported to the Commission6. By July 2013, only three coastal Member States had not yet 
submitted  their  reports  (Croatia,  Malta,  Poland),  whereas  Portugal  and  the  United 
Kingdom  where  missing  reports  for  parts  of  their  waters  (Azores  and  Madeira  for 
Portugal, and Gibraltar for the UK).  

Twenty-two Member States provided electronic reports in addition to their national text-
based  reports  (Portugal  provided  only  text-based  reports).  The  agreed  deadline  for  the 
submission  of  full7  electronic  reports  was  15  April  2013,  following  a  check  on  the 
completeness of draft reports. Poland was the last to provide these electronic reports, in 
January 2017 (Figure 1). 

25

20

15

10

5

0

no. of text submissions

no. of electronic submissions

4 Directive 2007/2/EC establishing an Infrastructure  for Spatial Information in the  European  Community 

(INSPIRE). 

5 These discussions take place in the Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (WG 
DIKE)  with  subsequent  agreement  by  the  Marine  Strategy  Coordination  Group  (MSCG)  of  the 
of  MSCG 
Common 
(https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/326ae5ac-0419-4167-83ca-e3c210534a69/library/a849cccd-ac38-
49b0-acef-30e5df66eaa1/details).  

Strategy.  WG  DIKE 

Implementation 

subgroup 

is 

a 

6 In this report, the United Kingdom has been counted as an EU Member State since this review covers the 

period 2008-2019. 

7 In agreement with Member States, a set of priority fields were to be submitted by 15 October 2012, and 

the remaining information was to be submitted by 15 April 2013. 

3 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 1. Cumulative number of Member States that submitted reports under articles 8, 9 and 10 
across time. The deadline for the text reports and priority fields in the electronic reports was 15 
October  2012  while  the  deadline  for  complete  electronic  reporting  was  on  30  April  2013.  The 
day  of  reporting  of  a  Member  State  is  considered  the  last  day  uploading  files  in  ReportNet. 
Spatial files are not considered. UK is counted twice since Gibraltar is treated as an independent 
submission. 

Twenty  of  the  twenty-three  coastal  Member  States  were  assessed  in  the  European 
Commission report of 20148. Malta, Croatia and the missing parts for Bulgaria, Portugal 
and  the  UK  were  assessed  in  the  Commission  report  of  20179  on  the  Member  States’ 
monitoring  programmes.  Finally,  the  assessment  of  Poland  was  published  in  the 
Commission  report  of  201810,  together  with  an  assessment  of  the  Member  States’ 
programmes of measures.  

For  a  number  of  Member  States,  the  Commission  recommended  that  Member  States 
review  and  improve  their  GES  definitions  and  targets,  giving  Member  States  the 
possibility  to  undertake  these  revisions  already  at  the  stage  of  the  next  reporting  step 
(namely the reporting of the monitoring programmes in 2014). By end of 2015, overall, 
14  Member  States  had  responded  formally  to  the  Commission’s  recommendations;  of 
these,  six  Member  States11  had  updated  their  GES  definitions  and/or  targets  via  new 
submissions  about  the  first  monitoring  programmes  (Article  11).  Later,  between  2016 
and  2017,  seven  Member  States12  adopted  further  updates  of  GES  definitions  and/or 
targets.  

As  a  support  and  follow-up  of  this  implementation  process,  the  Commission  organised 
the  Healthy  Oceans  –  Productive  Ecosystems  (HOPE)  Conference  on  3-4  March  2014.  
Over 450 participants (including representatives from Member States, the Regional Sea 
Conventions,  academia,  industry,  NGOs  and  other  stakeholders)  discussed  the  progress 
made from the adoption of the MSFD, the findings of the 2014 Commission report, and 
the priorities to effectively protect the marine environment in the future.  

With  regard  to  the  national  public  consultation  processes  required  under  Article  19(2), 
the  European  Commission  received  the  following  information  from  Member  States 
related to the assessments, definitions and targets fixed under articles 8, 9 and 10 of the 
MSFD13 (Table 1). 

Member 
State 

Public consultation 
timing 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 

01/04/2012 - 30/05/2012 
From April 2012 
19/05/2014 - 18/06/2014 

Link to 
national 
website(s) 
Yes 
No 
Yes 

8  COM(2014)  97  and  SWD(2014)  49.  The  report  from  Bulgaria  arrived  before  the  finalisation  of  the 
assessment;  due  to  the  shortness  of  time,  it  was  assessed  only  in  relation  to  Article  9  (GES)  and  10 
(targets). 
9 SWD(2017) 1. 
10 SWD(2018) 393. 
11 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland (only targets), Italy, Portugal and Romania. 
12 Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Slovenia, Spain and United Kingdom (for Gibraltar). 
13 More details and links to national websites available at:  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/public-

consultation/index_en.htm  

4 

 
                                                 
Cyprus 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 

Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 

15/05/2012 - 15/06/2012 
04/06/2012 - 27/08/2012 
Spring 2012 
16/04/2012 - 15/05/2012 
16/07/2012 - 16/10/2012 
14/10/2011 - 16/04/2012 
13/08/2012 - 30/09/2012 
Not indicated 
End of first semester 2012 
Not indicated 
12 March - 12 June 2012 
Not indicated 
25/05/2012 - 05/07/2012 
01/03/2013 - 21/03/2013 
and 30/03/2015 - 
20/04/2015 
08/09/2012 - 08/10/2012 
First semester 2012 
21/06/2012 - 22/07/2012 
01/06/2012 - 15/07/2012 
19/03/2012 - 16/04/2012 
27/03/2012 - 18/06/2012 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 
No 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Table  1.  Information  about  the  public  consultations  by  Member  States  following  their  initial 
assessment  of  marine  waters,  GES  determinations  and  the  establishment  of  environmental 
targets. 

In 2012, WG DIKE and MSCG agreed that Member States could fulfil their obligations 
under Article 19(3), as regards the publication of data and information resulting from the 
initial  assessment, by  pointing to  published reports  or to  data sets  accessible via a web 
link.  The  corresponding  metadata  could  be  entered  manually  or  reported  as  web  links. 
Deadline for submission was 15 April 2013. 

1.3.  Main conclusions about the initial assessment of marine waters 

1.3.1.  Assessment methodology 

To assess  whether the information  reported by  Member States is  a  complete, adequate, 
consistent  and  coherent  framework  as  required  by  the  Directive,  the  Commission 
considered, in particular for Article 8, whether: 

  all three parts of Article 8(1) (essential features and characteristics; pressures and 

impacts; economic and social assessment) were reported; 

  all relevant descriptors in all marine waters were reported; 

 

 

 

the  assessments  led  to  conclusions  on  the  current  status  of  marine  waters,  and 
identified the anthropogenic pressures preventing the achievement of GES; 

the assessments and their conclusions were coherent with those of other Member 
States in the same marine region or subregion; 

the  initial  assessment  reflected  the  scientific  knowledge  available  in  the  fields 
covered by the Directive and enabled the setting of a baseline for future reference. 

5 

 
Meeting the above-mentioned criteria led to an “adequate evaluation”, whereas failing to 
meet one or several of them led to an evaluation as "partially adequate" or "inadequate" 
Table 2 provides a summary of the assessments for Article 8 per Member State and per 
region. 

1.3.2.  Regional level 

In  the  Baltic  Sea  region,  all  Member  States  provided  an  initial  assessment  for 
descriptors14 D1, D2, D3, D5, D6, D8 and D9; four Member States for D4 (DK, EE, LT, 
LV),  five  Member  States  for  D7  (DE,  DK,  FI,  PL,  SE),  all  except  LV  for  D10,  two 
Member  States  for  D11  (DE,  LT)  with  the  remaining  country  assessments  being  either 
very limited or not reported (DK, EE, FI, LV, PL, SE). 

In the north-east Atlantic Ocean region all Member States provided an initial assessment 
for  all  descriptors,  except  for  D11,  where  five  Member  States  (DE,  ES,  FR,  IE,  UK) 
provided detailed assessments, with the remaining country assessments being either very 
limited or not reported (BE, DK, NL, PT, SE). 

In  the  Mediterranean  Sea  region,  all  Member  States  provided  an  initial  assessment  for 
descriptors D1, D2, D3, D5, D6, D7 and D8; all Member States except  HR for D4;  all 
Member States except IT for D9; all Member States except HR for D10; and all Member 
States except EL and IT for D11. 

In the  Black Sea  region, both  EU Member States provided an initial  assessment  for  all 
descriptors. 

1.3.3.  EU level 

The initial assessment in 2012 was the first major MSFD reporting exercise for Member 
States.  It  necessitated  the  gathering,  organisation  and  interpretation  of  information  on 
Member State’s marine waters, often for the first time, for the very wide range of topics 
required  by  the  directive.  It  provided  an  opportunity  for  Member  States  to  better 
understand the features  and characteristics of their marine waters and to  provide a first 
assessment of 1) the current environmental status of their marine waters, 2) the pressures 
and  impacts  on  the  marine  environment  and  3)  an  economic  and  social  analysis  of  the 
uses of the marine waters and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment. 

These  assessments  were  structured  by  the  11  descriptors  in  MSFD  Annex  I,  the 
characteristics,  pressures  and  impacts  in  Annex  III  and  the  criteria  and  methodological 
standards in the 2010 GES Decision. They were further supported by the Commission's 
Staff  Working  Document  on  the  relationship  between  the  initial  assessment  of  marine 
waters and the criteria for GES (SEC(2011) 1255) and by several guidance documents15: 

  Economic and social analysis for the initial assessment for the MSFD (2010) 

GD01 

  Common Understanding of MSFD Art. 8, 9 and 10 (2011) GD02 

14 The determination of good environmental status is structured around 11 descriptors specified in Annex I 
of the MSFD: D1 biological  diversity,  D2 non-indigenous species, D3 fish and shellfish, D4 food s, 
D5  eutrophication,  D6  sea-floor  integrity,  D7  hydrographical  conditions,  D8  contaminants,  D9 
contaminants in seafood, D10 marine litter, and D11 energy including underwater noise. 

15 All of them available at https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/1dfbd5c7-5177-4828-9d60-ca1340879afc.  

6 

 
                                                 
  Approach to reporting for the MSFD [Art. 8-9-10] (2012) GD03a 
  MSFD Reporting Sheets for Art. 8, 9 and 10 (2012) GD03b 
  MSFD 2012 reporting guidance (2012) GD03c 
  Guidance for 2012 MSFD reporting, using the MSFD database tool (2012) GD04 

The  quality  of  reporting  in  2012  varied  widely  from  country  to  country,  and  within 
individual  Member  States,  from  one  descriptor  to  another.  Despite  ongoing  activity  on 
the  state  of  the  marine  environment  in  each  of  the  Regional  Sea  Conventions,  and  the 
necessity through Article 5(2) to cooperate within their region, the majority of Member 
States  prepared  their  initial  assessments  in  isolation  from  each  other,  and  only 
occasionally  drew  upon  the  results  of  their  Regional  Sea  Conventions.  Member  States 
additionally  drew  upon  assessment  results  from  other  EU  policies,  notably  Birds 
Directive16  (D1),  Habitats  Directive17  (D1,  D6),  Common  Fisheries  Policy18  (D3)  and 
Water Framework Directive19 (D5, D8). 

A comprehensive assessment 

The MSFD requires an assessment of the state of EU marine waters which is holistic and 
integrates socioeconomic considerations, to provide a very broad overview of the marine 
environment in Europe. The first assessment by Member States in 2012 allowed a better 
understanding  of  the  pressures  from  human  activities  and  their  impacts  on  marine 
ecosystems.  In  particular,  biodiversity,  non-indigenous  species,  marine  litter  and 
underwater noise were addressed more systematically than ever before. 

Overall, the first phase of the MSFD brought the EU one step closer to implementation of 
the  ecosystem  approach  with  regard  to  the  management  of  human  activities  impacting 
our seas, a concept at the heart of the Directive. Valuable lessons were learnt at the EU 
level, in Member States and in Regional Sea Conventions alike. 

Adequacy 

Despite these positive aspects, there were inadequacies in Member States’ submissions, 
with  even  the  best-performing  Member  States  still  needing  to  address  specific 
shortcomings (Figure 2). 

The initial assessment was intended to provide the evidence base on which the forward 
implementation  of  the  Directive  could  rely.  Yet,  the  Member  State  reports  often  gave 
only a fragmented overview of the state of the marine environment, not always reflecting 
the  available  knowledge  in  its  entirety.  The  presence  of  data  gaps  was  highlighted  by 
many  Member  States,  yet  only  a  few  Member  States  put  forward  a  strategy  on  how  to 
close the existing data gaps, for instance through future plans for monitoring at national 
or regional level. Finally, Member States did not use the initial assessment to establish a 

16  Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  November  2009  on  the 

conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7). 

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

and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7). 

18 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on 
the  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  amending  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  1954/2003  and  (EC)  No 
1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council 
Decision 2004/585/EC (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22). 

19 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a 

framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1). 

7 

 
                                                 
clear  baseline  from  which  to  assess  progress  with  the  Directive  and  improvements  in 
environmental  status.  This  was  considered  a  missed  opportunity  that  makes  it  difficult, 
and  in  some  cases  impossible,  to  assess  the  distance  between  the  current  state  of  the 
marine  environment  and  a  GES,  bearing  in  mind  that  the  determination  of  GES  under 
Article 9 itself was mostly very qualitative and lacked sufficient specification to enable 
adequate assessment of whether it has been achieved. 

FI 
EE 
LV 
LT 
PL 
DE 
DK 
SE 
SE 
DK 
DE 
NL 
BE 
UK 
IE 
FR 
ES 
PT 
UK 
ES 
FR 
IT 
MT 
HR 
SI 
EL 
CY 
BG 
RO 

Baltic 
Sea 

North-
East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

Mediterr
anean 
Sea 

Black Sea 

D1 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
A 
NA 

D2 
PA 
PA 
NA 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 

D3 
NA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 

D4 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NR 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 

D7 
D6 
D5 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
NR 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA/PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
A 
A 
NA 
PA 
A 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
A 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA  NA/PA  NA 
NA 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
NA 
A 
A 
NA 
A 
PA 
NA 
NA 
PA 

D8 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 

D9 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
A 
PA 
NA 
A 
PA 
NR 
NA 
A 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NR 

D10 
NA 
NA 
NR 
NA 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
NA 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
NR 
A 
A 
NA 
NA 
NR 

D11 
PA 
PA 
NR 
PA 
NR 
A 
NA 
NR 
NR 
NA 
A 
NA 
NA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
NR 
PA 
A 
A 
NR 
NA 
NA 
A 
NR 
NA 
NA 
NR 

Table 2: Conclusions from the assessment of Article 8 (initial assessment) per descriptor, country 
and region. Green (A) = adequate; orange (PA) = partially adequate; red (NA) = not adequate, 
grey  (NR)  =  not  reported.  27%  of  the  assessments  were  considered  appropriate  and  54% 
partially appropriate. 

8 

 
 
 
Figure 2: Summary of the overall adequacy scores per Member State for articles 8 (expressed as 
a  percentage  of  the  total  possible  score)  of  the  2012  reports.  Member  States  are  grouped  per 
marine region, hence SE, DK, DE, FR and ES appear twice. 

Coherence 

Regional cooperation through the Regional Sea Conventions protecting the EU’s marine 
waters  is  well-developed.  Significant  commitments  were  made  by  all  Regional  Sea 
Conventions to implement the ecosystem approach and support MSFD implementation. 
Unfortunately,  Member  States’  use  of  the  results  of  regional  cooperation  within  their 
marine  strategies  varies.  Sometimes,  the  relevant  work  developed  under  Regional  Sea 
Conventions came too late, but even when it was on time, it was not always been used in 
national reports. 

Comparability of the reporting of Member States was low and made coordinated action 
and analysis difficult during the 1st cycle of implementation. The Commission considered 
that, unless the situation improved significantly in the 2nd cycle, it will be challenging not 
only  to  achieve  GES  by  2020,  but  even  to  know  how  far  we  are  from  meeting  the 
objective. This  may also deprive economic operators of a level-playing  field  across the 
EU and its marine regions. 

9 

 
 
Figure 3: Summary of the level of coherence achieved within each marine region (expressed as a 
percentage of the total possible score) for the 2012 reporting of Articles 8. 

1.3.4.  Key recommendations 

The most common recommendations of the Commission assessments were for Member 
States to: 

 

 

 

 

 

Capitalise  on  the  positive  aspects  of  implementation  so  far,  and  work  towards 
overcoming 
the 
monitoring programmes and programmes of measures; 

identified,  particularly  when  preparing 

the  weaknesses 

use the monitoring programmes to address the shortcomings and knowledge gaps 
identified in the initial assessment; 

significantly  improve  the  quality  and  coherence  of  their  initial  assessments  (in 
conjunction  with  improved  their  determinations  of  GES  and  environmental 
targets) to ensure that the second round of implementation yields greater benefits. 

systematically  use  assessments  carried  out  for  other  relevant  EU  legislation  or 
under Regional Sea Conventions, with preparatory work starting immediately; 

develop  action  plans,  coordinated  at  (sub-)regional  level,  to  rectify  the 
shortcomings identified at the latest by 2018. 

The following recommendation applied to Articles 8, 9 and 10: 

 

put  regional  cooperation  at  the  heart  of  MSFD  implementation,  and  influence 
national  implementation  processes,  rather  than  the  other  way  around.  At  the 
regional  level,  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  should  cooperate  with 
other  Contracting  Parties  in  the  context  of  the  Regional  Sea  Conventions,  to 
stimulate  further  coordination  at  regional  or  sub-regional  level.  Member  States 
should then use the results systematically in national implementation processes. 

In terms of implementation at the EU level, the following key conclusions were reached: 

10 

 
 
 

 

revise,  strengthen  and  improve  the  GES  Decision  2010/477/EU,  aiming  at  a 
clearer, simpler, more concise, more coherent and comparable set of GES criteria 
and methodological standards; 

review  Annex  III  of  the  MSFD,  and  if  necessary  revise,  and  develop  specific 
guidance  to  ensure  a  more  coherent  and  consistent  approach  for  assessments  in 
the next implementation cycle. 

These two recommendations were fulfilled through adoption of the revised Commission 
Decision (EU) 2017/848, the repeal of Decision 2010/477/EU, and adoption of a revived 
MSFD Annex III via Commission Directive (EU) 2017/845. 

1.3.5.  Main conclusions about access to data  

An analysis of the reporting under Article 19(3)20 showed that, as of 15 April 2013, 16 
Member States had reported metadata related to  the underlying evidence of their initial 
assessments. Table 3 gives an overview of the submitted information. The requirements 
of Article 19(3) has four elements: 

  The need to comply with the INSIPRE Directive 2007/2/EC – Only two Member 
States  made  the  attempt  to  follow  the  standards  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive.  In 
general, there was a wide variety of metadata formats and sources. Data sources 
were  interpreted  as  scientific  publications,  European  regulations  and  directives, 
Regional Sea Convention reports, Member State reports, etc. 

  Identification  of  the  data  and  information  resulting  from  the  initial  assessment 
(e.g. a list of the data sets and information sources) – The identification of data 
sources was, with very few exceptions, incomplete. 

  The  need  to  indicate  where  the  data  and  information  could  be  accessed  (e.g. 
internet sites where the data and information can be viewed) – Most of the web 
links pointed to text-based information (descriptions). The few links that pointed 
to  external  data  sources  were  not  sufficiently  precise  to  locate  or  download  the 
relevant data sets. 

  The  provision  of  permission  (use  rights)  to  use  the  data  and  information  – 
Member States did not refer to this aspect in their reporting, but no restrictions of 
use were found in the reported information. 

The  information  from  this  reporting  exercise  was  insufficient  to  build  a  common  or 
harmonised data set or to compare data from different countries. However, in the last six 
years major developments  in  the publication and aggregation of marine data have been 
made by individual Member States, Regional Sea Conventions and EMODnet21, among 
others. 

In  time  for  the  second  MSFD  cycle,  the  MSFD  Technical  Group  on  Data  prepared 
detailed  recommendations  for  the  publication  of  datasets  under  MSFD  Article  19(3) 

20 Summarised in the document DIKE_8/2013/08. 
21 The European Marine Observation and Data Network, http://www.emodnet.eu/ 

11 

 
                                                 
(guidance  document  GD1522)  including  a  step-wise  approach,  worked  examples, 
guidance  for  the  reporting,  connections  with  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  a  first 
exploration of the role of international organisations. This document and the discussions 
within the working groups will support the publication of more coherent and harmonised 
data sets resulting from Article 8 assessments.  

d
e
t
r
o
p
e
r

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n
i

o
N

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

l
a
n
r
e
t
x
e

o
t

s
k
n
i
l

b
e
W

s
e
i
r
e
u
q
e
r
o
m

(

s
e
u
g
o
l
a
t
a
c

)
d
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

d
e
s
a
b
r
e
p
a
p

o
t

s
k
n
i
l

b
e
W

s
t
n
e
m
s
s
e
s
s
a
r
o
s
t
r
o
p
e
r

d
e
s
a
b
r
e
p
a
p

o
t

e
c
n
e
r
e
f
e
R

s
t
n
e
m
s
s
e
s
s
a
r
o
s
t
r
o
p
e
r

d
e
s
u

e
g
a
u
g
n
a
l

N
E

h
t
i

w
y
l
p
m
o
c

o
t

t
p
m
e
t
t

A

e
v
i
t
c
e
r
i
D
E
R
P
I
S
N

I

e
h
t

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 

X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

y
r
t
n
u
o
C

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 

Table 3. Analysis of the information  reported under Article 19(3) about access to the data and 
information resulting from the initial assessments, in accordance with the INSPIRE Directive. 

1.4.  Main conclusions about GES determinations and environmental targets 

1.4.1.  Assessment methodology 

To assess  whether the information  reported by  Member States is  a  complete, adequate, 
consistent  and  coherent  framework  as  required  by  the  Directive,  the  Commission 
considered, in particular for articles 9 and 10, whether: 

  all  relevant  descriptors  and  all  marine  waters  were  covered  by  Member  States’ 

reports for all relevant provisions; 

22 

https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/326ae5ac-0419-4167-83ca-e3c210534a69/library/4ebc2b29-7f7d-

4359-98b3-0aac3023fed7/details  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  the determination of GES was specific and quantified, making it possible to assess 

progress towards its realisation; 

  GES definitions  in  the same marine region  or subregion  were  coherent  with  each 

other; 

  the  environmental  targets  reflected  the  findings  of  the  initial  assessment  and  the 
GES definition, to enable Member States to realistically achieve GES by 2020. 

Meeting the above-mentioned criteria led to an “adequate evaluation”, whereas failing to 
meet one or several of them led to an evaluation as "partially adequate" or "inadequate" 
(Table 4 and Table 5). 

1.4.2.  Conclusions at regional level 

In the north-east Atlantic Ocean region (Table 4 and Table 5), all Member States defined 
GES for all descriptors; however, four Member States (out of ten in the region) did not 
define environmental targets for a number of descriptors: two Member States (IE, PT) for 
the biodiversity descriptors (D1, 4 and 6); two (DK, PT) for Descriptor 7; two (IE, SE) 
for Descriptor 11 and one Member State (PT) for Descriptors 2 and 5. 

In  the  Baltic  Sea  region,  three  Member  States  (EE,  LT,  LV)  did  not  define  GES  for 
Descriptors 7, 10 and 11 and one of these Member States (LV) also did not define GES 
for Descriptors 4 and 8. Four Member States (out of seven in the region) did not define 
environmental  targets  for  a  number  of  descriptors:  three  Member  States  (DK,  LT,  LV) 
did not define targets for D7, three (LT, LV, SE) did not define targets for D11, two (LT, 
LV)  did  not  define  targets  for  D10  and  LV  also  did  not  define  targets  for  D4  and  D8. 
Descriptors 7, 10 and 11 are the descriptors for which there were most gaps. 

In the Mediterranean Sea, all Member States have defined GES for all descriptors, except 
two  Member  States  (CY,  MT)  which  have  not  defined  GES  for  Descriptor  4.  Six 
Member  States  out  of  nine  did  not  define  environmental  targets  for  a  number  of 
descriptors: two Member States (CY, MT) did not define targets for D2 and D4, another 
(FR)  did  not  define  targets  for  D5,  three  Member  States  (CY,  FR,  IT)  did  not  define 
targets for D7, three (FR, IT, MT) did not define targets for D9 and three (CY, EL, IT) 
did not define targets for D11. The UK reported no targets for all descriptors. 

In the  Black Sea region, none of the two EU Member States defined GES  for D7, D9, 
D10 and D11. Consequently, the two countries did not set environmental targets for these 
descriptors (except D9 for which BG set targets without having defined a GES).  

1.4.3.  Conclusions at EU level 

Adequacy 

Most  Member  States  reported  their  GES  definitions  for  all  descriptors  and  some  set 
ambitious  benchmarks  through  their  definitions.  An  adequate  determination  of  GES 
under Article 9 is particularly important, as it sets the level of ambition which Member 
States  commit  to  achieve  by  2020.  Nevertheless,  a  majority  of  countries  failed  to  go 
beyond  the  general  GES  description  set  out  in  the  Directive  and  the  GES  Decision 
2010/477/EU.  For  instance,  many  did  not  include  explanatory  elements  that  would 
illustrate the concept and provide added value, ambition and clearly defined goals. GES 
was  also  often  not  been  set  in  a  measurable  way,  making  it  impossible  to  assess  in 

13 

 
practice to what extent it is achieved. High qualitative ambitions in GES determination, 
when they exist, often remain of an aspirational kind. 

The same conclusions can be drawn in relation to the environmental targets set according 
to  Article  10  of  the  MSFD.  Member  States  set  a  wide  variety  of  targets,  which  differ 
greatly  in  their  level  of  ambition  and  specificity.  Most  importantly,  the  environmental 
targets set were in some cases not sufficient to achieve GES. 

The  Committee  of  the  Regions23  expressed  its  concern  for  the  lack  of  ambition, 
vagueness  and  inconsistency  of  the  targets  set  by  the  Member  States.  The  Committee 
called  to  all  parties  involved  (including  local  and  regional  authorities)  to  propose  and 
implement  a  range  of  diverse  and  ambitious  measures  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the 
MSFD.   

FI 
EE 
LV 
LT 
PL 
DE 
DK 
SE 
SE 
DK 
DE 
NL 
BE 
UK 
IE 
FR 
ES 
PT 
UK 
ES 
FR 
IT 
MT 
HR 
SI 
EL 
CY 
BG 
RO 

Baltic 
Sea 

North-
East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

Mediterr
anean 
Sea 

Black 
Sea 

D3 
A 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
A 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
A 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA 

D2 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 

D7 
NA 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 

D6 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 

D5 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 

D4 
PA 
NA 
NR 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
NA 

D1 
NA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
A 

D8 
NA 
PA 
NR 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
NA+  NA+  NA+  NA+  NA+  NA+  NA+  NA+ 
NR 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
A 
NA 
NA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA+ 
PA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NA+ 
PA+ 
NA+  NA+ 
NA+ 
PA+ 
PA 
PA 
NA+ 
NA+  NA+  NA+ 

NA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA+ 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NR 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
A 
PA 
NR+  NA+  NA+ 
NA+ 
PA+ 
NR+ 
NR+ 
NA 
NR+ 

NA 
PA 
A 
PA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
PA+ 
PA 
NR+ 

D9 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
A 
A 
PA+ 
NR 
A 
A 
PA+ 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA+ 
NR+ 
NR+ 

D11 
D10 
NA 
PA 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NR 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
NA 
NA 
NA+  NA+ 
NA 
NA 
A 

A 
NA 
A 

NA+  NA+ 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
NA+ 
NR 
NR+ 
NR+ 
NR+ 

Table 4. Conclusions from the assessment of Article 9 (GES definitions) per descriptor, country 
and region. Green (A) = adequate; orange (PA) = partially adequate; red (NA) = not adequate, 
grey (NR) = not reported. 8% of the assessments were considered adequate and 46% partially 
adequate.  The  sign  “+”  indicates  that  the  Member  State  submitted  an  updated  GES 
determination by 2017 which was taken into account in subsequent assessments. 

Consistency 

23 CoR 112th plenary session of 3-4 June 2015 - Opinion “Better protecting the marine environment” 3 June 

2015 adopted by unanimity. 

14 

 
 
 
                                                 
Another general concern is the lack of consistency in Member States’ implementation. In 
particular  the  logical  link  between  the  initial  assessment  (the  point  of  departure),  the 
determination of GES (the final objective) and the targets (the effort needed to reach the 
objective,  starting  from  the  point  of  departure)  was  not  always  present  or  clear.  Some 
Member  States  did  not  distinguish  clearly  between  the  determination  of  GES  and  the 
targets  themselves,  or  did  not  take  into  account  their  initial  assessment  in  developing 
targets,  turning  a  comprehensive,  holistic  process  into  a  series  of  unrelated  reporting 
exercises. 

Coherence 

Member States’ use of the results of regional cooperation within their marine strategies 
(as  required  by  Article  3(5)b  and  5(2)  MSFD)  varies  and  this  has  resulted  in  a  lack  of 
coherence  across  the  EU,  and  also  within  the  same  marine  region  or  subregion.  While 
coherence  varies  widely  across  the  EU  and  is  high  in  some  regions  and  for  some 
descriptors, overall levels of coherence are moderate to low. Member States in the north-
east  Atlantic  Ocean  region  showed  the  highest  level  of  coherence  (nevertheless  with 
significant room for improvement) while coherence was lowest in the Mediterranean Sea 
region and in the Black Sea region (although the latter could only be partially assessed). 

Thus,  there  was  no  shared  EU  understanding  of  what  constitutes  GES,  even  at  a 
(sub)regional  level.  There  are  23  different  GES  determinations  across  the  EU,  and 
therefore no common or comparable goals.  

The  Commission  observed  during  the  first  cycle  of  implementation  that  much  more 
progress  needed  to  be  made  to  avoid  an  insufficient,  inefficient,  piecemeal  and 
unnecessarily costly approach to the protection of the marine environment.  

D2 
D1 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
A 
NA 
A 
PA 
NR+ 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NR+ 
NR+ 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA+  NA+ 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA 

FI 
EE 
LV 
LT 
PL 
DE 
DK 
SE 
SE 
DK 
DE 
NL 
BE 
UK 
IE 
FR 
ES 
PT 
UK 
ES 
FR 
IT 
MT 
HR 
SI 
EL 

D3 
PA 
NA 
PA 
A 
PA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
A 
NA 
A 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NR 
PA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
NA 

Baltic 
Sea 

North-
East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

Mediterr
anean 
Sea 

D5 
A 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
NA 
PA 
NR 
NR 
PA 
NR 

D6 
PA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
NR+ 
NA 
PA 
NR+ 
PA 
PA 
PA 

D7 
D4 
NA 
A 
NA 
NA 
NR 
NA 
NR 
NA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NR 
PA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NR 
PA 
NA 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
NR+ 
NA 
NA 
A 
PA 
NR+ 
NR+ 
NA 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
NR 
NA+  NA+  NA+  NR+ 
NA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 

NA 
PA 
A 
PA 

NA 
PA 
NA 
NA 

15 

D9 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 

D10 
NA 
NA 
NR 
NR 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 

D11 
D8 
PA 
PA 
NA 
NA 
NR 
NR 
NR 
NA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NR 
PA 
NR 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
NR+ 
PA 
PA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
NA+  NA+  NA+  NA+ 
NR 
NR 
NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
NR+ 
NA+ 
NA 
PA 
A 
NA 
NA 
PA 
NA 
NA 

NR 
PA 
NR 
NR+ 
NR 
NA 
PA 
PA 

NR 
PA 
PA 
PA+ 
NA 
PA 
PA 
NA 

 
 
 
Black 
Sea 

CY 
BG 
RO 

NA+ 
PA+ 
PA+ 

NR 
NA 
NR+ 

NA+ 
PA+ 
NA+ 

PA+ 
NR+ 
NR+ 
A+ 
NR+  NA+ 

NA+ 
PA+ 
NR+ 

NA 

NR 
NA+  NR+ 
NA+  NA+  NA+  NR+ 
NR+ 
NR 

NR+ 

PA 

NR 
NR 
NR+ 

Table 5. Conclusions from the assessment of  Article 10 (environmental targets) per descriptor, 
country and region. Green (A) = adequate; orange (PA) = partially adequate; red (NA) = not 
adequate, grey (NR) = not reported. 7% of the assessments were considered adequate and 42% 
partially adequate. The sign “+” indicates that the Member State submitted updated targets by 
2017 which were taken into account in subsequent assessments. 

1.4.4.  Key recommendations 

The most common recommendations of the Commission assessments were for Member 
States to: 

  Systematically use standards stemming from  EU legislation (such as  the 
Common Fisheries Policy, the Water Framework Directive, the Habitats 
Directive,  Maritime  Spatial  Planning24  and 
Integrated  Coastal 
Management)  as  minimum  requirements.  If  such  standards  do  not  exist, 
Member States should use region-specific common indicators developed 
by the relevant Regional Sea Conventions. 

  Review and, where possible, update their GES and environmental targets 
in preparation for the monitoring and measures programmes, to allow for 
a consistent approach within and among regions and between the different 
provisions. 

  In  addition,  where  the  Commission  found  shortcomings,  Member  States 
should,  as  soon  as  possible  and  by  2018  at  the  latest,  significantly 
improve  the  quality  and  coherence  of  their  determinations  of  GES  and 
their  environmental  targets,  to  ensure  that  the  second  round  of 
implementation yields greater benefits.  

1.5.  Kick off of the second MSFD cycle of implementation 

1.5.1.  State of play 

Article  17  of  the  directive  required  Member  States  to  review  and  update  the  initial 
assessment of their marine waters, determination of GES and set of environmental targets 
by  15  October  2018.  Article  5  of  Commission  Decision  (EU)  2017/848  laid  down  a 
timeline requiring Member States to establish or (where it was not possible) to justify the 
absence of threshold values, lists of criteria elements and methodological standards also 
by that same date. 

These two legal requirements were not fulfilled either due to late reporting or to lack of 
details stemming from the 2017 Commission Decision or justification for not providing 
those. So far, the second cycle of the MSFD brings longer delays than the first cycle. As 
of  15/10/2019,  one  year  after  the  deadline,  less  than  half  (10)  of  the  coastal  Member 
States have submitted their electronic reports, and 14 have provided paper-based reports 
(Table 6). A preliminary analysis of the information received in electronic format (with 
the overall assessment of status per descriptor and criteria) is provided in SWD(2020) 61. 

24  Directive  2014/89/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  July  2014  establishing  a 

framework for maritime spatial planning (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 135). 

16 

 
                                                 
The  electronic  reporting  received  from  Member  States  under  Article  17  will  be  made 
publicly available through the WISE Marine portal25.  

Report 
type 

Reported  by  the  15 
October 2018 deadline 

Reported  by  15  October 
2019 

Not yet reported 

Text 
report 
Electronic 
report 

BE, NL 

NL 

DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, 
IT, LV, PL, RO, SE 
BE,  DE,  DK,  EE,  ES,  FI, 
LV, PL, SE 

BG,  CY,  HR,  IE,  LT, 
MT, PT, SI, UK 
BG, CY, EL, FR, HR, IE, 
IT, LT, MT, PT, RO, SI, 
UK 

Table 6. Reporting situation under Article 17, which requires the updates of Articles 8, 9 and 10, 
thus, starting the 2nd cycle of implementation of the directive. 

The  process  for  updating  Articles  8,  9  and  10  in  2018  benefitted  from  three  important 
developments since the reporting in 2012: 

  Significant progress in regional or subregional cooperation: Through the enhanced 
activities  of  the  Regional  Sea  Conventions,  there  was  significant  development  of 
indicators and integrated assessments to assess the state of the marine environment 
in MSFD-compatible ways; three Regional Sea Conventions prepared quality status 
reports in time for use by Member States in their 2018 reporting. In addition, EU 
funding  supported  projects  between  Bulgaria  and  Romania  which  fostered 
cooperation on MSFD implementation, and similarly projects for cooperation in the 
Macaronesia subregion between Portugal and Spain. The following section details 
all the projects funded to support the implementation of the directive during its first 
cycle. 

  Adoption of the revised GES Decision and Annex III: These instruments aimed to 
provide a much clearer basis for the determination of GES and assessment of the 
extent  to  which  it  has  been  achieved.  They  were  adopted  in  2017  and  it  was 
acknowledged  that  Member  States  would  not  be  able  to  fully  reflect  their 
requirements in  their 2018 reporting;  nevertheless,  they  are expected to  provide a 
more structured and more clearly specified determination of GES that can underpin 
future assessments. 

  Simplification  of  the  2018  electronic  reporting:  The  reporting  requirements  were 
significantly simplified and aligned with the 2017 GES Decision to ensure that the 
extent  to  which  GES  has  been  achieved  could  be  more  clearly  reported.  The 
reporting  by  Member  States  has  been  coupled  with  developments  in  the  WISE-
Marine portal to disseminate the MSFD reported information so that the outputs of 
the  MSFD  process  become  more  visible.  This  includes  map-based  products  that 
demonstrate  the  status  of  the  marine  environment  for  each  descriptor  and 
geographical  area  reported  by  Member  States.  At  the  time  of  publication  of  this 
Article 20 report, these products were under review by the Member States ahead of 
their release to the public and stakeholders. 

25 https://water.europa.eu/marine  

17 

 
                                                 
1.5.2.  A note on timelines and deadlines within the MSFD 

An overview after the first MSFD cycle of implementation suggests that the timelines set 
in  the  legal  act  are  not  always  clear  or  operational.  There  is  ambiguity  in  the  baseline 
used to define deadlines for reporting under different articles. For example the dates for 
finalising  each  stage  of  the  first  cycle  are  clearly  laid  out  in  Article  5(2),  and  Article 
17(2) requires each stage to be reviewed every six years after their initial establishment. 
Whilst this 6-year update could be directly linked to the timelines in Article 5(2), Article 
17(3) requires the updated strategies to be sent to the Commission within three months of 
their publication for the public consultation required under Article 19(2). The publication 
dates are determined by each country’s national consultation process, and maybe a year 
or  more  before  the  reports  are  due  to  be  finalised.  Article  17(3)  therefore  introduces  a 
flexible  timing  for  when  reports  are  to  be  submitted  to  the  Commission,  which  is  not 
linked  to  the  dates  specified  in  Article  5(2)  and  indeed  can  require  the  reports  to  be 
submitted  well  before  the  end  of  the  6-year  review  period.  A  similar  issue  of  timing 
arises for the Article 18 interim report on the programmes of measures. Such flexibility 
in  the  legally-defined  reporting  deadlines  provides  considerable  uncertainty  in  the 
planning processes of both Member States and the Commission. Until now, the Common 
Implementation  Strategy  has  successfully  overcome  this  issue  by  agreeing  operational 
fixed deadlines for reporting. For example, the dates applied for submission of reports to 
the Commission were 15 October 2018 for Article 17 and 31 December 2018 for Article 
18. 

1.5.3.  Overview  of  EU  projects  specifically  designed  to  support  MSFD 

implementation 

Different EU funding sources, such as research, LIFE or structural funds, can be used to 
enhance  our  knowledge  from  and  management  of  the  EU  marine  environment.  Some 
funding was channelled from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) and the 
LIFE  regulation  specifically  to  help  Member  States  achieve  GES  and  implement  the 
MSFD. The specific calls were:  

  2018 call for proposals:  Marine Strategy Framework Directive  – Second Cycle: 
Implementation of the new GES Decision and Programmes of Measures (EMFF). 

  2016  call  for  proposals:  Implementation  of  the  Second  Cycle  of  the  Marine 
Strategy  Framework  Directive:  achieving  coherent,  coordinated  and  consistent 
updates  of  the  determinations  of  GES,  initial  assessments  and  environmental 
targets (EMFF). 

  2014  call  for  proposals:  Best  Practices  for  actions  plans  to  develop  integrated, 
regional  monitoring  programmes,  coordinated  programmes  of  measures  and 
addressing data and knowledge gaps in coastal and marine waters (EMFF). 

  2012  call  for  proposals:  Open  call  for  proposals  PP/ENV/SEA  2012  in  the 
framework of the Pilot Project "New Knowledge for an integrated management 
of  human  activities  in  the  sea"  –  addressed  to  enhance  the  environmental 
monitoring for the MSFD (LIFE). 

Year  of 
the call 
2018 

Name  of  the 
project 
Helcom 
Action  

Full title 

Actions to evaluate and identify effective measures to 
reach GES in the Baltic Sea marine region 

Regions  

Baltic Sea 

Descrip
tors 

18 

 
 
2018 

RAGES  

Risk-based Approaches to Good Environmental 
Status 

2018 

INDICIT II 

2018 

CeNoBS 

2018 

2018 

QUIETMED 
II 
MISTIC 
SEAS III 

2016 

INDICIT  

2016 

MEDCIS  

2016 

SPICE  

2016 

2016 

JMP 
EUNOSAT  
MISTIC 
SEAS II  

2016 

IDEM  

Implementation of the indicator “Impacts of marine 
litter on sea turtles and biota” in RSC and MSFD 
areas 
Support MSFD implementation in the Black Sea 
through establishing a regional monitoring system of 
cetaceans (D1) and noise monitoring (D11) for 
achieving GES 
Joint programme for GES assessment on D11-noise in 
the Mediterranean Marine Region 
Developing a coordinated approach for assessing D4 
via its linkages with D1 and other relevant descriptors 
in the Macaronesian sub-region 
Implementation of the indicator "Impacts of marine 
litter on sea turtles and biota" in RSC and MSFD areas 

Support Mediterranean Member States towards 
coherent and Coordinated Implementation of the 
second phase of the MSFD 
Implementation and development of key components 
for the assessment of Status, Pressures and Impacts, 
and Social and Economic evaluation in the Baltic Sea 
marine region 
Joint Monitoring Programme of the EUtrophication of 
the NOrth-Sea with SATellite data 
Applying a subregional coherent and coordinated 
approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine 
biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the 
MSFD 
Implementation of the MSFD to the Deep 
Mediterranean Sea 

2016 

QUIETMED   Joint programme on Noise (D11) for the 

2014 

Ecaphra  

2014 

Baltic Boost 

2014 

Mistic Sea  

2014 

ActionMed  

2012 

BALSAM 

2012 

IRIS-SES 

2012 

JMP NS/CS 

implementation of the Second Cycle of the MSFD in 
the Mediterranean Sea 
Applying an Ecosystem Approach to (sub)Regional 
Habitat Assessment 
Baltic Sea project to boost regional coherence of 
marine strategies through improved data flow, 
assessments and knowledge base for development of 
measures 
Macaronesia Islands Standard Indicators and Criteria: 
Reaching Common Grounds on Monitoring Marine 
Biodiversity in Macaronesia 
Action Plans for Integrated Regional Monitoring 
Programmes, Coordinated Programmes of Measures 
and Addressing Data and Knowledge Gaps in 
Mediterranean Sea cetaceans (D1) and noise 
monitoring (D11) for achieving GES 
Baltic Sea Pilot Project: Testing new concepts for 
integrated environmental monitoring of the Baltic Sea 
Integrated Regional monitoring Implementation 
Strategy in the South European Seas 
Towards a Joint monitoring programme for the North 
Sea and the Celtic Sea 

D2, 
D11 

D10 

D1, 
D11 

D11 

D1, 
D3, D4 

D10 

D6, 
D10, 
D11 

Ireland, 
France, Spain 
and Portugal 
Mediterranean 
and NE 
Atlantic 
Black Sea 

Mediterranean 
Sea 
Macaronesia 

Mediterranean 
and NE 
Atlantic 
West 
Mediterranean 
and Adriatic 
Baltic Sea 
including the 
Kattegat 

Greater North 
Sea 
Macaronesian 
subregion 

D5 

D1 

Mediterranean 
Sea  
Mediterranean 
Sea 

All 

D11 

OSPAR 

Baltic Sea 

D1, 
D4, D6 

Macaronesia 

Mediterranean 
Sea 

D1, 
D11 

Baltic Sea 

Mediterranean 
and Black Sea 
North Sea and 
Celtic Sea 

Table  7.  Summary  of  the  main  projects  funded  by  the  EU  between  2012  and  2019  to  support 
Member States in the implementation of the MSFD. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  MONITORING THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 

2.1.  Legal requirement 

Article  11(1)  and  Annex  V  of  the  MSFD  require  Member  States  to  establish  and 
implement monitoring programmes to assess (i) the environmental status of their marine 
waters, (ii) the progress  towards the achievement of environmental targets, and (iii) the 
impact  of  the  programmes  of  measures.  Articles  5(2),  6,  11(1)  and  11(3)  insist  on  the 
necessity  to  ensure  regional  coherence  and  coordination;  the  MSFD  monitoring 
programmes  should  be  compatible  with  the  monitoring  laid  down  by  other  Union 
legislation  or  international  agreements;  they  should  tackle  transboundary  impacts  and 
features;  they should make use of existing institutional  structures such as  Regional Sea 
Conventions; and they should facilitate the regional comparability of monitoring results. 

The monitoring programmes had to  be established by 15 July 2014  and reported by 15 
October 2014. They were guided by the indicative lists of characteristics, pressures and 
impacts  set  out  in  Annex  III  of  MSFD  and  by  the  2010  GES  Decision.  A  review  and 
update  of  the  monitoring  programmes,  due  by  July  2020,  shall  take  into  account  the 
Annex  III  as  amended  by  the  Commission  Directive  (EU)  2017/845  and  the 
specifications  and  standardised  methods  for  monitoring  and  assessment  in  the  revised 
Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848.  

Article  19(2)  of  the  MSFD  requires  Member  States  to  publish  and  make  available  for 
comment a summary of their monitoring programmes and Article 19(3) requires Member 
States to provide access and use rights to the data from the monitoring programmes to the 
European Commission and European Environmental Agency. 

2.2. 

Implementation process  

In  2014,  15  Member  States  reported  to  the  Commission  their  monitoring  programmes 
within 90 days of the reporting deadline of 15th October 2014; 4 Member States between 
90 and 180 days and the last 4 Member States even later (Greece reaching more than two 
years delay). 18 Member States provided electronic reporting sheets as well as their text-
based  reports  (Figure  4).  Four  Member  States26  provided  further  updates  of  their 
monitoring  programmes  a  long  time  after  their  original  submission  (around  one  year 
later). 

25

20

15

10

5

0

15-10-2014

15-04-2015

15-10-2015

14-04-2016

14-10-2016

14-04-2017

no. of text submissions

no. of electronic submissions

26 ES, RO, SI and UK. All of the UK reporting related to Gibraltar took place in March 2016. 

20 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 4. Cumulative number of Member States that submitted reports under Article 11, starting 
by the deadline on 15 October 2014. Spatial files are not considered. UK is counted twice since 
Gibraltar is treated as an independent submission. 

The monitoring programmes of 20 out of the 23 coastal Member States were assessed by 
the Commission in January 201727, while EL, MT, PL and Gibraltar (UK) were reported 
and finalised at a later stage and their assessment was published in August 2018. In some 
cases28,  the  lack  of  standardised  structure  and  comparability  between  the  reported 
information from Member States prevented the assessment of key pieces of information, 
like the purpose of monitoring or its spatial scope. The evaluation of regional coherence 
was  also  suboptimal  due  to  the  lack  of  consistency  (within  the  reporting  of  individual 
Member States) and of comparability (among Member States).  

Regarding  Article  19(2),  the  European  Commission  received  the  following  information 
from  Member  States  with  regard  to  the  public  consultation  processes  of  the  national 
MSFD monitoring programmes29 (Table 8). 

Member 
State 

Public consultation 
timing 

15/04/2014 - 15/06/2014 
03/09/2014 - 03/11/2014 
13/06/2014 - 11/07/2014 
12/09/2014 - 12/10/2014 
13/05/2014 - 06/08/2014 
22/08/2014 - 21/11/2014 
11/09/2014 - 26/09/2014 
07/04/2014 - 23/05/2014 
15/10/2013 - 14/04/2014 
15/07/2015 - 27/07/2015 
24/07/2014 - 12/09/2014 
09/06/2014 - 11/07/2014 
02/12/2013 - 30/09/2014 
04/02/2014 - 16/06/2014 
Not indicated 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Denmark 
France 
Estonia 
Finland 
Germany 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Netherlands  07/03/2014 - 17/04/2014 
03/06/2014 - 24/06/2014 
Poland 
01/08/2014 - 15/09/2014 
Portugal 
29/08/2014 - 29/09/2014 
Romania 
01/08/2014 - 30/09/2014 
Slovenia 
18/07/2014 - 30/09/2014 
Spain 
04/03/2014 - 24/04/2014 
Sweden 
08/01/2014 - 02/04/2014 
UK 

Link to 
national 
website(s) 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Table  8.  Information  about  the  public  consultations  by  Member  States  related  to  their  marine 
monitoring programmes. 

27  COM(2017)  3:  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  assessing 

Member States’ monitoring programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 

28 Notably IT, LV and PT. 
29 More details and links to national websites available at:  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/public-

consultation/index_en.htm  

21 

 
                                                 
In the 2017 and 2018 assessment reports, the Commission offered Member State-specific 
guidance,  the  main  conclusions  of  the  assessment  of  monitoring  programmes,  the 
outcomes per descriptor, the achievements observed and the aspects to be improved. 12 
Member  States  responded  to  the  Commission  recommendations  by  providing  written 
justification or additional information related to the main gaps and challenges observed 
in  their  monitoring  programmes.  Most  of  these  responses  did  not  fully  address  the 
Commission  recommendations  but  demonstrated  additional  efforts  by  Member  States. 
The main issue seems to be the late implementation of the monitoring activities.  

After  the  2017  Commission  assessment  of  the  monitoring  programmes,  the  European 
Parliament  expressed  its  concern  about  the  lack  of  adequacy  of  the  monitoring 
programmes to monitor marine litter and micro-litter and to assess its impact on marine 
wildlife30.  MEPs  encouraged  the  Commission  to  take  further  actions  to  avoid  marine 
waste.  The  Commission  has  followed  appropriate  steps  through  the  amendment  of  the 
Waste  Framework  Directive31,  the  new  Port  Reception  Facilities  Directive32,  the 
development of a plastics strategy33 and the Single Use Plastics Directive34. Some MEPs 
advocated  for  more  specific  legal  provisions  to  describe  monitoring  programmes  and 
more control by the Commission over the MSFD implementation. 

Given the novelty and density of the monitoring activities required under the MSFD, and 
based on the information received, it is expected that the monitoring programmes put in 
place by Member States will significatly improve in the second cycle of implementation. 
In addition, the establishment and reporting of the monitoring programmes was prior to 
the revision of the GES Decision35 and to  the establishment  of the first  programmes  of 
measures.  The  former  should  improve  the  harmonisation  and  comparability  of  the 
monitoring  programmes  while  the  latter  should  facilitate  their  completeness  and 
adequacy.  

2.3.  Main conclusions from the assessment of monitoring programmes 

2.3.1.  Assessment methodology 

Member States  reported  between 8 (SI) and 62 (DK) monitoring programmes and sub-
programmes  per  country36,  most  of  them  covering  all  MSFD  descriptors.  The 
Commission assessed the Member States’ marine monitoring networks in terms of: 

-  Coverage,  i.e.  the  extent  to  which  monitoring  programmes  reported  by  the 
Member States address the monitoring needs to measure progress towards (a) the 
achievement of GES and (b) targets;  

30 EP Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety meeting 24 April 2017, agenda item 
5:  Exchange  of  views  with  the  Commission  on  the  Report  assessing  Member  States'  monitoring 
programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (COM(2017)0003). 

31  Directive  2008/98/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19  November  2008  on  waste 

and repealing certain Directives (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3). 

32 Directive (EU) 2019/883 on  port  reception  facilities  for  the  delivery  of  waste  from  ships. 
33 COM(2018) 28: A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy. 
34 Directive (EU) 2019/904 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment.  
35 Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. 
36  Member  States  belonging  to  several  regions  would  reach  a  higher  total  if  summing  up  all  the  sub-
programmes for the different regions, which has not been done here since they tend to be overlapping 
(instead, only the individually highest figure per Member State has been taken into account). 

22 

 
                                                 
-  Regional  coherence,  i.e.  the  comparability  of  the  elements  monitored  and  the 

manner in which they were monitored.     

The analysis of coverage was based on the information provided by the Member States, 
which  included  both  general  and  programme-specific  information.  In  the  general 
questions, Member States self-assessed the adequacy of their monitoring programmes to 
measure  progress  towards  achieving  GES.  The  programme-specific  questions  provided 
descriptive  information  on  the  elements  and  parameters  monitored  as  well  as  spatial 
coverage and frequency of monitoring activities. All these characteristics were analysed 
per descriptor. In order to summarise the information at country level and provide a EU 
overview, Member States’ monitoring programmes were assessed as mostly, partly or not 
appropriate, depending on the proportion of monitoring programmes covering the needs 
to measure either (a) the progress towards GES or (b) the targets.  

The  Commission  also  looked  at  regional  coherence  assessment,  to  highlight  potential 
similarities  and  discrepancies  between  Member  States’  monitoring  programmes  at 
descriptor-level  and  to  indicate  in  which  areas  more  regional  cooperation  would  be 
necessary.  The  comparability  analysis  included  the  elements  (e.g.  species,  habitats, 
substances,  hydrographic  characteristics,  types  of  litter  and  noise,  etc.)  and  parameters 
monitored (e.g. abundance, distribution, concentration, etc.), the spatial scope (e.g. only 
on  the  coast,  in  defined  geographic  areas,  etc.)  and  the  temporal  frequency  of  the 
monitoring (e.g. yearly, 3-monthly, etc.).  

2.3.2.  Conclusions at EU level 

The  most  common  purpose  of  the  monitoring  programmes  was  to  assess  the 
environmental state of marine waters (the biodiversity descriptors and GES definitions) 
(72%),  followed  by  the  monitoring  of  pressures  (41%)  and  human  activities  (18%) 
(together  representing  the  pressures  descriptors).  Only  12%  of  the  monitoring 
programmes  focus  on  the  effectiveness  of  measures  to  mitigate  pressures  and  their 
impacts,  which  is  partly  explained  by  the  fact  that  Member  States  did  not  have 
operational MSFD measures before 2016. 

MSFD  monitoring  activities  cover  a  wide  geographical  area,  from  inland  waters  to 
marine areas beyond the jurisdiction of the Member State. The highest proportion (68%) 
of monitoring programmes apply to coastal waters, while this proportion decreases with 
the distance to the coast.  

The  descriptors  for  which  the  highest  number  of  Member  States  stated  they  had  the 
applicable  monitoring  programmes  in  place  by  2014  (the  MSFD's  required  date  for 
having monitoring programmes in place) were, as regards GES, contaminants in seafood 
(D9;  16  Member  States),  eutrophication  (D5;  15  Member  States)  and  commercial  fish 
(D3;  14  countries). Even by  2018,  when the second assessment of the status  of marine 
waters  was  due,  only  13  Member  States37  anticipated  having  their  monitoring 
programmes in place for at least 10 descriptors. This delay in establishing the monitoring 
programmes  is  expected  to  seriously  affect  the  data  available  for  assessing  GES  and 
progress  with  environmental  targets  as  required  for  the  2018  assessment.  Overall,  17 

37 BE, BG, CY, DE, DK, EE, FI, FR, HR, IT, NL, RO and UK (for Gibraltar). 

23 

 
                                                 
Member States38 reported they would have their monitoring in place for all descriptors by 
2020 – this is the year by when Member States are required to achieve GES at the latest. 

Overall,  the  monitoring  programmes  reported  by  Member  States  in  2014-2016  only 
partially  covered  monitoring  needs  to  measure  progress  towards  achieving  GES  and 
targets  (see  Table  9).  On  the  basis  of  the  technical  assessment,  six  Member  States’ 
monitoring programmes were considered as mostly appropriate to meet the requirements 
of the MSFD, fifteen others as partially appropriate and three Member States’ monitoring 
programmes  as  not  appropriate39.  Consequently,  monitoring  the  progress  towards 
achieving GES remains a challenge for Member States. 

h
s
i
f

n
m
u
l
o
c

s
e
g
n
a
h
c

,
4

C 

B
4

r
e
t
a

s
d
r
i

M
4

W
4

r
e
t
t
i
l

e
n
i
r
a

C 
C 

C 
C 

C 
C 

C 
C 

GES 

GES 

GES 

GES 

GES 

GES 

h
s
i
F
4

,
1
D
C 

,
1
D
C 

,
1
D
C 

,
1
D
C 

s
l
a
m
m
a

d
e
b
a
e
S
6

d
o
o
f
a
e
S
9
D

s
t
n
a
n
i
m
a
t
n
o
c

C 
Targets  C 

Targets  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 

PC  NC  C 
Targets  PC  NC  C 

n
s
o
t
i
n
t
a
a
c
n
i
i
h
m
.
p
o
a
o
r
t
r
d
n
t
y
o
u
H
C
E
8
7
5
D
D
D
C 
C 
C 
PC  PC  C 

PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 
Targets  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  NR2  C 

PC  NR2  NR1  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 
Targets  PC  NR2  NR1  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 
PC  PC  PC  PC  C 
PC  PC  PC  PC  C 

l
a
i
c
r
e
m
m
S
o
I
N
C
,
3
2
1
D
D
D
PC  C 
C 
Targets  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 
C 
C 

e
s
i
o
N
/
y
g
r
e
n
M
E
1
0
1
1
D
D
PC  PC 
PC  C 
PC  PC  C  NR2  PC  C  NR2  NR2 
PC  PC 
PC  C 
PC  PC  C 
GES  NR2  NR2  NR1  NR2  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  NR2  NR2  PC  NR2 
Targets  NR2  NR2  NR1  NR2  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  NR2  NR2  PC  NR2 
C  NR2  PC  C  NR2 
C  NR2  PC  C  NR2 
PC  PC 
PC  PC  C 
PC  PC 
PC  PC  C 
PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  NR1  PC  NR1 
PC  PC  NR1  PC  NR1 
PC  PC 
C 
PC  NC 
C 
PC  PC  PC  NR1 
PC  C  NR2 
PC  C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
PC 
C 
C 
C 
PC 
C 
PC  C 
C 
C 
C 
C 
PC  PC 
GES  NC  PC  PC  PC  PC  NC  PC  C  NC  PC  C 
C 
C 
PC  PC  C 
PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C  NR1  NR1  NC  NC  C  NC 
Targets  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C  NR1  NR1  NC  NC  PC  C 
C 
PC  C 
C 
C 
PC  PC 
PC 
PC  PC 
PC  PC 
C 
PC 

Targets  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  NC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 
C 
C 
PC  C 
C 
C 
PC  PC  C 
PC  PC  C 

C 
PC  C 
PC  C 
PC  C 
PC  PC  PC  NC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 
Targets  PC  PC  PC  NC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 
C 
C 
PC  C 

C 
C 
PC  C 
PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 
Targets  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 

PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 
Targets  NR2  NR2  C  NR2  PC  PC  C 
PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 
C 
C 

C 
C 
Targets  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 
C 
C 

C 
C 
C 
C 
C  NC  PC  PC  C 
C  NC  NC  PC  C 

PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  NC  C 
Targets  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  NC  C 

Targets  NR2  NR2  C  NR2  C  NC  C 

PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  NC  C 

C 
Targets  C 

Targets  C 

C 
C 
C 
C 

PC  C 

GES 

GES 

GES 

GES 

GES 

GES 

GES 

GES 

GES 

C 
C 

C 
C 

C 
C 

C 
C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

n
o
i
s
u
l
c
n
o
C

MA 

PA 

NA 

PA 

PA 

PA 

PA 

PA 

MA 

PA 

PA 

PA 

NA 

PA 

MA 

MA 

PA 

Baltic 
Sea 

North-
East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

FI 

EE 

LV 

LT 

PL 

DE 

DK 

SE 

NL 

BE 

UK 

IE 

PT 

FR 

ES 

Mediterr
anean 
Sea 

UK 

IT 

38 All coastal Member States except EL, IT, LT, LV, PT, SE (for the Atlantic) and SI.  
39 The  UK being counted twice, as the appropriateness  score  for the North-east  Atlantic  differs from the 
Mediterranean one. For remaining Member States appearing in several regions the score is the same, 
and the regions therefore not separated. 

24 

 
                                                 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
MT 

SI 

HR 

EL 

CY 

BG 

RO 

Black 
Sea 

C 
C 

C 
C 

GES 

GES 

GES 

PC  PC  C 
C 

C 
PC  C 
PC  PC  C 

C 
Targets  PC  PC  C 

PC  C 
PC  PC 
PC  NC  PC  PC 
GES  NR1  NR1  NR1  PC  PC  NR1  PC  PC  PC  PC  NR1  PC  NR1 
Targets  NR1  NR1  NR1  NC  NC  NR1  NC  PC  NC  NC  NR1  PC  NR1 
PC  PC 
PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 
Targets  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  NC  PC  PC  PC  PC 
PC  PC  PC  NC  PC  NC  PC  PC 
Targets  NC  PC  NC  PC  PC  PC  PC  NC  NC  NC  NC  PC  PC 
C 
PC  NC 
PC  NR2  PC  PC  C  NR2 
C  NR2 
C  NR2 
C  NR2  NR2 
PC  NR2 
C 

C  NR2  C 
Targets  NR2  PC  NR2  PC  PC  NR2  PC  C  NR2  C 

PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  NC  C 
Targets  NR2  NR2  PC  PC  NC  NR2  C 

PC  C 
PC  C 
GES  NR2  C  NR2  C 

C 
PC  PC  C 
PC  PC  PC  PC  PC  C 

C 
C 
C  NR2  C 

C 
Targets  C 

PC  PC  C 

C  NC  C 

GES 

GES 

C 
C 

C 

C 

C 

C 

MA 

NA 

PA 

PA 

PA 

MA 

PA 

Table 9. Overview of the assessment of the reported monitoring programmes per country, region 
and descriptor. Green (C) = covered; orange (PC) = partially covered; red (NC) = not covered; 
dark  grey  (NR1)  =  no  monitoring programme  reported;  light grey  (NR2)  =  GES  or  targets  not 
defined. In the conclusions’ column: green (MA) = mostly appropriate; orange (PA) = partially 
appropriate; red (NA) = not appropriate. 

Overall,  the  main  gaps  in  the  monitoring  programmes  relate  to  lack  of  knowledge 
(notably  for  non-indigenous  species,  hydrographical  changes,  marine  litter  and 
underwater  noise)  or  lack  of  methodological  standards  (e.g.  for  contaminants,  seabed 
habitats and water column habitats).  

The  monitoring  programmes  were  considered  sufficient,  for  the  purposes  of  assessing 
progress towards GES, in 50% or more of the Member States only for contaminants in 
seafood (D9), eutrophication (D5) and commercial fish (D3) (Figure 5). 

D9 - Contaminants in seafood

D5 - Eutrophication

D3 - Commercial fish

D8 - Contaminants

D1, 4, 6 - Seabed habitats

D1, 4 -Water column habitats

D1, 4 - Mammals and reptiles

D1, 4 - Birds

D7 - Hydrographical changes

D1, 4 - Fish and cephalopods

D10 - Marine litter

D11 - Energy/Noise

D2 - NIS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Share of Member States (%) 

Coverage

Partial Coverage

No coverage

GES not defined or no monitoring programmes reported

Figure 5. Indication of the coverage of GES per descriptor by the monitoring programmes, based 
on the Commission’s technical assessment. 

25 

 
 
A  recent  in-depth  analysis  of  the  biodiversity  monitoring  programmes40  showed  more 
detailed insights on the information reported by Member States and their key issues. The 
lack of consistency on the reported information in mainly due a differently understanding 
by the Member States of the questions in the reporting sheets. The reported information 
did not fully succeed in providing a spatial overview of the current monitoring status of 
biodiversity. However, the revision and refinement of the reporting sheets and guidance 
document will improve the monitoring updates due in 2020.  

2.3.3.  Regional coherence 

The Commission assessment revealed a moderate to high degree of coherence across the 
Member States  of the  Baltic Sea, North-East  Atlantic Ocean  and  Black  Sea regions.  In 
these regions, the assessment shows high levels of coherence at least for some aspects of 
the programmes, such as the spatial scope or the elements monitored. Member States in 
the North-East Atlantic Ocean have created monitoring programmes at regional level for 
all descriptors, although they are not yet consistent. Overall, monitoring across a region, 
including non-EU States, appears more harmonised in the case of the Baltic Sea and the 
North-East Atlantic Ocean. Regional coherence is medium to low in the Mediterranean 
Sea  region,  where  more  consistent  monitoring  is  recommended  for  a  number  of 
descriptors, such as non-indigenous species (D2) and underwater noise (D11). 

s
l
a
m
m
a
M
4
,
1
D

s
d
r
i
B
4
,
1
D

h
s
i
F
4
,
1
D

n
m
u
l
o
c

r
e
t
a
W
4
,
1
D

d
e
b
a
e
S
6
,
4
,
1
D

2
D

3
D

5
D

7
D

8
D

9
D

0
1
D

1
1
D

M 

H  M 

H  M 

H  M 

H  M  M  M 

L  M 

M 

H  M  M  M  M 

H 

H  M 

H 

M  M 

H  M  M 

H 

H  M 

H 

H 

L 

H 

H  M  M  M 

H 

H 

H  M 

H  M 

H 

H 

H  M  M  M 

H 

r
o
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
D

Baltic Sea 
region 
NE Atlantic 
Ocean region 
Mediterranean 
Sea region 
Black Sea 
region 

Table  10:  Assessment  of  coherence  of  the  monitoring  programmes  of  EU  Member  States  at 
regional level. Green (H) = high coherence, orange (M) = medium, red (L) = low. 

Member States have based their MSFD monitoring programmes extensively on existing 
monitoring undertaken for other EU policies. With some minor variations across regions, 
Member  States  link  most  of  their  monitoring  programmes  to  the  Water  Framework 
Directive (more than 160 references), the Habitats Directive (more than 103 references) 
and the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation (more than 85 references), followed by the 
Urban  Wastewater  Treatment  Directive41,  Bathing  Water  Directive42  and  Nitrates 

40 Palialexis, A., V. Kousteni and F. Somma, 2019, In-depth assessment of the Member States’ reporting 
for  the  Marine  Strategy’s  biodiversity  monitoring,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg, doi:10.2760/051785. 

41  Council  Directive  91/271/EEC  of  21  May  1991  concerning  urban  waste-water  treatment  (OJ  L  135, 

30.5.1991, p. 40). 

42 Directive 2006/7/EC concerning the management of bathing water quality. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Directive43  among  others.  In  some  cases,  Member  States  have  developed  monitor 
activities  beyond  the  requirements  of  these  directives.  The  only  topics  that  were 
exclusively monitored by the MSFD and not explicitly addressed by other EU legislation 
were marine litter (D10) and underwater energy including noise (D11). 

Member States have also extensively made use of standards agreed in the framework of 
Regional  Sea  Conventions.  HELCOM  is  mentioned  by  all  Baltic  Member  States  for 
seven  of  the  thirteen  descriptors’  categories  shown  in  Table  10,  and  by  some  Member 
States  for  another  two  categories.  The  use  of  OSPAR  monitoring  is  prominent  in  all 
descriptors with a few exceptions for D3, D7 and D11. All Mediterranean Member States 
declare that they have used standards or guidelines agreed in the Barcelona Convention 
as  general  guidance  for  the  design  of  their  monitoring  programmes,  although  the  links 
point  to  different  descriptors  and  do  not  specify  common  methodologies.  Some 
Mediterranean  Member  States  also  refer  to  additional  Regional  Sea  Conventions’ 
standards.  Bulgaria  and  Romania  both  refer  to  standards  agreed  in  the  Bucharest 
Convention  for  eight  of  the  thirteen  descriptor  categories,  and  they  also  point 
individually  to  work  done  under  the  Regional  Sea  Conventions  for  the  other  five 
categories, although links are not always explicit. In general, providing references to the 
Regional Sea Conventions does not imply that the Regional Sea Conventions standards 
or monitoring guidelines are necessarily followed.  

Further  coordination  among  Member  States  at  regional  and  sub-regional  level  is 
necessary to characterise the pressures and impacts of transboundary nature (for instance 
those related to mobile species, non-indigenous species and underwater noise), to deliver 
consistent  and  comparable  data  (for  example  in  terms  of  methodological  standards  or 
spatial scope), and to potentially save resources through more effective monitoring across 
disciplines and among Member States. 

2.3.4.  Key recommendations 

Some  key  recommendations  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  national  monitoring 
programmes are: 

  Progress  urgently  on  the  establishment  of  monitoring  networks  to  meet  the 
requirements of the MSFD and to allow progress on the achievement of GES to 
be assessed.  

  Ensure that programmes effectively monitor the status of the EU’s marine waters 
and  the  associated  environmental  targets  set  by  Member  States.  This  is 
particularly  the  case  for  descriptors  that  are  not  (or  only  partially)  covered  by 
existing legislation, like non-indigenous species, marine litter, underwater noise 
and some biodiversity descriptors. 

  Ensure  a  full  and  timely  monitoring  coverage  of  the  environmental  targets 

established according to Article 10 of the MSFD. 

  Use the monitoring programmes to measure the effectiveness of the programmes 
of measures, especially once both programmes are established (from the second 
cycle of implementation of the Directive). 

43 Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by 

nitrates from agricultural sources (91/676/EEC). 

27 

 
                                                 
  Improve the analysis of risks so that priorities for monitoring are identified on a 

technical and scientific basis. 

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

2.3.5.  Availability of marine data in EU waters 

Thanks to recent scientific and technical developments, EU benefits from the expansion 
of  multiple  initiatives  to  monitor  or  coordinate  the  monitoring  of  its  marine  waters 
beyond  the  existing  legislative  commitments,  as  well  as  to  gather  available  data  (e.g. 
EMODnet, CMEMS44, EOOS45). EMODnet is a fast-growing platform that provides free 
access  to  interoperable  data  products  covering  bathymetry,  geology,  seabed  habitats, 
chemistry,  biology,  physics  and  human  activities.  It  also  offers  services  (e.g.  data 
ingestion  portal)  and  assesses  the  quality  or  adequacy  of  the  available  data  (e.g. 
checkpoints).  The  Copernicus  Marine  Service  (CMEMS)  provides  free  access  to  ocean 
products  (oceanographic  variables,  including  forecasts),  ocean  and  climate  indicators 
covering the past quarter of a century, and ocean state reports. The information is based 
on observations (both satellite and in situ) and models. The European Ocean Observation 
System (EOOS) aims to establish a new framework to better coordinate and integrate the 
disparate components of the current EU ocean observing programmes, aiming to provide 
a common strategy and long-term sustainability to ocean observations across Europe. 

Importantly,  one  of  the  objectives  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  is  the  collection  of 
scientific  data  (Article  2.4).  Member  States  shall  collect  biological,  environmental, 
technical,  and  socio-economic  data  that  enable  the  assessment  of  the  state  of  exploited 
marine biological resources and the level of fishing and the impact that fishing activities 
have on the marine biological resources and on the marine ecosystems. Fisheries data are 
used by scientific bodies for assessing fish stocks and advising on fishing opportunities. 
These  data  shall  be  used  for  monitoring  under  MSFD  Descriptor  3.  Data  to  assess  the 
level  of  fishing  (i.e.  fishing  effort)  and  the  impact  of  fishing  activities  (i.e.  incidental 
bycatch) are necessary for assessments required under other fisheries-related descriptors 
of the MSFD, such as Descriptors 1 and 6. 

The MSFD monitoring programmes should aim to obtain the maximum profit from these 
initiatives, either making use of new available information developed and funded under 
external  programmes  or  promoting  the  use  of  MSFD  monitoring  data  for  other 
international  programmes  and  commitments.  This  will  not  only  advance  the  common 
marine knowledge-base but also ensure the maximum consistency and minimum cost of 
data  collection  in  EU  waters.  The  MSFD  Common  Implementation  Strategy  follows 
most of these data collection initiatives and tries to establish bridges, but so far there is 
no common agreed approach on how to  make use of them. The marine data flows (the 
origin  and  purpose  of  data  and  information)  are  not  always  well  known  by  all  the 
interested authorities and the data collection is not always aligned with the policy needs. 
The  topic  of  marine  data  flows  and  governance  is  being  investigated  by  the  MSFD 
Technical Group on Data. 

44 The Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service, http://marine.copernicus.eu/  
45 The European Ocean Observing System, http://www.eoos-ocean.eu/  

28 

 
                                                 
But MSFD requirements do not stop at the data collection or monitoring step. For MSFD 
purposes, observed or modelled data are needed to produce assessments of the status of 
marine  biodiversity  and  ecosystems,  and  the  pressures  and  impacts  upon  them.  The 
passage  from  raw  data  to  assessments  of  the  extent  to  which  GES  is  being  achieved 
requires (i) dedicated experts’ work, usually performed by national agencies or institutes, 
(ii)  (sub-)regional  coordination,  and  (iii)  governmental  acceptance  and  reporting, 
including  the  aggregation  of  information  per  topic  and  per  marine  reporting  unit.  All 
these  steps  finally  feed  the  requirements  described  in  the  Commission  Decision  (EU) 
2017/848  to  provide  reports  per  descriptor  on  the  extent  to  which  GES  has  been 
achieved.  

3.  SETTING UP AND IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMMES OF MEASURES 

3.1.  Legal requirement 

Article 5(2)(b) of the MSFD requires Member States to develop, as part of their marine 
strategies  a  programme  of  measures.  Article  13(1)  of  the  Directive  requires  that  the 
measures  in  these  programmes  are  identified  to  achieve  or  maintain  GES  in  respect  of 
each marine region or subregion. Member States also have to consider the implications of 
these  measures  beyond  national  waters  (Article  13(6)).  Article  13(2)  requires  that  the 
programme  takes  into  account  relevant  measures  under  other  union  legislation,  such  as 
the Water Framework Directive, the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, the Bathing 
Water Directive, the Environmental Quality Directive46, and international agreements.  

The  programmes  of  measures  also  have  to  give  due  consideration  to  sustainable 
development,  be  cost-effective  and  technically  feasible,  and  be  accompanied  by  an 
impact  assessment  for  new  measures  to  be  introduced  (Article  13(3)).  Article  13(4) 
requires  the  inclusion  of  spatial  protection  measures,  while  Article  13(7)  requires  the 
programme of measures to contribute to achieving the targets set under Article 10. Where 
the  management  of  human  activities  at  Union  or  international  level  is  likely  to  have  a 
significant impact on the marine environment, Member States are required to address the 
relevant  authority  or  international  organisation  accordingly  to  consider  what  measures 
may be necessary to achieve the objectives of the MSFD (Article 13(5)).  

Member States also had to report on exceptions, if any, in accordance with Article 14 of 
the Directive, listing the reasons for not achieving GES or their targets.  

Article 15 of the MSFD allows Member States to raise an issue at EU level, which they 
believe cannot be tackled by national measures, or which is linked to another EU policy 
or international agreement. The issue should have an impact on the status of their marine 
waters.  The  procedure  even  provides  for  a  possibility  for  Member  States  to  make 
recommendations  for  measures  to  EU  institutions,  which  can  then  be  translated  into 
legislative proposals if considered appropriate by the Commission. A guidance document 
to  apply  this  article  was  developed  within  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy 
(GD1147).  

46 Directive 2008/105/EC on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy. 
47 

https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/326ae5ac-0419-4167-83ca-e3c210534a69/library/1139bfb2-8d5d-

4f46-b0df-24d52a8b27e5/details  

29 

 
 
                                                 
The programmes of measures were due to be notified to the Commission by the end of 
March 2016 and had to be operational by the end of 2016 at the latest. The programmes 
of measures were guided by the indicative lists of characteristics, pressures and impacts 
set  out  in  Annex  III  of  MSFD  and  by  the  2010  GES  decision48.  The  next  reporting 
update,  due  in  2022,  shall  take  into  account  the  Annex  III  as  amended  by  the 
Commission  Directive  (EU)  2017/845  and  the  specifications  and  standardised  methods 
for monitoring and assessment in the revised Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848.  

In  addition  to  that,  Article  18  of  the  Directive  requests  the  Member  States  to  submit 
interim  reports  describing  progress  in  the  implementation  of  their  programmes  of 
measures.  Such  short  report  should  be  provided  three  years  after  the  publication  of  a 
programme  of  measures.  The  deadlines  for  submitting  the  interim  reports  in  Article  18 
should be calculated on the base date on which the initial elements of the marine national 
strategies should have been established. Late reporting in one step should not justify late 
reporting  in  subsequent  reporting  steps.  Taking  into  consideration  that  the  publication 
date of programmes for the purpose of the public consultation predates the deadline for 
official  establishment  of  national  programmes  of  measures  by  2015  as  stipulated  in 
Article  5(b)(i),  then  the  three-year  deadline  laid  down  in  Article  18  suggests  the 
obligation to submit interim reports by 2018 at the latest. In the Common Implementation 
Strategy, it was suggested to harmonise the reporting obligations and fix the cut-off date 
for reporting under Article 18 of 31 December 2018. Article 18 provides the opportunity 
to  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to  take  stock  of  the  efforts  put  in  place  and 
advancement in the operationalisation of the directive. 

Article  19(2)  of  the  MSFD  requires  Member  States  to  publish  and  make  available  for 
comment a summary of their programmes of measures. 

3.2. 

Implementation process 

Member States reported the elements required under Articles 13 and 14 between January 
201549  and  July  2018  (last  electronic  files  submitted  by  Slovenia).  7  Member  States50 
reported  their  programmes  of  measures  on  time  (i.e.  by  31  March  2016),  3  Member 
States51  reported  up  to  6  months  after  the  deadline,  and  the  remaining  13  Member 
States52  reported  even  later  than  that  (Figure  6).  20  Member  States  provided  electronic 
reporting sheets. Five Member States updated their reports more than one  year after the 
deadline. 

48 Decision 2010/477/EU has since been repealed and is no longer in force. 
49  A  very  early  reporting  by  Portugal  submitting  monitoring  programmes  together  with  programmes  of 

measures. 

50  Belgium,  Finland,  Germany,  Portugal,  Sweden,  the  Netherlands  and  United  Kingdom  (excluding 

Gibraltar).  

51 France, Ireland and Spain. 
52 Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania 

and Slovenia. 

30 

 
                                                 
25

20

15

10

5

0
31-03-16

29-09-16

31-03-17

29-09-17

31-03-18

29-09-18

no. of text submissions

no. of electronic submissions

Figure 6. Cumulative number of Member States that submitted reports under articles 13 and 14 
across  time.  The  deadline  was  31  March  2016.  The  day  of  reporting  of  a  Member  State  is 
considered  the  last  day  uploading  files  in  ReportNet.  UK  is  counted  twice  since  Gibraltar  is 
treated as an independent submission. 

The programme of measures of 16 out of the 23 coastal Member States were evaluated in 
the  Commission  assessment  published  of  31  July  201853,  while  the  assessment  for 
Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Romania and Slovenia were published in 
April 201954 as they did not report in time to make it in the first assessment report. The 
evaluation  checked  the  coverage  of  Member  States’  measures  in  relation  to  (i)  the 
pressures and activities reported, and (ii) the GES definitions and environmental targets. 
The  key  conclusions  and  recommendations  of  the  assessment  have  been  shared  with 
Member  States  and  discussed  in  all  working  groups  of  the  Common  Implementation 
Strategy,  including  in  ad-hoc  regional  workshops  during  6-7  May  2019.  The 
Commission offered summary findings and recommendations per descriptor and Member 
State, as well as general conclusions per country in the form of strengths and weaknesses. 
18 Member States55 had responded to the Commission’s recommendations by 15 October 
2019 by providing written justification or additional information related to the main gaps 
and challenges observed in their programmes. 

The  Commission  received  one  official  Article  15  request  from  Portugal  in  July  2015 
concerning  a  bottom-trawling  ban  in  Portuguese  marine  waters  (more  precisely,  it 
concerned the extension of the ban to  EU and third-country vessels in  two new marine 
protected areas, Great Meteor and Madeira-Tore). After several exchanges to clarify the 
scope of the Article 15 request, Portugal was requested to provide additional information 
(including the scientific  advice received from  ICES) to  allow for any further follow-up 
actions56. Portugal decided to develop such measures first as part of the management plan 
of the two marine protected areas, as proposed in Portugal's programme of measures, and 

53 COM(2018) 562: Report assessing Member States' programmes of measures under the Marine Strategy 

Framework Directive; together with SWD(2018) 393. 

54  SWD(2019)  510:  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  –  assessment  of  programmes  of  measures  for 

Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Croatia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovenia. 

55 Belgium, Bulgaria,  Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy,  Latvia, Lithuania, the 
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Greece has asked 
for an extension to prepare their reply.  

56 The EU policy line to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems in NEAFC, the relevant Regional Fisheries 
Management Organisation in this case, is to close areas to any gears in contact with the bottom of the 
sea in accordance with UNGA Resolution 61/105. This means no distinction would be made between 
bottom-trawling and other bottom contacting fishing gears (e.g. bottom longlines). Any deviation from 
this  international  practice  would  need  sound  scientific  evidence,  preferably  from  ICES.  The 
Commission did not receive such scientific evidence. 

31 

 
 
                                                 
to  seek  ICES  advice  on  their  sufficiency  in  the  context  of  this  management  plan.  The 
Commission  understands  from  Portugal  that  work  on  the  establishment  of  the 
management plans of the two marine protected areas is still on-going.  

Other Member States in the past indicated their intention of using Article 15 (for instance 
during  MSCG  meetings  or  by  making  reference  to  Article  15  when  they  reported  their 
programmes  of  measures  (e.g.  Slovenia)),  but  only  Portugal  has  so  far  sent  an  official 
Article 15 request.  

Regarding  Article  19(2),  the  Commission  received  the  following  information  from 
Member States  with  regard to  the public  consultation  processes for the national  MSFD 
programmes of measures57 (Table 11). 

Member 
State 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 

Romania 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 

Public Consultation Timing 

13/05/2015 - 13/07/2015 
02/03/2016 - 30/04/2016 
Not indicated 
18/01/2016 - 22/02/2016 
06/02/2017- 15/03/2017 
Not indicated 
15/01/2015 - 31/03/2015 
19/12/2014 - 18/06/2015 
01/04/2015 - 01/10/2015 
03/04/2017 - 06/06/2017 
27/11/2015 - 29/01/2016 
30/09/2016 - 31/10/2016 
Not indicated 
Not indicated 
08/05/2015 - 19/06/2015 
23/12/2014 - 22/06/2015 
8 and 29/03/2016 
20/10/2014 - 03/11/2014 –Azores 
01/08/2014 - 26/09/2014 –PT 
Not indicated 
14/10/2016 – 14/11/2016 
23/12/2015 - 09/04/2016 
01/02/2015 - 30/04/2015 
30/01/2015 - 24/04/2015 

Link to 
national 
website(s) 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
Yes 

No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Table 11. Information about the public consultations by Member States about their programmes 
of measures. 

57 More details and links to national websites available at:  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/public-

consultation/index_en.htm  

32 

 
                                                 
3.3.  Main conclusions from assessment of the programmes of measures  

3.3.1.  Conclusions at EU level58 

Member States relied heavily on existing regulatory frameworks to provide the measures 
for their MSFD marine strategies. Such measures were classified as “existing measures”. 
The programmes of measures usually drew upon EU environmental or other legislation, 
such  as  the  Waste  Framework  Directive,  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  the  Birds 
Directive,  the  Habitats  Directive,  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive,  and  the 
Common  Fisheries  Policy.  Many  of  the  reported  measures  respond  also  to  existing 
international commitments, such as those under the International Maritime Organisation 
and  initiatives  taken  under  the  Regional  Sea  Conventions59.  In  its  assessment,  the 
Commission  noted  that  Member  States  took  measures  specifically  agreed  with 
neighbours  within  an  EU  marine  region,  notably  through  the  relevant  Regional  Sea 
Conventions,  or  within  a  sub-region.  Still,  the  number  of  cases  with  (sub)regional 
coordination of action were limited.  

Member States  reported  a total  of 4653 measures in  their programmes.  The descriptors 
with the highest shares of existing measures were contaminants (D8) and contaminants 
in  seafood  (D9)  with  approximately  86%  of  the  measures  reported  being  existing 
measures  for  each  of  the  two  descriptors.  This  was  followed  by  the  measures  tackling 
hydrographical  changes  (D7)  at  about  82%,  followed  by  measures  addressing  non-
indigenous species (D2) and the biodiversity of birds (D1, 4, 6) both having 76% of the 
measures already in place prior to the drafting of the programme.  

Around 34 % of the measures have however been defined as ‘new’ measures, meaning 
they were put into place specifically for the purposes of the Directive.  The descriptors 
registereing  a higher proportion of new measures were underwater noise  (D11)  at  39% 
and marine litter (D10) at 31%. Some of the biodiversity descriptor themes also have a 
relatively high share of new measures reported, with 29% for both water column habitats 
and  fish  respectively.  This  pattern  is  somehow  expected,  given  that  for  each  of  these 
descriptors  there  are  established  legal  frameworks  (EU  legislation,  international 
agreements as well as actions taken regionally via the Regional Sea Conventions), in the 
context  of which there is a wealth of measures that Member States have tapped into in 
order to design their programme of measures.  

For example, Member States addressed contaminants (D8) and contaminants in seafood 
(D9)  through  measures  stemming  from  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  the  Urban 
Wastewater Treatment Directive, the Floods Directive60, the Nitrates Directive, as well as 
international  agreements  such  as  the  International  Maritime  Organisation’s  (IMO) 
International  Convention  for  the  Prevention  of  Pollution  from  Ships  (MARPOL). 
Measures  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3),  on  the  other  hand,  drew  from  the 
Common Fisheries Policy and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, while for 

58 This information updates COM(2018) 562, SWD(2018) 393 and SWD(2019) 510. 
59 Four Regional Sea Conventions cover EU marine waters: (1) The  Convention on the Protection of the 
Marine  Environment  in  the  Baltic  Sea  Area  (Helsinki  Convention);  (2)  The  Convention  for  the 
Protection  of  the  Marine  Environment  of  the  North-east  Atlantic  (Oslo-Paris  Convention);  (3)  The 
Barcelona  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  the  Marine  Environment  and  the  Coastal  Region  of  the 
Mediterranean; (4) The Convention on the Protection of the  Black Sea  Against Pollution (Bucharest 
Convention). The Union is a contracting party to the first three. 

60  Directive  2007/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2007  on  the 

assessment and management of flood risks. OJ L 288, p. 27. 

33 

 
                                                 
eutrophication  (D5)  the  programmes  of  measures  drew  largely  from  the  Water 
Framework Directive, as well as regional actions taken via the Regional Sea Conventions 
(e.g. the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan).  

Figure 7. Overview of programmes of measures across the EU. 

A  number  of  Member  States  also  introduced  a  number  of  ‘horizontal  measures’ 
intended  to  cover  all  of  the  Directive’s  descriptors.  33%  of  these  were  also  new 
measures. These were mostly related to governance, coordination, and research measures 
which  apply  across  all  descriptors.  For  example,  they  reported  measures  setting  up 
national coordination mechanisms between ministries and competent authorities dealing 
with  marine,  water  and  nature  topics,  to  facilitate  the  coordination  of  measures 
undertaken. 

The  Commission  assessment  of  the  measures  also  noted  that  the  measures  could  be 
further  categorised  into  ‘direct’  and  ‘indirect’  measures  (79%  and  21%  respectively), 
with  Member  States  reporting  a  mix  of  both.  Direct  measures  are  those  likely  to 
contribute to a reduction of pressures on the marine environment in a direct manner by, 
for  example,  implementing  technical  solutions  or  establishing  licencing  procedures  or 
legal  restrictions  limiting  certain  activities.  These  are  technical  or  regulatory  measures, 
which are likely to have more immediate effects on pressures on the marine environment. 
Indirect measures on the other hand are likely to contribute to the reduction of pressures 
in  only  an  indirect  manner  by,  for  example,  increasing  awareness  levels  among 
stakeholders and the public or gathering more knowledge (research) that eventually may 
lead  to  more  specific  actions.  These  are  of non-technical and regulatory  nature  and  are 
likely to have secondary effects on reducing pressures on the marine environment in the 
longer term. 

34 

 
 
s
e
g
n
a
h
c

,
4

A 

B
4

,
1
D

,
1
D

h
s
i
f

r
e
t
a

s
d
r
i

M
4

W
4

r
e
t
t
i
l

e
n
i
r
a

h
s
i
F
4

,
1
D
A 

M
0
1
D

n
m
u
l
o
c

s
l
a
m
m
a

d
e
b
a
e
S
6

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

.
o
r
d
y
H
7
D

d
o
o
f
a
e
S
9
D

s
t
n
a
n
i
m
a
t
n
o
c

PA  A  A 

l
a
i
c
r
e
m
m
o
C
3
D

s
t
n
a
n
i
m
a
t
n
o
C
8
D

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
h
p
o
r
t
u
E
5
D

nc  PA  PA  nc 

GES/Targets  NA  A 

GES/Targets  PA  A  A 

GES/Targets  A  A  A 

GES/Targets  PA  A  A 

PA  PA  PA  PA  A  A 

GES/Targets  PA  PA  PA  A 

,
,
1
1
D
D
PA  PA  PA  A 

GES/Targets  PA 
A 
GES/Targets  A 

GES/Targets  PA  PA  PA  A 
PA  A  A 
A 

A  A  A 
GES/Targets  A  A  A 
A  A  A 
GES/Targets  A  A  A 
PA  A 

nc  NA  PA  NA  A  PA  A 
PA  A 
PA  A 
A  A  A 
GES/Targets  A  A  A 

e
s
i
o
N
/
y
g
r
e
n
S
E
I
N
1
1
2
D
D
PA  A  A  A  A  A  A  PA 
PA  PA  PA  A  A  A  A  A  PA  PA 
Pressures  NA  PA  PA  PA  NA  PA  PA  A  PA  A  A  A  A 
nc  PA  A  PA  PA 
PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  A  A  NA  A  A  A  PA 
GES/Targets  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  NA  A  A  NA  A  A  A  NA 
PA  PA  PA  PA  NA  PA  PA  A  NA  A  A  A  PA 
nc 
PA  A  A  PA  PA  PA  A  A  A  PA 
PA  A  A  PA  PA  PA  A  A  PA  PA 
PA  PA  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A 
PA  PA  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  PA 
PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  A  A  A  A  A  A  A 
PA  A  A  PA  A  A  A  PA  A 
PA  PA  A  PA  A  PA  PA  PA  PA 
nc  PA  PA  PA  A  A  A  A  A  PA 
PA  PA  A  PA  A  PA  PA  PA  PA 
nc  PA  PA  PA  A  A  A  A  A  PA 
PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  A  A  A  A  A  A  A 
PA  A  A  PA  A  A  A  PA  A 
PA  PA  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A 
PA  PA  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  PA 
PA  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A 
PA  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A 
PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  A  PA  A  PA 
PA  A  PA  PA  A  PA  PA  PA 
PA  PA  A  A  PA  A  A  A  A  PA 
PA  PA  PA  A  A  PA  A  A  A  PA 
PA  PA  A  PA  A  A  A  A  A  A 
PA  PA  A  A  A  A  A  A  PA  A 
PA  PA  A  A  PA  A  A  A  A  A 
PA  A  A  A  PA  PA  PA  A  A  A 
PA  A  A  PA  A  A  A  A  PA 
GES/Targets  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A 
PA  PA  PA  PA  NA  NA  A  PA  NA  PA  PA  PA  PA 
GES/Targets  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  NA  PA  PA  PA  PA 
PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  A  A  PA  PA 
PA  PA  PA  PA  A  PA  PA  PA  PA  A  A  PA 
PA  A  PA  PA  PA  A  A  A  PA 
GES/Targets  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A 
PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  A  A  A  A 
PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  A  PA  A 
PA  A 
PA  PA  A  A  A  A  PA  A  PA  A 
PA  PA  PA  A  PA  A  PA  PA  A  A  PA 
PA  PA  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  PA 
PA  A  A  A  A  PA  A  A  PA 
PA  A  PA  A  A  A  A  A 
PA  PA  PA  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A 
PA  PA  PA  A  A  A  A  PA  NA 
PA  A  A  A  PA  PA  A  PA  PA 
Pressures  NA  NA  NA  NA  PA  PA  A  A  PA  PA  A  A  A 
GES/Targets  nc  PA  PA  NA  PA  A  A  A  A  PA  A  A  A 
PA  PA  PA  PA  A  PA  A  A  PA  PA 

A  A  A 
PA  A 
A  A  A 
GES/Targets  A  A  A 
A  A  A 
GES/Targets  A  A  A 

A  A  A 
GES/Targets  A  A  A 
A  A  A 

PA  A  A 
A 
GES/Targets  PA  PA  A  A 

GES/Targets  PA  PA  PA  PA  A 

A 
GES/Targets  A 

PA  PA  PA  PA  A 

GES/Targets  PA  A 

GES/Targets  A  A 

GES/Targets  A  A 

A  A  A  A 

A  A  A  A 

GES/Targets  A 

PA  PA  A 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

Pressures 

PA  A 

PA  A 

A 

A 

35 

Baltic 
Sea 

North-
East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

Mediter
ranean 
Sea 

FI 

EE 

LV 

LT 

PL 

DE 

DK 

SE 

SE 

DK 

DE 

NL 

BE 

UK 

IE 

FR 

ES 

PT 

UK 

ES 

FR 

IT 

MT 

SI 

HR 

EL 

CY 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Black 
Sea 

BG 

RO 

Pressures 

PA  PA  A 

GES/Targets  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  A  PA  A  A  A  A  PA  NA 
PA  PA  A  A  PA  A  A  PA  A  PA 
PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  PA  nc  A  A  PA  PA  PA 
PA  PA  A  A  PA  A  A  A  A  PA 
PA  PA  PA  A  PA  nc  A  A  A  A  PA 

GES/Targets  PA  A 

GES/Targets  A 

PA  A  A 

Pressures 

Table 12. Results from the assessment of the programmes of measures that takes into account if 
the measures address the key pressures as well as the reported GES and environmental targets. 
Green (A) = topic addressed; orange (PA) = partially addressed; red (NA) = not addressed, grey 
(nc) = no conclusion (it cannot be assessed based on the reported information). 

s
d
r
i

s
l
a
m
m
a

M
4

h
s
i
F
4

r
e
t
a

W
4

d
e
b
a
e
S
6

B
4

,
4

n
m
u
l
o
c

,
1
D
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 

S
I
N
,
,
,
,
1
1
2
1
1
D
D
D
D
D
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
FI 
PA  NA 
PA 
PA 
EE  NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
LV 
PA  NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
LT 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
PL 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
DE 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
DK 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
SE 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
SE 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
DK 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
DE 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
NL 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
BE 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
UK 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
IE 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
FR 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
ES 
PA  NA  NA 
PA 
PA 
PT 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
UK 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
ES 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
FR 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
IT 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
MT  A 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 
HR 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
SI 
PA 
PA 
EL  NA  NA  NA  NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
CY 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
BG 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
RO 

PA 
PA 
PA 

A 
A 
A 

s
e
g
n
a
h
c

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
h
.
p
o
o
r
r
d
t
y
u
H
E
5
7
D
D
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
NA 
A 
NA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
PA  NA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 

l
a
i
c
r
e
m
m
o
C
3
D

h
s
i
f

A 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
A 

s
t
n
a
n
i
m
a
t
n
o
C
8
D
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
A 

s
t
n
a
n
i
m
a
t
n
o
c

d
o
o
f
a
e
S
9
D

A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 

r
e
t
t
i
l

e
n
i
r
a

e
s
i
o
N
/
y
g
r
e
n
M
E
1
0
1
1
D
D
PA 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
A 
PA 
PA  NA 
A 
A 
A 
A 
PA 
PA 
PA 
A 
PA 
A 

Baltic 
Sea 

North-
East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

Mediterr
anean 
Sea 

Black 
Sea 

Table 13. Conclusions from the assessment of the programmes of measures per country, region 
and descriptor. Green (A) = topic addressed; orange (PA) = partially addressed; red (NA) = not 
addressed. 

Table  12  and  Table  13  show  the  overall  conclusion  of  the  assessment  of  measures  per 
descriptor,  country  and  region.  This  assessment  is  based  on  how  the  Member  States’ 
programmes of measures address key pressures on their marine waters identified in their 
Article 8 assessment, to achieve their Article 10 environmental targets and ultimately to 
reach  GES  as  defined  through  Article  9.  In  their  programmes  of  measures,  Member 

36 

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

Figure  8.  Appropriateness  of  Member  State  measures  against  pressures  (Member  States  are 
presented in geographical order per marine region). 

The Commission also assessed the likelihood of implementation of these programmes 
of measures, notably new measures. This assessment looked at factors such as cost and 
resource allocations, timeline of implementation of new measures, and identification of 
the body responsible for the implementation of the measures. ‘Highly likely’ implies that 
new  measures  are  planned  in  detail  and  that  operational  aspects  are  fully  considered. 
‘Likely’  implies  that  most,  but  not  all  aspects  (costs,  timelines  of  new  measures  and 
responsible  bodies)  are  sufficiently  considered.  Sometimes  there  is  not  enough 
information to reach a conclusion. The conclusions have been summarised in Table 1461).  

61  In  the  national  reports  assessing  the  Member  States’  programmes  of  measures,  a  scale  ranging  from 
‘likely’, to ‘unlikely’ and to ‘no conclusion’ was applied to score the likelihood of implementation of 
new measures. Once all coastal Member States had reported and the regional analysis were performed, 
the scoring system was adapted to distinguish between those Member States where implementation of 
new  measures  was  ‘highly  likely’  and  those  where  it  was  ‘likely’.  The  information  provided  in  the 
programmes  of  measures  was  subsequently  re-evaluated  and  some  scores  were  changed  for  the 
following Member States: BE, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, IT, SE, and UK. Scores were not changed in 
the respective Member State reports. 

37 

 
 
                                                 
Highly likely 

Likely 

Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, 
United Kingdom 
Bulgaria, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, 
Romania, Slovenia 

No conclusion  Cyprus, Greece, Ireland 

Table  14.  Overview  of  the  assessment  of  likelihood  of  implementation  of  the  national 
programmes of measures. 

3.3.2.  Spatial protection measures 

EU situation 

In 2015, the Commission published a report on the progress made by Member States in 
establishing marine protected areas62, as required by Article 21 of the MSFD. In contrast 
to other provisions in the Directive that request submission of reports on a regular basis, 
Article 21 does not foresee any new report, which would provide updated information on 
the  marine  protected  areas.  The  evolvement  of  marine  protected  areas  is  a  dynamic 
process and would need further attention in the subsequent reporting cycles.  

Between 2012 and 2016, the overall coverage of marine protected areas in European seas 
almost  doubled,  rising  from  5.9%  to  10.8%,  thereby  fulfilling  the  Aichi  Target  1163 
coverage goal long before the 2020 deadline. The 10% coverage was also broadly met at 
a regional scale in all four European marine regions. Despite the very good trends, more 
efforts are needed at a sub-regional level (1 out of 4 North-east Atlantic sub-regions and 
3  out  of  4  Mediterranean  sub-regions  have  coverages  far  below  10%)  and  in  offshore 
(deep  sea)  areas,  so  that  protection  efforts  can  be  considered  evenly  spread  throughout 
European waters64. The sub-region with the highest proportion of marine protected areas 
is the Greater North Sea with 27.1 %, while the sub-region with the lowest coverage is 
the Ionian Sea and the Central Mediterranean Sea with 2.9 %. 

Approximately  50%  of  the  marine  protected  areas  are  under  30  km2  and  a  very  high 
proportion of these is smaller than 5 km2 65. Conservation of single features or vulnerable 
habitats may qualify for small Marine protected areas, but it is also important that Europe 
establishes  further  larger  sites  capable  of  guaranteeing  ecosystem  functioning  and 
widespread spill-over effects to recover fish stocks. 

While  the  typical  multi-use  marine  protected  areas  of  the  EU  have  proven  effective  to 
shifting  societal  attitudes  towards  the  sustainable  use  of  marine  resources  and  to  reach 
international commitments, no-take zones are by far the most effective type of protection 
to restore both the biomass of fish assemblages and the resilience of ecosystems. Some 
studies  claim  that  commercial  trawling  is  occurring  in  59%  of  EU’s  marine  protected 
areas66  and  that  just  1.8%  of  EU  marine  waters  may  be  protected  with  a  management 

62  COM(2015)  481,  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the 
progress in establishing marine protected areas. This report builds on  the work done by the European 
Environment Agency. 

63  Aichi  Biodiversity  Targets:  UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2,  Decision  Adopted  by  the  Conference  of  the 

Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at Its Tenth Meeting, Nagoya. 

64 https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/europes-seas-and-coasts/assessments/marine-protected-areas  
65 Agnesi et al. (2018). Spatial analysis of marine protected area networks in Europe’s seas II, Volume B. 
66 Dureuil et al. (2018). Elevated trawling inside protected areas undermines conservation outcomes in a 

global fishing hot spot. 

38 

 
                                                 
plan in place67. Along with a good planning and enforcement, having adequate staff and 
financial resources is a crucial factor to guarantee the ecological and economic benefits 
of protected areas68. In practice, information  about management effectiveness is scarce, 
scattered  and,  so  far,  has  not  been  properly  captured  through  MSFD  reporting.  Further 
efforts and information would be needed, for instance, to examine actual protection or to 
apply broad protection categories. 

Spatial protection measures in the programmes of measures 

As part of their MSFD programmes of measures, Member States reported on the spatial 
protection  measures  they  had  or  were  putting  in  place,  including  marine  protected 
areas69.  

Member States reported 246 spatial measures; 66% of them as existing measures, 31 % 
as new and only 3% as completely new measures. Most of the reported measures (either 
existing  or  new)  mainly  fulfil  Member  States'  obligations  under  the  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives.  

At least 17 Member States70 aimed with their spatial measures to designate new protected 
sites  (and  thus  expand  the  networks)  while  20  Member  States  aimed  to  improve  their 
management through the establishment of management plans or conservation measures. 
Most  Member  States  added  spatially-explicit  limitations  of  human  activities  within  the 
protected sites, those being mostly fishing practices (amongst others activities). This kind 
of protection measures tend to be limited in target (species, habitats) and space.  

Many of the completely  new spatial  measures were classified as indirect,  but  they may 
have  a  great  impact  in  the protection of marine  ecosystems,  such as mapping  activities 
(e.g.  habitats  maps,  noise  maps,  cumulative  impact  maps),  prepare/update  management 
guidance, awareness raising campaigns, monitor compliance, or studies on the impact of 
fishing gear and alternative technologies. 

MSFD  Art.13(4)  states  that  spatial  protection  measures  should  contribute  to  coherent 
and  representative  networks  of  marine  protected  areas,  adequately  covering  the 
diversity  of  the  constituent  ecosystems.  Ecological  coherence  is  increasingly  used  to 
describe  the  ultimate  goal  in  the  design,  establishment,  and  assessment  of  networks  of 
protected  areas.  Five  key  principles  are  commonly  included  in  ecological  coherence 
assessment  methodologies:  representativity,  replication,  connectivity,  adequacy  and 
management.  The  Commission  report  of  2015  concluded  that  there  was  no  EU-wide 

67 WWF (2019). Protecting our ocean: Europe's challenges to meet the 2020 deadlines.  
68 Gill et al. (2017). Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. 
69 The European Parliament issued two opinions that among other things featured marine protected areas: 
OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for the Committee on 
Regional  Development  on  the  implementation  of  EU  macro-regional  strategies  (2017/2040(INI)) 
calling for enhancing the marine NATURA 2000 network, and a coherent and representative network 
of  marine  protected  areas  under  the  MSFD  by  2020;  and  OPINION  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for the Committee on Regional Development on an EU 
strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian region (2014/2214(INI)) calling for  a minimum objective of 10% 
surface  coverage  by  2020  of  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Seas  by  marine  protected  areas,  in  accordance 
with relevant international commitments and in support of achieving good environmental status in the 
Union’s marine environment by 2020, in accordance with the MSFD. Presently available information 
indicate that coverage of marine protected areas in the Adriatic and Ionian Seas remains below 6 and 3 
% respectively, far below the target. 

70 BG, CY, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, UK. 

39 

 
                                                 
method  to  assess  the  coherence  and  representativity  of  European  networks  of  marine 
protected areas, while recognising the initiatives of some Regional Sea Conventions. The 
Commission  services  just  published  the  results  of  a  new  study71  that  proposes  a 
methodology to analyse ecological coherence and management effectiveness in networks 
of marine protected areas and other area-based conservation measures. It can be a starting 
point to assess coherence and representatively under MSFD, although there is a long way 
to  agree  and  apply  the  proposed  methodologies  across  Europe.  In  addition,  the 
information  reported  in  the  programmes  of  measures  is  insufficient  to  run  this  kind  of 
analysis. 

Although 22 Member States declared that their spatial measures contributed to coherent 
and  representative  networks  of  marine  protected  areas,  in  half  of  the  cases  the 
information  reported  is  too  ambiguous  to  evaluate  it.  The  achievement  of  ecological 
coherent  networks  would  be  facilitated  by  following  some  common  principles  and 
holistic approach at (sub)regional scale, such as (i) common regional GES determinations 
and targets and (ii) coordinated and effective management measures. It is estimated that 
at  least  15  Member  States  may  pursue  regional  ecological  coherence  through  their 
measures.  In  addition,  improved  and  harmonised  reporting  systems  about  marine 
protected areas across Europe and monitoring geared to adaptive management processes 
are essential for the attainment of coherence. 

3.3.3.  Exceptions 

Thirteen72 of the Member States report exceptions, as provided for by Article 14 of the 
Directive.  Not  all  Member  States  who  indicated  that  they  consider  GES  will  not  be 
achieved  by  2020  have  opted  to  report  exceptions.  Exceptions  were  not  always  used 
consistently,  even  within  the  same  region.  Some  Member  States  for  example,  applied 
exceptions for several descriptors. Others did not report an exception even when there are 
uncertainties  about  whether  and  when  GES  will  be  achieved.  In  this  latter  case,  the 
justification  often  provided  was  that  data  and  knowledge  gaps  did  not  justify  them  to 
report an exception during the first implementation cycle of the MSFD. In the technical 
assessments  supporting  the  Commission  report,  these  exceptions  were  examined 
individually on whether they were considered to be justified from a technical perspective. 

71  COHENET  “Achieving  coherent  networks  of  marine  protected  areas:  analysis  of  the  situation  in  the 
Mediterranean  Sea”  (2018-2019)  assessed  how  much  the  current  marine  protected  areas  other  area-
based  conservation  measures  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  MSFD  and  provided  a  set  of 
recommendations  to  increase  their  coherence  as  a  network.  The  final  products  are  published  in 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/publications/index_en.htm. 

72  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Romania, 

Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom. 

40 

 
                                                 
5

4

3

2

1

0

Baltic Sea

Black Sea

Mediterranean Sea

North-East Atlantic Ocean

Figure 9. Number of exceptions applied in each marine region per descriptor. 

3.3.4.  Progress in the implementation of the programmes of measures 

As of 4 November 2019, 17 Member States73 have reported under Art. 18 on the progress 
in the implementation of their first MSFD programmes of measures. The reporting was 
focused  on  “new”  measures,  i.e.  those  put  in  place  specifically  for  the  purpose  of  the 
MSFD, which account for around 25% of the whole programmes of measures74. 

The  degree  of  implementation  of  the  measures  is  extremely  variable  amongst  Member 
States  (Figure  10).  It  stems  from  the  reporting  that  16%  of  the  “new”  measures  are 
already implemented, and that implementation has started without delay for 56% of the 
measures. 

Implementation  has  started  but  is  delayed  for  15%  of  the  measures,  has  not  started  for 
11%,  and  1%  of  the  measures  has  been  withdrawn.  The  main  reasons  for  these 
implementation  shortcomings  are  financing,  national  implementation  mechanisms  and 
technical issues (notably lack of proper monitoring data) (Figure 11). 

73 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta and Portugal had not reported yet. 
74 United Kingdom had not reported any new measure. 

41 

 
 
                                                 
Figure  10.  Degree  of  implementation  of  the  “new”  measures  within  the  national  MSFD 
programmes  of  measures.  This  is  a  summary  of  the  still  ongoing  reporting  by  Member  States 
under Article 18. 

Reason delay/witdrawal 

Mechanism for 
implementation - regional 
0% 

Technical 
implementation 
4% 

Other 
2% 

Implementation 
started 
56% 

Measure delayed 
or withdrawn 
[PERCENTAGE] 

Mechanism for 
implementation - 
International 
1% 

Mechanism for 
implementation - national 
4% 

no information 
8% 

Mechanism for 
implementation - EU 
1% 

Measure 
implemented 
16% 

Financing 
5% 

Acceptance 
1% 

Data or information 
2% 

Figure 11. Overall degree of implementation of the “new” measures and main reasons for delay 
or withdrawal of measures. 

3.3.5.  Key recommendations 

The  Commission  report  and  its  annexes  makes  a  number  of  general  and  specific 
recommendations  to  Member  States,  thereby  guiding  them  on  modifications  that  it 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
considered necessary in their programmes of measures. Among these recommendations, 
Member States are asked to:  

  identify and implement measures sub-regionally or regionally;  

  to provide timelines for the implementation of these measures and match them with 

funding;  

  to better link the measures with other parts of their strategy such as target-setting 

and monitoring;  

  to  quantify  the  effects  of  these  measures  on  reducing  pressures  on  the  marine 
environment and their contribution to improving the state of the seas and oceans;  

  to  cover  all  pressures  and  to  ensure  that  the  measures  cover  an  appropriate 

geographic scale. 

43