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  COM(2020) 259 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) {SWD(2020) 60 final} - {SWD(2020) 61 final} - {SWD(2020) 62 final}  
 
 
Report on the implementation of the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Globally,  the  oceans  represent  71%  of  the  Earth’s  surface  and,  thanks  to  their  volume, 
99% of the habitable space on Earth. They provide habitats for rich (yet often unknown) 
marine biodiversity1 and they are home to the largest known creatures. The oceans also 
support  essential  services  for  people,  such  as  food  provision,  climate  regulation  and 
recreation. More than half of the oxygen we breathe comes from marine organisms, one 
quarter of the annual human-induced CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is absorbed by 
marine waters, and the greatest reservoir of actively cycled carbon on Earth is the ocean 
(50  times  larger  than  the  atmosphere).  Therefore,  protecting  the  marine  environment  is 
not only crucial for the conservation of biodiversity but also for the wellbeing of humans 
and  the  planet.  And  it  is  also  crucial  for  the  economy.  For  example,  the  EU’s  blue 
economy,  based  on  sectors  directly  or  indirectly  depending  on  the  health  of  our  seas, 
oceans and coasts, generated a turnover of €658 billion in 20172.  

However,  the  marine  environment  and  its  ecosystems  are  still  subject  to  multiple 
pressures  and  impacts  from  human  activities,  such  as  fishing,  seabed  disturbance, 
pollution  or  global  warming.  As  a  response,  the  EU  designed  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive3 (MSFD) as a holistic policy to protect the marine environment of 
the seas around Europe while enabling the sustainable use of marine goods and services.  

The EU is  embarking on a European Green Deal4, an ambitious strategy to  protect  and 
restore biodiversity and make Europe the world’s first climate-neutral continent. Climate 
change,  biodiversity,  health  and  food  security  go  together.  That  is  why  conserving 
Europe’s  natural  environment,  including  our  oceans  and  seas,  is  a  crucial  part  of  the 
Green  Deal.  Thus,  the  success  of  the  MSFD  is  instrumental  for  the  EU  to  reach  its 
overarching  objectives,  such  as  halting  the  loss  of  marine  biodiversity  and  moving 
towards a zero-pollution society. 

1 For example, the Census of Marine Life (http://www.coml.org/) found that one litre of ocean water can 

hold 38,000 kinds of microbial bacteria. 

2 The 2019 EU Blue Economy Report (https://dx.doi.org/10.2771/21854).   
3  Directive  2008/56/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  June  2008  establishing  a 
framework  for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive) (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19). 

4 Communication from the  Commission  to the European Parliament,  the European Council, the Council, 
the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  -  The  European 
Green Deal (COM/2019/640 final).  

1 

 
                                                 
With this document, the Commission is delivering on its legal requirement5 to publish a 
report  on  the  Directive’s  implementation,  building  upon  previous  reports6  it  has 
published throughout the first cycle of implementation.     

The  MSFD  has  been  in  force  since  2008.  It  requires  Member  States  to  set  up  national 
marine strategies to achieve, or maintain where it exists, ‘good environmental status’ by 
2020. The Directive is implemented in a six-year cycle with three major stages.  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

In  2012  and  in  2018,  Member  States  had  to  report  on  the  status  of  their 
marine waters and set targets to achieve good environmental status based on 
the 11 'descriptors' (objectives) set by the MSFD, which cover the health of 
ecosystems and the human pressures and impacts affecting them7. 

In 2014, Member States had to set up monitoring programmes to collect data 
in  order  to  assess  progress  in  achieving  good  environmental  status  and 
reaching targets.  

In 2016, Member States had to  set  up programmes of measures that would 
help them to deliver their objectives, and in 2018 they had to report on their 
progress in implementing the programmes.  

‘Good environmental status’ means the environmental status of marine waters where 
these  provide  ecologically  diverse  and  dynamic  oceans  and  seas  which  are  clean, 
healthy  and  productive  within  their  intrinsic  conditions,  and  the  use  of  the  marine 
environment is at a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the potential for uses 
and  activities  by  current  and  future  generations  […].  Good  environmental  status 
shall be determined at the level of the marine region or subregion […] on the basis of 
the [11] qualitative descriptors in Annex I’ (extract from Article 3(5) of the MSFD). 

The Commission has assessed each stage of the national strategies in regular reports and 
accompanying  annexes  (see  footnote  6)  identifying  gaps  in  implementation  and 

5 Article 20(1) and 20(3) of the MSFD. 
6 The 2014 report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the first phase of 
implementation  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  -  The  European  Commission's 
assessment and guidance COM(2014) 97, together with the accompanying Commission Staff Working 
Document SWD(2014) 49. 

The 2017 report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council assessing Member 
States'  monitoring  programmes  under  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  COM(2017)  3, 
together with the accompanying Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2017) 1. 

The 2018 report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council assessing Member 
States'  programmes  of  measures  under  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  COM(2018)  562, 
together  with  the  accompanying  Commission  Staff  Working  Documents  SWD(2018)  393  and 
SWD(2019) 510. 

technical 

reports  per  Member  State  and  per 

In  addition, 
in 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/reports_en.htm.  
7 Biological diversity (D1), food-web structure (D4) and sea-floor integrity (D6) are maintained, while the 
impacts  from  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  fishing  (D3),  excess  nutrients  (D5),  changes  in 
hydrographical  conditions  (D7),  contaminants  in  the  environment  (D8)  and  in  seafood  (D9),  marine 
litter (D10) and underwater noise (D11) do not adversely alter the marine ecosystems. 

region  are  published 

2 

 
  
                                                 
providing  guidance  to  individual  Member  States.  The  second  cycle  of  implementation 
formally started in October 2018 but is suffering from long delays in reporting8.  

The  present  report  looks  at  the  implementation  of  the  MSFD  during  its  first 
implementation cycle9 and is accompanied by three staff working documents10. A more 
thorough  review  of  this  Directive,  in  line  with  better  regulation  requirements,  will  be 
developed  as  soon  as  possible,  and  no  later  than  202311.  This  report  is  based  on 
information  produced  under  the  MSFD  by  Member  States,  the  Commission,  external 
observers and experts. It focuses on the key policy messages and lessons learnt from the 
first cycle of implementation.  

2.  MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MSFD 

2.1.  The holistic view 

The ecosystem-based approach12 aims to ensure that the cumulative pressures of human 
activities  do  not  exceed  levels  that  compromise  the  capacity  of  ecosystems  to  remain 
healthy,  clean  and  productive.  By  virtue  of  the  MSFD,  the  ecosystem-based  approach 
became a legally-binding and operational principle for managing the EU’s entire marine 
environment13.  

An ‘ecosystem-based approach’ is a strategy for the integrated management of land, 
water  and  living  resources  that  promotes  conservation  and  sustainable  use  in  an 
equitable way. The goal of ecosystem-based management is to maintain an ecosystem 
in  a healthy, productive  and resilient condition  so that it can provide the goods and 
services  humans want  and need. Ecosystem-based management differs from current 
approaches  that  usually  focus  on  a  single  species,  sector,  activity  or  concern;  it 
considers the cumulative impacts of different sectors. 

8 By 15 October 2019, a year after the deadline, only 10 countries had submitted their reports in electronic 
format  (Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  Estonia,  Spain,  Latvia,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Finland,  and 
Sweden) and only 4 in text-based format (Greece,  France,  Italy and  Romania). Nine  Member States 
had not reported. 

9  In  accordance  with  Article  20(1)  and  20(3).  An  ‘evaluation  report’  in  a  legal  act  that  predates  better 

regulation is interpreted as an ‘implementation report’. 

10  SWD(2020)  60  presents  the  major  steps  and  conclusions  from  the  implementation  of  the  MSFD; 
SWD(2020)  61  summarises  what  is  known  about  the  status  of  EU  marine  waters,  covering  the  11 
MSFD  ‘descriptors’;  and  SWD(2020)  62  explains  key  concepts  and  provides  guidance  for  an 
integrated assessment and determination of good environmental status. 

11 As required by Article 23. 
12  Defined  in  the  box  based  on  CBD  COP5  (http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7148)  and  a  broad 

scientific consensus (https://www.compassscicomm.org/ebm-consensus-statement-download). 

13  After the MSFD’s adoption, the General  Affairs  Council  stated that cross-cutting policy tools  were of 
utmost importance to enhance sustainable economic development,  environmental  monitoring,  safety, 
security and law enforcement on Europe’s oceans,  seas and coastal regions. They acknowledged the 
MSFD,  with  the  ecosystem  based-approach  to  manage  human  activities,  as  a  basis  to  develop  more 
successfully and sustainably all maritime activities (2973rd General Affairs Council meeting, Brussels, 
16 November 2009). 

3 

 
  
                                                 
The  MSFD  is  one  of  the  most  ambitious  international  marine  protection  legal 
frameworks, aligning the efforts of 23 coastal14 and 5 landlocked States – in coordination 
with non-EU countries – to apply an ecosystem-based management and to achieve good 
environmental status in 5,720,000 km2 of sea surface area across four sea regions, an area 
one fourth larger than the EU’s land territory. The Directive stretches from the coastline 
to  the  deep  sea,  thus  protecting  the  full  range  of  marine  biodiversity  from  unicellular 
algae to huge cetaceans, analysing all environmental aspects from ecosystem functions to 
chemical  properties,  and  assessing  the  effects  of  all  human  activities,  from  tourism  to 
commercial fisheries bottom trawling.  

Implementing  such  a  holistic  view  and  assessing  sustainability  requires  that  the 
ecosystem  properties  and  the  human  pressures  (including  pressures  from  land-based  or 
atmospheric  sources)  are  known  and  taken  into  account  in  management  decisions.  The 
MSFD  therefore  requires  integrated  planning  (the  marine  strategies)  to  be  developed 
based on 11 descriptors and a number of criteria and parameters15 to be assessed by each 
of the Member States.  

2.2.  Exploring the unknown  

When the MSFD was adopted, it was clear that the EU needed (a) a holistic, ecosystem-
based management of the marine environment, and (b) a shift from the protection of only 
a  limited  number  of  priority  habitats  and  species  to  the protection of the whole marine 
ecosystem. However, data and knowledge from  the marine  environment  were  (and still 
are)  scarce  for  some  topics  and  regions16.  Thus,  MSFD  built  a  harmonised  legal 
framework  to  secure  constant  improvements  in  data  gathering.  Notably,  the  MSFD 
fostered  the  design  of  comprehensive  marine  monitoring  programmes  within  national 
marine strategies. Those monitoring programmes should measure the state of the marine 
environment, the achievement of environmental targets and the effectiveness of measures 
(SWD(2020) 60). 

The  MSFD  triggered  applied  research  initiatives  that  informed  experts,  managers  and 
policy  makers17.  Some  examples  come  from  the  assessment  of  marine  litter  and 
underwater noise, two topics that were very poorly understood before the MSFD. Based 
on  the  monitoring  and  knowledge  generated  on  marine  litter  under  the  MSFD,  the  EU 
adopted new legislation to curb single-use plastics and lost fishing gear, which account 
for  some  70%  of  all  beach  litter.  The  MSFD  was  an  incentive  to  develop  underwater 
noise monitoring surveys and to establish a number of registers for impulsive underwater 

14 Given that this report covers 2008-2019, the United Kingdom has been counted as an EU Member State 

for that period. 

15 Set in  Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 of 17 May 2017 laying down criteria and methodological 
standards on good environmental status of marine waters and specifications and standardised methods 
for monitoring and assessment, and repealing Decision 2010/477/EU (OJ L 125, 18.5.2017, p. 43). 
16  The  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  voiced  as  a  priority  developing,  integrating  and 
coordinating European marine and maritime research.  Opinion of the European Economic and Social 
Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A European Strategy 
for Marine and Maritime Research — A coherent European Research Area framework in support of a 
sustainable use of oceans and seas COM(2008) 534 final (OJ C 306, 16.12.2009, p. 46). 

EU 

17  See  for  instance  ‘LIFE  and  the  marine  environment’  (https://doi.org/10.2779/942085), projects  funded 
as 
for 
by 
https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/400695-better-marine-stewardship-through-research-and-innovation, 
DEVOTES and STAGE projects (http://www.devotes-project.eu/, http://www.stagesproject.eu/) or the 
list of projects in SWD(2020) 60. 

programmes 

framework 

innovation 

research 

such 

and 

4 

 
                                                 
sound.  In addition, analysing seabed integrity and analysing entire food webs are novel 
approaches that are largely driven by the requirements of the MSFD. 

The MSFD assessments, monitoring networks and programmes of measures do not only 
channel  efforts  into  new  fields  of  research,  but  also  into  improving  management  and 
policy  coherence. A wide range of  existing legislation is  already valid and relevant  for 
the Directive; in the EU this particularly includes the Water Framework Directive18, the 
Birds and Habitats Directives19 and the common fisheries policy20. A key achievement in 
implementing each step of the MSFD has been the identification of knowledge gaps.  It 
has helped Member States, EU institutions and stakeholders to point to key management 
and research needs. The Directive has notably improved the knowledge of the state of the 
Union’s  marine  waters  (SWD(2020)  61),  although  integrating  and  harmonising  that 
knowledge at EU level remains a challenge.  

2.3. 

Joint efforts 

The  MSFD  requires  an  unprecedented  and  coordinated  input  from  Member  States.  To 
facilitate  this  work,  Member  States  and  the  Commission  (together  with  regional  sea 
conventions and other stakeholders) have set up an informal programme of coordination, 
the  common  implementation  strategy.  The  strategy  involves  at  least  280  experts  from 
Member  States,  up  to  70  participants  from  EU  institutions  and  over  100  registered 
observers  or  stakeholders.  The  common  implementation  strategy  is  steered  by  the  EU 
Marine  Directors  and  organised  by  the  Marine  Strategy  Coordination  Group21.  Three 
working groups focus on overarching issues: good environmental status; programmes of 
measures and socio-economic analysis; and data, information and knowledge exchange. 
Four  technical  subgroups  focus  on  emerging  areas  of  particular  concern:  underwater 
noise,  marine  litter,  sea-floor  integrity  and  marine  data.  All  the  groups  develop  and 
eventually  agree  on  (usually  by  consensus)  common  approaches  to  implement  the 
Directive. 15 guidance documents have been adopted to date22. The number of meetings 
(on  average  18  common  implementation  strategy  meetings  annually),  the  progressing 
specialisation and the need for coordination to avoid thematic silos are big challenges for 
the implementation process. 

implementation  strategy 

The  common 
the  Directive’s 
implementation, making the process more efficient; and the structures of the strategy are 
considered  valuable  platforms  to  exchange  information  and  build  trust  in  the  decision-
making  process23.  A  majority  of  the  common  implementation  strategy  members  agree 

is  of  great  benefit 

to 

18 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). 

19  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)  and  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). 
20 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). 

21  Commission  Expert  Group  on  Strategic  Coordination  for  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive 

(2008/56/EC) (E02550). 

22 Available at https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/1dfbd5c7-5177-4828-9d60-ca1340879afc.  
23  Conclusions  from  the  Marine  Strategy  Coordination  Group  and  elaborated  by  Cavallo  et  al.,  2017 

(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.035). 

5 

 
                                                 
that the structure and work programme of the strategy are fit for purpose, while there is 
some  room  for  rationalising/simplifying  existing  procedures,  so  that  more  time  can  be 
devoted  to  discussing  Commission  assessments  and  the  Directive  can  be  better  linked 
with other directives, in particular for reporting24.  

2.4.  Public involvement and ocean literacy25 

Access  to  environmental  information,  public  participation  in  environmental  decision-
making and access to justice are general principles promoted at the international level in 
environmental  commitments26.  The  MSFD  includes  explicit  requirements27  to  help 
implement these commitments. The MSFD has set up a transparent mechanism to design 
and  implement  national  marine  strategies  and  to  follow  the  process  at  European  level 
(e.g. the implementation can be followed through open platforms to share information28). 
Member States are explicitly required to promote the active involvement of all interested 
parties.  In  addition,  every  implementation  stage  has  a  public  consultation  process 
organised by each of the 23 coastal Member States (SWD(2020) 60). Many of the MSFD 
programmes of measures also feature awareness-raising campaigns. 

The  MSFD  has  been  instrumental  in  drawing  attention  to  the  health  of  marine 
ecosystems,  for  example  to  perceive  the  gross  effect  of  land-based  pollution,  including 
plastics,  on  the  sea.  The  public  consultation  process  has  engaged  civic  society  and 
stakeholders  across  Europe  in  developing  the  national  marine  strategies.  These 
consultation  and  engagement  activities,  as  well  as  the  flow  of  data  generated,  will 
continue to  play  a significant  role in  contributing  to  the ocean literacy of the European 
public, to raise awareness of the ocean’s influence on human lives and the consequences 
of human activities and individuals’ behaviour on marine ecosystems. 

2.5.  Regional cooperation 

The transboundary nature of certain pressures and ecosystems makes them very difficult 
to manage at the Member State level alone29. The MSFD lists the regions and subregions 
around  which  the  Directive  is  implemented,  requires  regional  coordination  among 
Member  States  and  encourages  cooperation  with  non-EU  countries30.  The  Directive 

24  Results  from  a  questionnaire  sent  to  all  members  of  the  various  groups  under  the  common 
implementation  strategy  in  April  2019  to  critically  review  the  strategy’s  functions  and  work 
programme. 

25 Ocean literacy is the understanding of the ocean and of mankind’s relationship with it. 
26  Specifically  by  the  Aarhus  Convention  on  Access  to  Information,  Public  Participation  in  Decision-
Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, of the United Nations Economic Commission 
for Europe, adopted in 1998. 

27 Article 19 and Annex VI (8) of the MSFD. 
28  E.g.  CIRCABC  (https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/326ae5ac-0419-4167-83ca-e3c210534a69)  and 

WISE Marine (https://water.europa.eu/marine). 

29 The General Affairs Council emphasised that cooperation with and among Member States  and regions 
sharing a sea basin - and with non-EU countries whenever relevant - was a crucial element of success 
for  the  MSFD.  It  also  stressed  the  need  for  the  closest  possible  cooperation  between  all  countries 
sharing  marine  waters  and  transboundary  water  catchment  areas  (2973rd  General  Affairs  Council 
meeting,  Brussels,  16  November  2009  and  2988th  Environment  Council  meeting,  Brussels,  22 
December 2009). 

30  Articles  4,  5  and  6  of  the  MSFD.  The  final  agreed  map  of  MSFD  marine  regions  and  subregions  is 

available at https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/europe-seas#tab-gis-data. 

6 

 
                                                 
states that regional sea conventions31 can constitute the vehicle for such cooperation. In 
general,  during the last  decade, the regional sea conventions (i) became,  in  most cases, 
good platforms for implementing the MSFD where contracting parties collaborated and 
shared  approaches,  in  close  collaboration  with  the  MSFD  common  implementation 
strategy32;  (ii)  supported  the  cooperation  and  agreement  on  actions  and  objectives  with 
non-EU countries;  (iii) received significant  EU technical  and financial input to  develop 
their work programmes. 

The four regional sea conventions around Europe share the same overall aim (protection 
of the marine environment) and embrace the ecosystem-based approach, but they differ 
in  terms  of  structure,  scientific  and  operational  capacity,  governance  (including 
compliance monitoring) and degree of facilitation they offer to participating EU Member 
States  in  implementing  MSFD.  The  concept  of  ‘good  environmental  status’  and  the 
environmental target-setting of the MSFD have been incorporated into some, but not all 
regional  sea  conventions.  In  some  cases,  there  is  a  preference  for  describing  trends 
(improving or deteriorating) rather than setting criteria to determine whether the status is 
good or not. In one form or another, regional sea conventions regularly produce reports 
on the state of the marine environment33, seeking to align their timetables to the six-year 
cycle of the MSFD, adopt action plans and coordinate monitoring activities.  

At  the  same  time,  the  regional  sea  conventions  benefit  from  the  substantial  human 
resources  that  the  MSFD  has  mobilised  and  the  knowledge  it  has  generated  since  its 
adoption. EU funding has contributed to a considerable number of projects aimed at the 
coordinated  implementation  of  MSFD  and  the  development  of  regional  sea  convention 
action plans in all marine regions. The fight against marine litter offers a good example 
of  how  targeted  and  substantial  EU  funding  from  a  number  of  sources34  is  used  to 
implement regional action plans against marine litter, serving national, regional and EU, 
if not also global goals simultaneously.  

2.6.  The global commitments 

The MSFD is a key pillar for the EU to deliver on its global commitments to protect the 
marine  environment  and  develop  a  sustainable  approach  to  ocean  management,  as 

31 Four regional sea conventions cover EU marine waters: the Convention for the Protection of the Marine 
Environment of the Baltic Sea (Helsinki Convention  - HELCOM), the Convention for the Protection 
of  the  Marine  Environment  of  the  North-east  Atlantic  (Oslo-Paris  Convention  -  OSPAR),  the 
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean 
(Barcelona Convention – UNEP-MAP) and the Convention for the Protection of the Black Sea against 
Pollution  (Bucharest  Convention,  to  which  the  EU  is  still  trying  to  accede).  However,  OSPAR  does 
not cover the entire European Macaronesia subregion, only the Azores archipelago. 

32 The common implementation strategy adopted by the Member States and the Commission to implement 

Directive 2008/56/EC, see Section 2.3 of this report. 

33  UNEP/MAP  Mediterranean  Quality  Status  Report  (https://www.medqsr.org/),  OSPAR  Intermediate 
Assessment  (https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/),  HELCOM 
second  Holistic  Assessment  (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/),  Black  Sea  State  of  Environment 
Report 2009-2014 (http://www.blacksea-commission.org/SoE2009-2014/SoE2009-2014.pdf).  

34  For  example  Life+,  Horizon  2020,  funding  under  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
including  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  and  regional  funding,  neighbourhood  policy 
funding, Partnership Instrument funding, and development funding. 

7 

 
                                                 
recognised  in  the  EU’s  international  ocean  governance  initiative35.  It  also  plays  an 
important role in ensuring that actions across EU Member States are more coherent. 

As  confirmed  most  recently  by  Agenda  203036,  but  also  building  on  decades  of 
recognition  by  the  global  community37,  the  ecosystem-based  approach  is  vital  to 
‘Conserve  and  sustainably  use  the  oceans,  seas  and  marine  resources  for  sustainable 
development’  (Sustainable  Development  Goal  14).  The  monitoring  and  assessment 
required  by  the  MSFD  help  the  EU  to  deliver  on  most  of  the  SDG  14  targets,  which 
cover  sustainable  management,  protected  areas,  pollution  from  marine  litter  and 
eutrophication,  acidification,  impacts  from  unsustainable  fishing  practices,  scientific 
knowledge  and  the  implementation  of  international  law.  At  the  sea-basin  level,  close 
regional collaboration of Member States within relevant  regional sea conventions helps 
coordinate  the  regional  implementation  and  assessment  of  ocean-related  SDGs38  in 
tandem with the Directive.  

The  MSFD  contains  the  specific  regulatory  objective  that  ‘biological  diversity  is 
maintained’  as  the  cornerstone  for  achieving  good  environmental  status  of  oceans  and 
seas. It evaluates the status of marine species groups (including birds, mammals and fish) 
and  pelagic  and  seabed  habitat  types.  It  therefore  provides  a  legal  framework  to 
contribute to the commitments of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and to 
the forthcoming EU biodiversity strategy to 2030. The MSFD also includes establishing 
marine  protected  areas  and  other  spatial  protection  measures  that  form  coherent  and 
representative networks, in line with international commitments39.  

The Directive incorporates the UNCLOS40 requirement to observe and measure the risks 
or  effects  of  pollution  on  EU  marine  waters.  It  also  implements  various  obligations 
requiring Member States to take measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the 
marine environment from land-based sources, to prevent pollution of the seabed and its 
subsoil  and  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  non-indigenous  species.  The  MSFD  also 
incorporates  UNCLOS  provisions  on  sustainable  fisheries  and  aquaculture,  and 
innovation and investment in research. Finally, yet importantly, through its emphasis on 
regional  cooperation,  MSFD  facilitates  the  obligation  of  States  under  UNCLOS  to 
cooperate to protect the marine environment. 

35 International ocean governance: an agenda for the future of our oceans, JOIN(2016) 49 final. 
36  ‘Transforming  our  world:  the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development’  (A/RES/70/1),  adopted  in 
September  2015  as  a  plan  of  action  for  people,  planet  and  prosperity.  It  consists  of  17  Sustainable 
Development Goals and 169 targets. 

37  For  example,  the  Rio  Declaration  on  Environment  and  Development  from  the  1992  United  Nations 
Conference  on  Environment  and  Development  (UNCED),  or  the  Rio+20  outcome  document  ‘The 
future we want’ (A/CONF.216/L.1). 

38 

See, 

for 

example, 

the 

HELCOM 

Ministerial 

Declaration 

(http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/HELCOM%20at%20work/HELCOM%20Brussels%20Ministerial
%20Declaration.pdf) adopted on 6 March 2018. 

39 Notably CBD Aichi Target 11: By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10 
per  cent  of  coastal  and  marine  areas,  especially  areas  of  particular  importance  for  biodiversity  and 
ecosystem  services,  are  conserved  through  effectively  and  equitably  managed,  ecologically 
representative  and  well-connected  systems  of  protected  areas  and  other  effective  area-based 
conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape. 

40 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets out the responsibilities and rights 
of nations with regard to seas and oceans and includes a number of obligations in relation to protecting 
and preserving the marine environment. 

8 

 
                                                 
The Paris Agreement41 mentioned the ocean for the first time in a climate agreement and 
recognised  its  integral  role  in  the  global  climate  system.  Today,  most  of  the  national 
pledges  under  the  Paris  Agreement  involve  marine  ecosystems;  the  dominant  concerns 
raised  by  governments  are  coastal  impacts,  ocean  warming  impacts  and  fisheries 
impacts42. The MSFD and its holistic marine strategies provide a good framework (still 
not used to its full potential) to monitor climate change impacts, explore climate change 
mitigation and apply the ecosystem-based approach to climate change adaptation in the 
marine environment. As part of the efforts to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, as stated in 
the Green Deal, Europe will probably experience an unprecedented increase in offshore 
renewable energy43, which will inevitably affect marine species and habitats. 

3.  MAIN LINKS BETWEEN EU POLICIES AND THE MSFD44

The  MSFD  framework  to  safeguard  biodiversity  and  ensure  a  sustainable  use  of  EU 
marine  resources  is,  to  a  large  extent,  supported  by  other  EU  legal  instruments.  This 
section  reviews  the  nine  EU  policies  most  commonly  reported  by  Member  States  to 
contribute to the MSFD programmes of measures, plus the recently developed policies to 
tackle  plastic  pollution.  In  general,  the  MSFD  (i)  integrates  all  the  available  (official) 
information from EU marine waters in the national marine strategies, and (ii) evaluates 
the situation to manage the marine environment effectively. New policy concepts such as 
threshold  values  to  define  good  environmental  status45  are  being  developed  to  put  the 
strategies into practice and to complement existing threshold values46 from other policies.  

3.1.  The  Water  Framework  Directive  and  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment 

Directive47 

Many  issues  affecting  the  riverine  and  marine  environment  are  generated  on  land. 
Therefore,  the  MSFD  and  the  Water  Framework  Directive  target  a  similar  range  of 
pressures and drivers (human uses and activities) and share a large number of measures. 
Measures  under  the  MSFD  for  marine  eutrophication,  contaminants,  hydrographical 
changes,  and  biodiversity  draw  on  those  submitted  under  the  Water  Framework 
Directive.  Only  one  third  of  the  river  basin  management  plans  examined  in  the  5th 

41  The  first  legally  binding,  universal  agreement  to  avoid  climate  change  by  limiting  global  warming  to 
well  below  2°C  and  pursuing  efforts  to  limit  it  to  1.5°C,  adopted  in  Paris  in  December  2015 
(https://unfccc.int/documents/9097).  

42 Ocean commitments under the Paris Agreement (https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3422).  
43 According to the Commission Communication ‘A Clean Planet for all A European strategic long-term 
vision  for  a  prosperous,  modern,  competitive  and  climate  neutral  economy’  (COM/2018/773  final) 
80% of electricity will be coming from renewable energy sources increasingly located off-shore. 
44 Article 20(3)(g) of the MSFD requires a summary of the  contribution of other relevant EU policies to 
attaining the objectives of this Directive. This summary does not replace the future policy coherence 
analysis to be developed under the evaluation of the MSFD.  

45  ‘Threshold  value’  means  a  value  or  range  of  values  that  allows  for  an  assessment  of  the  quality  level 
achieved for a particular criterion, thereby contributing to the assessment of the extent to which good 
environmental  status  is  being  achieved  (Article  2(5)  of  Commission  Decision  (EU)  2017/848). 
Threshold  values  include  an  ‘acceptable  deviation’  from  the  reference  or  pristine  conditions.  This 
allows for sustainable uses of the sea whereby some level of pressures can be accommodated, provided 
the overall quality of the environment is maintained (SWD(2020) 62).  
46 These may be called other terms, such as environmental quality standards. 
47  Council  Directive  91/271/EEC  of  21  May  1991  concerning  urban  waste-water  treatment  (OJ  L  135, 

30.5.1991, p. 40). 

9 

 
  
                                                 
implementation  report  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive48  identified  the  need  for 
additional measures in order to contribute to the MSFD. Some Member States voluntarily 
included  measures  tackling,  for  instance,  riverine  litter  to  support  the  MSFD’s 
implementation. 

In terms of spatial coverage, both Directives apply in coastal and territorial waters, with 
the  MSFD  explicitly  covering  only  the  aspects  not  addressed  by  the  Water  Framework 
Directive  in  coastal  waters  (e.g.  underwater  noise,  marine  litter)  and  with  the  Water 
Framework Directive applying in territorial waters only for chemical status. In 2017, the 
Commission  updated  the  MSFD  Decision  for  determining  good  environmental  status. 
The  2017  Decision  requires  Member  States  to  reuse  Water  Framework  Directive 
assessments  for  marine  eutrophication,  contaminants  and  hydrographical  alterations. 
However, as already reflected in the Water Framework Directive Fitness Check49, this is 
still not always complied with, since the national assessments under both Directives can 
be slightly different (e.g. with varying quality elements or scales of assessment), and the 
definition  of  good  ecological/chemical  status  in  the  Water  Framework  Directive  is  not 
always  based  on  the  same  elements  as  the  good  environmental  status  of  the  MSFD. 
Nevertheless,  according  to  the  Fitness  Check,  the  Water  Framework  Directive  and  the 
MSFD are coherent and have complementary objectives. In terms of results, around 40% 
of  surface  waters  (rivers,  lakes,  transitional  and  coastal  waters)  are  in  good  ecological 
status or potential, and 38% are in good chemical status50. This have direct consequences 
for the progress under the MFSD. 

The  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive  establishes  targets  and  instruments  to 
reduce  mainly  the  input  of  organic  matter  and  nutrients,  via  point  sources.  The  link 
between the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and eutrophication is identified in 
most Member States’ programmes of measures, whereas other topics directly relevant for 
MSFD (such as contaminants and marine litter) are usually not explicitly mentioned. The 
evaluation  of the  Urban  Waste Water Treatment  Directive  confirmed that the Directive 
has  been  very  effective  in  reducing  pollution  in  treated  waste  water  and  that  its 
implementation remains crucial to meeting the objectives of the MSFD51. The evaluation 
pointed to some limitations of the waste water treatment plants that can be relevant for 
the marine environment, such as not addressing contaminants of emerging concern (e.g. 
pharmaceuticals and micro-plastics), or not treating all storm water, urban runoff or small 
agglomerations. Nevertheless, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive has been one 
of  the  most  effective  instruments  in  limiting  urban  pollution,  including  nitrate  and 
phosphorus in rivers and at sea. 

48  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  -  Report  on  the  progress  in  implementation  of  the  Water 
Framework  Directive  Programmes  of  Measures,  accompanying  the  Communication  from  the 
Commission to the European Parliament and the  Council  - The Water Framework Directive and the 
Floods  Directive:  Actions  towards  the  'good  status'  of  EU  water  and  to  reduce  flood  risks 
(SWD/2015/50 final). 

49 Commission Staff Working Document – Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive, Groundwater 

Directive, Environmental Quality Standards Directive and Floods Directive (SWD/2019/439). 
50 EEA 2018 water report (https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water#tab-data-references). 
51  See  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/evaluation/index_en.htm  and  documents 

on that site. 

10 

 
                                                 
Figure 1: Loads of nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) to marine subregions by source (in tonnes 
per year). This analysis was part of the recent evaluation of the  Urban Waste Water Treatment 
Directive52.  

3.2.  Birds and Habitats Directives 

As evidenced by the MSFD programmes of measures, the Birds and Habitats Directives 
are  especially  relevant  for  reaching  good  environmental  status  related  to  marine 
biodiversity,  non-indigenous  species  and  commercial  fish  and  shellfish.  Only  a  few 
programmes of measures link the Birds and Habitats Directives to the MSFD descriptors 
dealing  with  marine  litter  and  underwater  noise,  even  if  they  can  be  a  threat  to,  for 
example, marine birds, mammals and reptiles.  

The objectives of all three Directives are similar, although the scope of MSFD is broader. 
The  main  objective  of  the  Habitats  Directive  –  to  achieve  ‘favourable  conservation 
status’ for the species and habitats covered, and similar objective of the Birds Directive 
for all wild birds – does not exactly correspond to ‘good environmental status’ in terms 
of  definition,  measures  or  timelines.  However,  both  concepts  are  mutually  supportive. 
Member  States  assess  the  status  and  trends  of  species  and  habitats  protected  under  the 
Birds and Habitats Directives and report every six years. For the period 2007-2012, the 
percentage  of  species  reported  under  the  Habitats  Directive  in  favourable  conservation 

52 Data from Pistocchi et al., 2019 (https://doi.org/10.2760/303163). 

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
status in the European marine regions ranges from zero in  the Black Sea to 20% in the 
Baltic  Sea53.  The  2017  Decision  envisages  re-using  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives’ 
assessments of marine species and habitats where possible, but each Member State may 
do  this  differently54.  In  addition,  the  MSFD  and  Habitats  Directive  both  assign 
geographical regions within which the Member States are expected to cooperate and have 
joint approaches. The regional borders within the two Directives have now been largely 
harmonised.  

The  spatial  protection  measures  reported  under  the  MSFD  commonly  refer  to  marine 
protected areas that were established under the Birds and Habitats Directives as part of 
the  Natura  2000  network,  which  is  still  not  complete  in  the  marine  environment. 
However, the MSFD brought a renewed view of spatial protection where, apart from the 
specific conservation objectives of individual marine protected areas, networks of marine 
protected areas should be ecologically coherent and representative at (sub)regional level. 
Hence,  the  networks  of  protected  areas  should  be  holistic  tools  to  address  all  major 
pressures,  be  effective  and  cover  a  fair  representation  of  all  marine  habitats  and 
ecosystem features. Still, coherence and effectiveness have not been addressed regionally 
by Member States’ MSFD programmes of measures.  

Figure 2: Recent evolution (2012-2016) of the percentage of area covered by marine protected 
areas in EU waters in the different marine subregions55.  

3.3.  Common fisheries policy 

One of the objectives of the common fisheries policy is to be coherent  with the MSFD 
and  with  its  objective  of  achieving  good  environmental  status.  By  setting  exploitation 
rates and establishing technical measures which define sustainable fishing practices, the 
common  fisheries  policy  addresses  fishing  pressures  that  impact  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish  stocks  (one  of  the  MSFD  descriptors).  The  policy  also  has  the  objective  of 
ensuring  that  negative  impacts  of  fishing  activities  on  the  marine  ecosystem  are 
minimised. This relates to impacts on the abundance and diversity of marine life, marine 
food  webs  and  ecosystems,  and  seabed  habitats  (relevant  in  particular  for  three  other 
MSFD  descriptors).  In  addition,  fisheries-generated  litter,  such  as  discarded  or  lost 

53 Species of European  interest: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/species-of-european-

interest-2/assessment.  

54 The Commission has launched a study to explore  the alignment of reported data and policy objectives 
under the Birds, Habitats and Marine Directives with the assessment of marine species and habitats. 
55 Data from ETC/ICM, 2017 (https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/external/spatial-analysis-of-

marine-protected). 

12 

 
 
                                                 
fishing nets and other gear, can cause habitat alteration. In relation to MSFD measures, 
most  Member  States  link  measures  for  marine  biodiversity  and  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish  to  the  common  fisheries  policy,  though  few  did  so  for  marine  litter. 
Management measures proposed by the Commission under the policy have resulted in a 
decrease in  fishing mortality  rates for several  commercially exploited fish and shellfish 
stocks in the North-east Atlantic Ocean and the Baltic Sea; although this progress is not 
enough  to  meet  the  relevant  common  fisheries  policy  objectives  yet.  The  situation  is 
worse in the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea where overfishing remains a common 
practice. 

Annex  I  of  the  MSFD  establishes  that  all  commercially  exploited  fish  and  shellfish 
should  be  in  safe  biological  limits.  To  measure  that  state,  the  MSFD  makes  use  of  the 
common  fisheries  policy  concept  of  maximum  sustainable  yield.  Hence,  it  promotes 
using  stock  assessments  and  relevant  multiannual  plans  and  consulting  the  appropriate 
scientific bodies. While the information about fish stocks is more or less available under 
the  common  fisheries  policy  and  reported  across  Member  States,  other  criteria  such  as 
the mortality/injury of species linked to incidental by-catch or the physical disturbance to 
the  seabed  by  fishing  activities  are  not  systematically  reported  by  Member  States. 
Sometimes,  regional  information  can  help  cover  these  gaps;  for  example,  86  %  of  the 
seabed  assessed  in  the  Greater  North  Sea  and  Celtic  Seas  shows  evidence  of  physical 
disturbance  by  bottom-trawling  gear56.  Putting  into  practice  the  objectives  of  both  the 
MSFD  and  common  fisheries  policy  would  improve  the  protection  of  commercial  fish 
stocks,  biodiversity  and  habitats.  Also,  establishing  threshold  values  under  the  MSFD 
would  make  it  easier  to  implement  targeted  measures,  including  measures  under  the 
common fisheries policy. 

The common fisheries policy also promotes sustainable aquaculture to contribute to food 
security and supplies, growth and employment. It recommends using non-binding Union 
strategic  guidelines,  which  were  first  adopted  in  2013,  for  developing  sustainable 
aquaculture activities. These guidelines served as a basis for Member States’ multiannual 
national plans and their activities under the 2014-2020 European Maritime and Fisheries 
Fund. The 2013 guidelines are currently under revision and will inform on the updates of 
national plans to implement the post-2020 funding of aquaculture. 

3.4.  Maritime Spatial Planning Directive57  

The  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  develop  maritime 
spatial  plans  with  the  aim  of  promoting  the  coexistence  and  sustainability  of  relevant 
activities  and  uses.  It  makes  explicit  reference  to  the  MSFD  within  its  legal  text, 
stipulating that maritime spatial planning should apply an ecosystem-based approach and 
help to achieve the aims of good environmental status and coordinate timelines with the 
MSFD  to  the  extent  possible.  Several  studies  have  defined  or  put  into  practice  the 
ecosystem-based approach or land-sea interactions for maritime spatial planning, but still 
there is no agreed methodology across Europe. 

56  OSPAR  assessment  portal,  extent  of  physical  damage  to  predominant  and  special  habitats 

(https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/biodiversity-
status/habitats/extent-physical-damagepredominant-and-special-habitats/) 

57  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). 

13 

 
                                                 
In their MSFD programmes of measures, Member States mainly link marine biodiversity 
(through protected areas) and hydrographical changes (through the activities covered by 
maritime  spatial  plans)  to  the  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Directive,  while  three 
countries58  make  a  potential  link  to  underwater  noise.  As  the  first  round  of  maritime 
spatial  planning  reporting  is  not  due  until  2021,  it  remains  to  be  seen  to  which  extent 
MSFD  objectives  will  be  taken  into  account  in  the  national  implementation  of  the 
Directive  as  a  tool  with  which  to  support  the  ecosystem-based  approach.  Since  the 
Maritime Spatial Planning Directive process integrates all the blue economy sectors and 
activities,  it  should  enforce  management  measures  that  help  to  achieve  good 
environmental status. 

3.5.  The  Strategic  Environmental  Assessment  and  Environmental  Impact 

Assessment Directives 59 

These  two  directives  aim  to  achieve  a  high  level  of  protection  of  the  environment  by 
ensuring  that  the  environmental  impacts  of  certain  plans/programmes  (strategic 
environmental assessment) and projects (environmental impact assessment) are analysed 
early  in  the  decision-making  process.  In  the  MSFD  programmes  of  measures,  the 
strategic  environmental  assessment  and  the  environmental  impact  assessment  were 
mostly  linked  to  hydrographical  changes,  underwater  noise,  marine  biodiversity, 
eutrophication and horizontal measures. Even though biodiversity aspects are not always 
assessed  in  the  environmental  impact  assessment  process,  around  half  of  the  Member 
States refer to the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive for measures addressing 
biodiversity. In contrast, few Member States seem to recognise the environmental impact 
assessment’s potential for assessing activities relevant to contaminants. 

With their  wide  scope  and  strategic  nature,  the  assessments  prescribed  by  the  Strategic 
Environmental  Assessment  and  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  Directives  could  be 
relevant for all MSFD descriptors, although the scale and level of detail may differ. For 
instance, projects that are likely to have significant effects on the environment are subject 
to  an  environmental  impact  assessment  prior  to  their  authorisation.  These  assessments 
could contribute to the status assessment under the MSFD. This can be equally relevant 
in the case of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, which focuses on plans 
and programmes on a larger scale. There is still scope for obtaining better feedback with 
these  three  Directives  on  the  pressures  for  achieving  good  environmental  status, 
including sea and land activities. 

58 Bulgaria, Ireland, Poland. 
59 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment 
of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30) and 
Directive  2014/52/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  April  2014  amending 
Directive  2011/92/EU  on  the  assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain  public  and  private  projects  on  the 
environment (OJ L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 1). 

14 

 
                                                 
3.6.  Waste Framework Directive60, the EU strategy for plastics61 and the Single-

Use Plastics Directive62  

The Waste Framework Directive provides important mechanisms for the removal of litter 
and  the  improvement  of  water  quality  in  line  with  the  requirements  of  the  MSFD.  The 
recent  revision  of  this  Directive  added  direct  references  to  impacts  on  the  marine 
environment  and,  together  with  the  MSFD,  sets  the  aim  of  stopping  marine  litter  from 
being  generated  and  requires  Member  States  to  take  practical  steps  to  halt  littering, 
including  marine  litter.  The  targets  and  measures  fixed  by  the  Waste  Framework 
Directive  are,  therefore,  directly  relevant  for  addressing  marine  contaminants.  Since 
some of its requirements are yet to be transposed by the Member States, it cannot yet be 
concluded  how  effective  they  will  be  in  practice.  Currently,  the  main  challenge  is  to 
ensure full implementation of the Directive and prevent landfilling of (often non-treated) 
waste, which can be a problem especially in coastal areas. 

The knowledge generated from the MSFD on marine litter, micro-litter and its impact on 
wildlife, although limited, supported the development of the EU strategy for plastics and, 
thus, contributed to the circular economy action plan. A concrete example of the MSFD’s 
contribution to the follow-up of the strategy for plastics is the support it provided for the 
new Directive on single-use plastics and fishing gear. Through the MSFD’s beach litter 
monitoring  activities,  the  Commission  collected  enough  data  to  present  an  impact 
assessment and a legislative proposal. The MSFD will also substantially help in assessing 
the effectiveness of this new Directive on plastics and in following up on other actions of 
the strategy, for example quantifying and mapping litter and microplastics. This support 
is expected to continue in the new circular economy action plan63.  

4.  A SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF THE EU’S MARINE ENVIRONMENT  

The  initial  assessment  of  EU  marine  waters  reported  by  Member  States  in  2012-2015 
under MSFD did not provide a uniform knowledge base across Europe. This was mainly 
due  to  inconsistency  on  the  indicators  reported  per  criterion,  high  heterogeneity  of 
methodological  approaches,  and  gaps  in  the  reported  information.  To  improve  the 
coherence and consistency in Member States' reports, the Commission adopted a revised 
Decision in 2017 for determining good environmental status (see footnote 15). An update 
of the initial assessment was due to be reported by October 2018. Still, by October 2019, 
only 14 Member States had submitted their reports, and 10 of which had reported in the 
agreed electronic format (SWD(2020) 60). This summary therefore relies on information 
compiled by the European Environmental Agency and the Joint Research Centre of the 
European  Commission  (presented  in  SWD(2020)  61)  in  addition  to  what  has  been 
reported by Member States.  

60  Directive  (EU)  2018/851  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  May  2018  amending 

Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 109). 

61 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  -  A  European  Strategy  for  Plastics  in  a 
Circular Economy (COM/2018/028 final). 

62 Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction 

of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (OJ L 155, 12.6.2019, p. 1). 

63 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a 
cleaner and more competitive Europe (COM(2020) 98 final).  

15 

 
                                                 
4.1.  Marine ecosystems under threat 

Biodiversity  loss  was  not  halted  in  Europe’s  seas  during  the  first  MSFD  cycle64.  The 
biodiversity of marine ecosystems is still vulnerable in Europe’s seas and the good state 
of habitats and species is not secured. Some marine populations and groups of species are 
still  under  threat,  including  some  seabirds  (e.g.  the  abundance  of  more  than  25%  of 
marine  bird  species  assessed  in  the  North-east  Atlantic  has  dropped  considerably), 
elasmobranchs65 (e.g. around 40% of Mediterranean species are declining and many are 
data  deficient),  or  some  cetaceans66  (e.g.  harbour  porpoise  in  the  Baltic  Proper  with  a 
population of a few hundred individuals). In the Mediterranean and Black Seas, at least 
87% of the commercially exploited fish and shellfish species are overfished67. In general, 
cetacean populations are either in unknown or not good status. Cephalopods and reptiles 
are  too  poorly  monitored  (e.g.  33%  of  the  reports  on  marine  turtles  under  the  Habitats 
Directive were in unfavourable conservation status and 67% unknown). 

On the other hand, existing management measures and joint  regional  programmes over 
the  last  couple  of  decades  have  managed  to  reduce  selected  pressures  and  helped  to 
increase  population  size  for  some  species  (e.g.  some  populations  of  grey  seal  across 
Europe;  commercially exploited fish in  the North-east  Atlantic  Ocean).  Currently, 41% 
of the assessed fish and shellfish stocks in the North-east Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea 
are within safe biological limits, and this percentage rises considerably when only one of 
the two criteria (fishing mortality or reproductive capacity) is taken into account. Other 
examples  of  stabilisation  or  recovery  include  white-tailed  eagles  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and 
monk seals in parts of the Mediterranean Sea.  

Seabed habitats are under significant pressure across European seas from the cumulative 
impacts  of  demersal  fishing,  coastal  developments  and  other  activities.  Preliminary 
results  from  a  study  presented  in  SWD(2020)  61  indicate  that  about  43%  of  Europe’s 
shelf/slope area and 79% of the coastal seabed is considered to be physically disturbed, 
which  is  mainly  caused  by  bottom  trawling.  A  quarter  of  the  EU’s  coastal  area  has 
probably lost its seabed habitats. The main activities reported under the MSFD causing 
physical loss of benthic68 habitats were land claim and flood defence, port construction, 
solid  waste  disposal,  renewable  energy  production  and  impacts  from  unsustainable 
practices  of  aquaculture.  It  is  likely  that  the  impaired  status  of  benthic  habitats  will 
influence  species  depending  directly  or  indirectly  on  them,  including  the  abundance  of 
commercially exploited species. 

While  the  overall  state  of  marine  food  webs  across  European  seas  cannot  yet  be  fully 
assessed, there are many examples of trophic guilds69 showing deteriorating trends over 
time. This especially concerns the reductions in abundance of several top predators, such 

64 Marine biodiversity decline across Europe’s seas is evidenced in ‘The European environment - state and 
outlook 2020’ (https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2020/intro), ‘The IPBES regional assessment report on 
biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services  for  Europe  and  Central  Asia’  (https://ipbes.net/assessment-
reports/eca), and further references and details are provided in SWD(2020) 61.  

65 Elasmobranchs cover sharks, skates and rays.  
66 Cetaceans include whales, dolphins and porpoises. 
67  This  is  based  on  an  analysis  of  47  stocks  that  can  represent  half  of  the  total  commercially  exploited 

stocks in the area. 

68 Habitats found on the sea bottom. 
69 A trophic guild is a group of species that exploits the same kinds of resources in comparable ways. 

16 

 
                                                 
as birds, sharks and marine mammals. There are examples of marine communities that do 
not occur at the proper abundance to retain their full productive capacity, as observed for 
many commercial fish and shellfish stocks in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. There 
are also signs of changes in the size structure and distribution of communities (indicative 
of  a  trophic  level)  like,  for  example,  phytoplankton  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  zooplankton 
(copepods) species in parts of the North-east Atlantic Ocean. 

In  terms  of  data  availability,  the  data  needed  to  assess  status  is  inadequate  for  most 
assessed  species.  Several  sources  of  information  must  be  used  which  do  not  always 
provide a harmonised EU picture. Many species groups are under-sampled, and we can 
still not fully quantify the impact of different human activities on marine populations or 
the  food  web  as  a  whole.  There  is  an  urgent  need  to  improve  data  collection  and,  if 
possible, to complement it with modelling approaches. Wider and more regular fish stock 
assessments should be performed, in particular, in the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea and 
Macaronesia. 

4.2.  Main pressures affecting marine ecosystems 

4.2.1.  Non-indigenous species 

There  are  over  1,200  marine  non-indigenous  species  in  Europe’s  seas  and  their 
cumulative  number  is  still  increasing,  although  the  rate  of  introduction  seems  to  have 
decelerated during the last decade. The larger number of these species is occurring in the 
Mediterranean  Sea.  Roughly  7%  of  the  marine  non-indigenous  species  are  potentially 
invasive; their impact  on native communities, ecosystems  and their services need to  be 
further studied. The main pathways for the introductions of such species in Europe´s seas 
seem  to  be  shipping  (49%)  and  marine  and  inland  corridors  such  as  the  Suez  canal 
(33%).  Measures  are  needed  to  better  address  these  main  pathways  and  minimise  new 
introductions considering regional specificities. It is difficult to assess the proportion of 
native marine species and habitats that have been adversely affected by non-indigenous 
species. However, increasing the resilience of marine ecosystems could avoid the major 
impacts  by  minimising  the  conditions  that  can  promote  non-indigenous  species  to 
become invasive (e.g. the reduction of native species and creation of ‘empty niches’ in 
the food web, or climate change impacts). 

4.2.2.  Fishing  

Since the early 2000s, better management of fish and shellfish stocks has contributed to a 
decrease  in  fishing  pressure  in  the  North-east  Atlantic  Ocean  and  the  Baltic  Sea,  and 
there  are  signs  of  recovery  in  the  reproductive  capacity  of  several  fish  and  shellfish 
stocks. Currently, 41% of the assessed fish and shellfish stocks in those two regions are 
within safe biological limits70, meaning that the number of stocks within safe biological 
limits  has  almost  doubled,  from  15  in  2003  to  29  in  2017.  Fishing  mortality  in  these 
regions is on average near the levels producing  maximum sustainable yield, but further 
improvement  is  needed  for  all  stocks  to  reach  maximum  sustainable  yield  fishing 
mortality levels, in accordance with the common fisheries policy objectives. 

In  contrast,  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  and  the  Black  Sea,  the  situation  remains  critical, 
with  87%  of  the  assessed  stocks  overfished  and  a  significant  lack  of  knowledge  about 
fishing pressure and reproductive capacity. There has been some progress, notably with 

70 Based on an assessment of around one third of the total commercial fish/shellfish stocks in the area. 

17 

 
                                                 
the adoption of the first ever multiannual plan for the western Mediterranean Sea, which 
may lead to an effort reduction of up to 40%.  

Further urgent action is needed, and success will depend on the availability and quality of 
marine  information,  the  commitment  to  implement  scientific  advice  and  an  adequate 
uptake  of  management  measures.  Many  stocks  remain  overfished  and/or  outside  safe 
biological limits. It is clear that efforts by all actors will need to be intensified to ensure 
that stocks are managed sustainably. 

Figure 3: Trend of the median fishing pressure on the 47 assessed stocks in the Mediterranean 
and  Black  seas.  The  dash  line  represents  the  sustainability  threshold  or  maximum  sustainable 
yield. The fishing mortality in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions remained extremely high 
and virtually unchanged since 2003, indicating that most of the stocks are severely overfished71.  

Additional action may need to be considered also to reach the objective to better protect 
and  preserve  seabed  habitats  and  reduce  by-catch  from  fishing  activities.  For  example, 
by-catch is supposed to be the main pressure for all of the threatened species of sharks, 
rays and skates in Europe seas, where 32-53 % of all species are threatened72. 

4.2.3.  Human-induced eutrophication 

46% of the European coastal waters is failing to meet good ecological status73. However, 
the  extent  of  the  areas  affected  is  decreasing  in  some  countries.  The  Baltic  Sea  is  the 
marine region with the highest proportion of coastal waters where nutrient conditions are 
a problem (58%), while the Black Sea is the region with the highest proportion of coastal 
waters where phytoplankton conditions are a problem (85%). Eutrophication also occurs 
in the southern North Sea, along the north-western coast of France and in the vicinity of 
riverine outflows within the Mediterranean Sea. 

Widespread oxygen-depleted areas are observed in the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea as a 
result  of  eutrophication,  natural  conditions  and  climate  change  impacts.  This  has 
significant impacts on benthic habitats and food webs. Nutrient inputs from point sources 

71 Data from STECF, 2019 (http://dx.doi.org/10.2760/22641). 
72 Nieto et al., 2015 (https://www.iucn.org/ja/content/european-red-list-marine-fishes). 
73 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/wise-wfd-3 

18 

 
 
                                                 
in the EU have significantly decreased, although inputs from diffuse sources, i.e.  losses 
from agricultural activities, are still too high. Also, there is a long time lag between the 
actual reduction of nutrient inputs and the reduction of eutrophication effects. 

Although  eutrophication  is  a  relatively  well-studied  process,  the  harmonisation  of 
monitoring methods (across countries, between coastal and open sea areas, and between 
MSFD and Water Framework Directive approaches) remains an issue in many regions.  

4.2.4.  Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions 

About  28%  of  Europe’s  coastline  is  affected  by  permanent  hydrographical  changes, 
including from seawater movement, salinity and sea temperature changes, as a result of 
human  activities  such  as  dredging,  infrastructural  development,  sand  extraction  or 
desalination. The MSFD information about trends and environmental status with respect 
to hydrographical conditions is, however, too scarce and scattered to allow for a suitable 
assessment  on  a  large  scale.  The  criteria  and  methods  used  are  not  harmonised.  Direct 
and indirect changes in hydrographic variables caused by human actions, as well as their 
impacts on seabed and water column habitats, are not always well understood or reported 
under MSFD. As a large part of human activities directly responsible for hydrographical 
pressures  take  place  in  coastal  waters,  this  issue  is  closely  linked  to  the  Water 
Framework Directive. 

4.2.5.  Contaminants 

The  ambition  of  striving  towards  zero  pollution,  notably  by  preventing  the  release  of 
harmful substances at source, is a priority for the EU. The implementation of measures 
under the various EU and global legal instruments to combat chemical pollution has led 
to a reduction of concentrations and impacts of some hazardous substances in the marine 
environment,  such  as  polychlorinated  biphenyls  (PCBs),  certain  organochlorine 
pesticides and tin-based antifouling compounds, as well as a reduction in the occurrence 
of oil spills74. Still, these substances are very persistent and therefore are still present in 
the marine environment.  

In  general,  the  Baltic  Sea  has  a  relatively  high  concentration  of  mercury,  brominated 
flame  retardants,  and  the  radioactive  isotope  Cs-137.  In  the  North-east  Atlantic  Ocean, 
there are still concerns in some areas about levels of some heavy metals  (like mercury, 
cadmium  and  lead),  PCB  congeners  and  polycyclic  aromatic  hydrocarbons.  In  the 
Mediterranean Sea, there are some coastal hotspots with lead contamination in biota and 
mercury  in  sediments.  The  Black  Sea  seems  to  have  pollution  problems  from  organic 
pollutants,  such  as  pesticides,  PCBs  and  polycyclic  aromatic  hydrocarbons  and  some 
heavy  metals.  It  is  important  to  highlight  that  current  assessments  focus  on  a  limited 
number  of  contaminants  and  many  environmentally  hazardous  substances  are  not 
regularly monitored and assessed. 

Regarding  contaminants  in  seafood,  the  concentrations  of  heavy  metals,  polycyclic 
aromatic  hydrocarbons,  PCBs  and  dioxins  should  be  below  the  maximum  levels 

74  Further  efforts  are  ongoing.  For  example,  EU  Member  States  and  the  Commission  have  recently 
proposed  an  amendment  to  the  International  Maritime  Organization’s  (IMO)  Convention  for  the 
Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships to include controls on the biocide cybutryne, which 
is highly toxic for algae, seagrass and corals. 

19 

 
                                                 
established under EU food legislation75. However, certain fish and fishery products from 
the  Baltic  Sea  region  regularly  exceed  the  maximum  limits  of  dioxins  and  dioxin-like 
PCBs, which has led to prohibiting the sale of salmon in the area. In all EU waters, little 
information is available for non-regulated contaminants or substances with the potential 
for accumulating in fish and seafood used for human consumption. Nevertheless, recent 
data shows an accumulation of plastic chemical residues76 in most of the marine species, 
including fish and shellfish products.   

There  is  room  for  improving  the  monitoring  of  marine  pollution  through  (i)  more 
effective data mining and joint monitoring networks (especially in the Mediterranean and 
Black Seas), and (ii) harmonised methodological approaches at a regional scale. 

4.2.6.  Marine litter  

Marine  litter,  directly  linked  to  the  occurrence  of  litter  in  the  terrestrial  and  riverine 
environment, has received substantial attention and, based on assessments made through 
the MSFD and the regional sea conventions, has led to a swift preparation of legislative 
actions  at  EU  level  against  single-use  plastics  and  fishery-related  litter,  as  well  as  a 
revision  of  the  Directive  on  Port  Reception  Facilities  for  the  delivery  of  waste  from 
ships77.  The  presence  of  litter  has  been  confirmed  in  all  compartments  of  the  marine 
environment (shoreline, water column and seafloor). Plastic items are the most abundant 
component  of  marine  litter.  For  example,  single-use  plastics  represent  50%  of  all 
European  beach  litter  items  by  count,  and  fishing  gear  containing  plastics  accounts  for 
another 27%. Ingestion of plastic by marine species is also widespread in the European 
seas. As an example, 93% of the fulmar birds assessed in the North-east Atlantic Ocean 
had ingested some plastic; and 85% of the turtles assessed in the Mediterranean Sea had 
ingested litter.   

Although  there  is  no  regular  regional  monitoring,  all  scientific  studies  indicate  the 
existence  of  considerable  amounts  of  micro-litter  in  seawater.  Under  the  new  circular 
economy  action  plan,  specific  actions  at  EU  level  are  planned  to  reduce  intentionally 
added  micro-plastics  in  products,  micro-litter  deriving  from  the  degradation  of  macro-
litter,  and  leakages  of  micro-plastics  from  products  (such  as  tyres  and  textiles)  during 
their use and from pre-production plastic pellets. 

implemented  by  Member  States.  Still, 

Regional  action  plans  against  marine  litter  and  a  large  number  of  national  actions  are 
being 
litter  quantity  assessments  and 
understanding of pathways of introduction are under development, and there is a lack of 
focused measures to address major sources. In Europe, there are sizeable gaps in the data 
on litter on the seabed, in the surface layer and water column, micro-litter and effects on 
marine  species  (especially  entanglement).  The  MSFD  is  tackling  the  urgent  need  to 
coordinate monitoring methodologies at national, regional and EU levels.  

75 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain 

contaminants in foodstuffs (OJ L 364, 20.12.2006, p. 5). 

76 Chemical contaminants, especially plastic additives, may represent an ecotoxicological risk with effects 
on 
2017, 
organisms 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.096). 

(e.g.  Hermabessiere 

to  marine 

transfers 

and 

al. 

et 

77  Directive  (EU)  2019/883  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  April  2019  on  port 
reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships, amending Directive 2010/65/EU and repealing 
Directive 2000/59/EC. 

20 

 
                                                 
4.2.7.  Underwater noise 

EU-level  efforts  have  focused  on  identifying  the  spatial  distribution  and  sources  of 
underwater noise as  a first  step to  infer the potential  exposure of marine ecosystems  to 
this  pressure.  While  some  underwater  noise  maps  are  available,  status  assessments  are 
very  scarce78.  Research  activities  demonstrate  that  exposure  to  underwater  noise  can 
cause  several  types  of  adverse  effects  on  marine  animals,  ranging  from  changes  of 
behaviour to their death. 

Maritime traffic is considered the main source of continuous underwater noise. Shipping 
intensity is highest along main shipping corridors and near ports. The Mediterranean Sea 
has the largest area of very high traffic (27% of the sea area), followed by the Baltic Sea 
(19% of the sea area). Impulsive underwater noise, usually coming from activities such 
as  marine  research,  offshore  energy  platforms  or  construction  operations,  is  spatially 
restricted (likely occurs in 8% of the EU’s marine area) but is still likely present in large 
areas of the Baltic Sea, the Central Mediterranean and Levantine Sea, the North Sea, the 
Celtic  Seas,  the  Balearic  Sea  and  the  Adriatic  Sea.  Two  registers  of  impulsive  noise 
sources have been established for northern and southern EU countries respectively. Still, 
there are large gaps in monitoring and knowledge. 

Given that most human activities causing continuous and impulsive underwater noise are 
expected to increase in the future, it is probable that the pressure from underwater noise 
will  also  increase.  In  order  to  minimise  the  impact,  limiting  or  offsetting  underwater 
noise  emissions  should  be  considered  at  an  early  stage  when  planning  to  deploy  the 
relevant  technology  or  industrial  activity  (e.g.  shipping  corridors,  wind  farms).  The 
development of spatial and temporal calendars is recommended by some experts. 

Other  energy  forms,  such  as  light  or  heat,  should  also  be  considered.  Some  Member 
States have indeed addressed this in their strategies, but more work needs to be carried 
out for a more strategic approach to such pressures. 

5.  MAIN CHALLENGES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 

THE MSFD79 

5.1.  More coherent and ambitious determinations of ‘good environmental status’  

Good  environmental  status  represents  the  overall  goal  of  the  MSFD.  The  Directive 
requires Member States to define it at the level of the region or subregion, and the 2017 
Decision provides specifications for this per criterion. Only 8% of the first definitions of 
good  environmental  status  reported  by  Member  States  were  evaluated  as  adequate 
(SWD(2020)  61).  The  definitions  tend  to  be  qualitative  failing  to  set  clear  goals  and, 
thus, most lacked quantitative detail that would enable progress to be clearly measured. 
Overall, there was also a lack of coherence within the same marine region or subregion. 
The determinations of good environmental status have to be more measurable, regionally 
coherent and ambitious80.  

78 One example is HELCOM, 2019 (http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP167.pdf).  
79 As required by Article 20(3)(c) of the MSFD. 
80  In  line  with  this,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  urged  a  political  step-change  when  noting  the  lack  of 
ambition and consistency of the targets set by the Member States, which make it very difficult to know 

21 

 
                                                 
The revised Decision on good environmental status, if fully implemented, is a bold and 
important  step  to  determine  good  environmental  status  using  a  common  approach  (e.g. 
establishing  species  lists,  scales  of  assessment  and  threshold  values).  Some  Member 
States  have  demonstrated  increasing  efforts  and  a  higher  level  of  ambition.  Still,  the 
projects  funded  to  support MSFD implementation  and some discussions  at  the regional 
sea conventions show that, with very few exceptions, there is still not a shared regional 
understanding  of  what  constitutes  good  environmental  status81.  Although 
the 
Commission  has  not  yet  completed  its  formal  assessment  of  the  newly  reported 
information,  initial  analysis  indicates  there  is  still  considerable  variation  in  the 
determinations  of  good  environmental  status  reported  in  2018;  however,  some  regional 
sea  conventions  have  made  good  progress  in  defining  common  indicators  with  some 
regionally  agreed  threshold  values.  While  the  common  implementation  strategy  seeks 
consistency  in  the  Directive’s  implementation,  Member  States  have  the  flexibility  to 
define long-term objectives and short-term targets that are suitable for their context and 
region. The 2017 Decision requires Member States to define certain threshold values at 
Union level rather than through regional structures. Work on these had started during the 
first implementation cycle. But even here, attempts so far to define threshold values have 
demonstrated  that  there  is  an  ambiguity  in  the  concept:  whereas  good  environmental 
status has to be ambitious, as it should reflect a common definition of what we want to 
achieve for our seas, setting a deadline (2020 in the current Directive) prevents Member 
States from accepting an ambitious definition of good environmental status.  

5.2.  Ensuring the effectiveness of measures 

Member  States  made  significant  efforts  to  develop  their  first  MSFD  programmes  of 
measures by integrating different national, EU and international policies and covering the 
existing gaps with new cost-effective measures. They reported a total of 4653 measures. 
Overall,  79%  of  the  reported  measures  were  direct  technical  or  regulatory  measures 
(likely to have more immediate effects on pressures), while the rest were more indirect 
support  actions.  Nevertheless,  not  all  pressures  on  the  marine  environment  are  covered 
adequately through the measures adopted, as just 53% of the programmes assessed (per 
descriptor  and  per  Member  State)  seem  appropriate  to  tackle  the  existing  pressures 
(Table 12 and Fig. 8 in SWD(2020) 61).  

Member States also found it difficult to assess what the effect of the different measures 
they  have  put  in  place  will  be  on  the  marine  environment.  This  is  partly  because  it  is 
difficult to predict the timing and full practical implication of any one measure, let alone 
the cumulative benefits of a whole set of them. Nevertheless, when there is a clear cause 
and effect between pressures and measures, it is possible to identify specific effects of the 
relevant  EU  policies  (for  instance  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive,  the 
Habitats and Birds Directives, the Industrial Emissions Directive), which have also been 
cited as measures in the context of the MSFD. 

how much still needs to be done to meet the objective (CoR 112th plenary session of 3-4 June 2015, 
Opinion ‘Better protecting the marine environment’ adopted by unanimity). 

81 Considering the framework nature of the Directive and given that data to evaluate whether the 2020 good 
environmental status deadline is achieved will only be reported in the next update of the assessments 
(by  2024),  the  Commission  has  so  far  not  launched  any  infringement  cases  concerning  the 
achievement of the objective or the lack of cooperation to produce regional or subregional definitions 
of good environmental status. 

22 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
According to the ongoing reporting on the progress of implementation of MSFD-related 
measures so far submitted by 17 Member States82, 16% of the new measures have been 
completed,  while  56%  are  reported  to  be  on  track.  Delays  mainly  seem  to  be  due  to 
financing, technical or national administrative issues.  

Some open issues for the second cycle of implementation are: (i) to focus on providing 
adequate responses to the key pressures on each (sub)region that prevent Member States 
from reaching good environmental status, (ii) to agree on the level of detail/aggregation 
of the measures to be reported and to focus on their expected effects to reduce pressures 
and their impacts, (iii) to better evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the measures 
in  meeting  environmental  targets  and  good  environmental  status83,  notably  through 
integrated modelling or connection with monitoring programmes, and (iv) to improve the 
consistency  between  and  across  EU,  regional  and  national  measures,  when  possible 
working jointly across Member States to achieve more with less.  

Key pressures put forward by Member States in the common implementation strategy 
from a (sub)regional perspective:  

  Baltic Sea: eutrophication, sea-floor damage, incidental by-catch.  

  North  Sea:  litter,  fisheries  (including  sea-floor  damage),  eutrophication, 

cumulative impacts on highly mobile species. 

  Bay  of  Biscay  and  the  Iberian  Coast,  Macaronesia  and  Celtic  Seas:  litter, 

non-indigenous species, (locally) fisheries. 

  Mediterranean  Sea:  overfishing,  non-indigenous  species,  litter,  cumulative 

impacts on highly mobile species. 

  other locally  relevant  pressures, like  eutrophication in  the Adriatic Sea and 

impulsive noise in the Western Mediterranean. 

  Black Sea: contaminants, underwater noise, sea-floor damage, overfishing. 

  Climate change is of concern for all regions. 

5.2.1.  The relevance of spatial protection measures 

Of the roughly  4,700 measures reported by Member States under the MSFD,  246 were 
spatial  protection  measures.  These  have  doubled  the  space  designated  as  marine 
protected areas in Europe since 2012, reaching more than 10% coverage of its waters and 
fulfilling  global  commitments.  Despite  this,  these  measures  are  unevenly  distributed 
across  regions  and  across  depth  zones  (see  SWD(2020)  61).  The  MSFD  calls  for  a 
coherent  and  representative  network  of  protected  areas  to  halt  biodiversity  loss  and  to 

82 Reports under Article 18 of the MSFD are still  missing for Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, and 

Portugal (as of end October 2019). 

83 Some Members of the European Parliament regretted that there was not more control from the European 
Commission  on  how  the  monitoring  should  take  place  (Meeting  of  24  April  2017  of  the  European 
Parliament  Committee  on  the  Environment,  Public  Health  and  Food  Safety,  agenda  item  5).  Since 
2014, the recommendations have been followed up and further efforts have been made to strengthen 
regional cooperation. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
increase the resilience of the marine environment, particularly vis-à-vis climate change. 
Effective  marine  protected  areas  (i.e.  sites  effectively  protected  and  managed)  can 
actually  avoid  the  loss  and  degradation  of  species  and  habitats,  generate  a  spill-over 
effect  that  increases  the  biomass  of  commercially  exploited  species,  sequester  organic 
and  inorganic  carbon  contributing  to  climate  change  mitigation,  increase  coastal 
protection  as  an  important  adaptation  tool,  increase  ecosystem  resilience  in  the  face  of 
invasive  species  or  global  warming,  trap  or  dilute  pollutants  such  as  excess  nutrients, 
boost  sustainable  touristic  and  recreational  activities,  and  be  invaluable  refuges  for 
research and technical innovation. 

However,  many  of  the  European  marine  protected  areas  are  still  not  properly  managed 
and  cannot  be  assessed  in  terms  of  coherence  and  effectiveness  due  to  the  lack  of 
appropriate instruments and data flows. In the EU context84, the main challenges to turn 
networks  of  marine  protected  areas  into  effective  conservation  tools  are  mainly  to:  (i) 
establish  networks  of  protected  sites  that  are  ecologically  significant  at  (sub)regional 
scale, which in some regions involves enlarging the coverage and enlarging the minimum 
size of the protected sites; (ii) raise the proportion of strictly protected or no-take zones, 
and enhance enforcement and control activities to prevent the existence of ‘paper parks’; 
(iii)  implement  effective  management  plans  with  tailored  measures  and  adequate 
resources  in  each  protected  area.  The  new  biodiversity  strategy  to  203085,  with  its 
proposals  to  protect  and  restore  marine  ecosystems,  is  a  major  breakthrough  in  this 
direction.  

5.3. 

Streamlining implementation 

5.3.1.  Complexity 

The  broad  ambition  and  holistic  view  of  the  MSFD  obviously  mean  that  extensive 
knowledge,  assessment  and  reporting  are  needed,  and  both  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  services  are  committed  to  meet  these  needs.  The  first  cycle  of 
implementation  was  especially  demanding  for  all  the  actors  involved  in  the  common 
implementation strategy, since each stage was discussed, defined, reported and evaluated 
for the first time. Most common implementation strategy members indicate that the main 
challenges  are  proper  implementation  of  the  directive,  the  lack  of  resources  (mainly 
human  resources  and  time),  the  slow  recovery  of  marine  ecosystems  and  the  lack  of 
political will. The repeated delays in Member States' reporting and related infringement 
cases86 under the Directive demonstrate how difficult it has been for Member States to 
satisfy the requirements. Although this process is expected to improve in the next cycles, 
as reporting should be much lighter and clearer now, there are still some specific issues 
that could be tackled to streamline the implementation process.  

The first cycle has shown that the resources devoted to implementing the MSFD do not 
seem to match the needs to adequately implement the Directive, even if a large part of the 

84 Designation and management of marine protected areas in the EU are required by the Birds and Habitats 
Directives  and  the  MSFD,  and  are  supported  by  the  goals  of  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy.  Other 
policies,  such  as  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Directive  and  the  common  fisheries  policy  contribute  to 
their coherent management. 

85 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  -  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030  - 
Bringing nature back into our lives (COM/2020/380 final). 

86 Since 2012, a total of 52 pilots and infringements have been opened against Member States for delays in 

reporting.  

24 

 
                                                 
implementation is supported by other policies. Some ideas to increase those resources are 
to  involve  certain  sectors  of  industry  in  monitoring  their  impacts,  link  the  maritime 
spatial  planning  process  to  ensure  a  right  balance  between  the  blue  economy  and 
sustainability,  better  harness  the  observation  systems  coordinated  through  research 
programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020) and products developed at EU level (e.g. Copernicus), 
and urge Member States to fully exploit the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund87 to 
fund the development and implementation of national marine strategies.  

The MSFD is undeniably a complex framework that will soon be reviewed (starting this 
year)  in  a  legislative  evaluation.  The  first  implementation  cycle  required  all  actors 
involved  to  understand  the  links  between  the  different  elements  of  the  strategies.  This 
was  not  always  clear-cut.  For  example,  Member  States  often  failed  to  distinguish 
between targets and determinations of good environmental status. They did not link their 
targets  with  their  measures,  so  as  to  have  a  measurable  record  of  how  they  are 
progressing towards achieving good environmental status. Monitoring programmes were 
likewise  not  always  linked  to  the  targets,  and  because  they  were  set  up  before  the 
measures,  the  connection  between  the  two  was  also  suboptimal.  Progress  in  setting 
threshold  values  for  determining  good  environmental  status  has  so  far  been  slow,  and 
there  seems  to  be  a  reluctance  to  set  ambitious  levels,  as  that  would  prevent  Member 
States  from  reaching  good  environmental  status  within  the  deadline  established  in  the 
Directive. In SWD(2020) 62, the Commission looks at these cross-cutting issues. 

5.3.2.  Timelines 

The Directive provides uncertainty in the reporting deadlines, giving fixed deadlines for 
the  submission  of  the  different  parts  of  the  national  marine  strategies88  but  variable 
deadlines for consultation, publication or assessment of the progress in implementing89. 
This has been overcome by reaching an agreement with Member States in the common 
implementation  strategy  to  use  fixed  deadlines.  Also,  the  deadline  for  achieving  good 
environmental  status  by  2020  under  Article  1  is  not  specifically  aligned  with  the 
reporting  cycles,  as  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  this  goal,  based  on  monitoring 
data  up  to  and  from  2020,  will  only  be  reported  in  2024.  Similarly,  the  date  of 
publication  of  this  implementation  report  set  by  the  Directive  did  not  offer  realistic 
opportunities  to  fully  acknowledge  the  information  reported  in  2018  about  the 
assessment  of  the  marine  environment,  good  environmental  status  definitions  and 
environmental  targets,  or  about  the  progress  in  implementing  the  programmes  of 
measures.  There  is  also  a  need  to  take  into  account  potential  time  lags,  since 
implementation of specific measures cannot always immediately lead to recovery of the 
marine environment. 

Although  the  EU  has  already  synchronised  the  six-year  cycle  for  management  and 
reporting  in  water  and  marine  policy,  further  synchronisation  with  the  cycle  for  nature 
reporting – essentially a delay of 1 year – could benefit and make the assessments more 
efficient. 

87 The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund supports implementation of the common fisheries policy and 
the  integrated  maritime  policy,  including  its  environmental  pillar,  the  MSFD.  The  Fund  promotes 
sustainable  and  resource-efficient  fisheries  and  aquaculture  activities,  by  supporting,  among  other 
things,  better  integrated  conservation  measures,  better  control  and  enforcement,  improved  data 
collection, and enhanced marine knowledge. 
88 According to Articles 5(2) and 17(2) of the MSFD. 
89 Through the provisions of Articles 17(3), 18 and 19(3) of the MSFD. 

25 

 
                                                 
5.3.3.  Reporting 

Reporting  exercises  are  very  demanding,  due  to  the  broad  scope  of  the  Directive  and 
frequency  of  reporting  (three  main  reports  in  the  six-year  cycle).  The  competent 
authorities and the Commission are pressed with successive commitments to report and 
evaluate respectively, without sufficient time or resources to adequately reflect on each 
stage  and  on  strategic  discussions  before  having  to  start  the  next  stage.  A  significant 
number of Member States reporting late also slows down the process (see footnote 8 and 
SWD(2020)  60),  with  a  knock-on  effect  on  the  Commission’s  completion  of 
assessments. This means feedback to Member States is delayed, often arriving too late to 
be taken into account for the subsequent reports.  

Member  States  invest  heavily  in  text  reports  for  their  national  processes  and  public 
consultations.  However,  electronic  reporting  is  today  crucial  to  gather  comparable  and 
timely  information  across  the  EU.  The  framework  relies  on  reported  information  from 
national  assessments,  whereas  new  monitoring  technologies  may  allow  for  a  more 
accurate picture of the actual state of the seas and the progress towards achieving good 
environmental  status.  Moreover,  during  the  first  cycle  of  the  MSFD,  text-based  and 
electronic reports were not always equivalent. Some Member States are able to make use 
of  reports  by  the  regional  sea  conventions,  but  the  format  of  these  is  not  fully  aligned 
with e-reporting needs.   

The  Commission  and  the  European  Environment  Agency  are  working  to  improve  and 
digitalise  reporting  tools  so  that  there  is  a  smooth  passage  of  information  from  the 
regional sea conventions, other EU policies or previously reported information to MSFD 
reporting.  Inconsistencies  between  what  is  reported  electronically  and  static  text-based 
reports, which some Member States seem to have a preference for, should be eliminated 
as  they  hamper  the  overall  process.  The  MSFD  is  moving  towards  an  efficient  and 
transparent  publication  of  information  in  the  WISE  Marine  web  portal90,  with  the 
publication of centralised dashboards and nationally reported data.  

5.4.  Greater policy integration 

As already mentioned under the section on effectiveness, the MSFD integrates, but does 
not  regulate  specifically,  all  activities  that  affect  marine  ecosystems  (e.g.  fisheries, 
shipping,  offshore  oil  and  gas  extraction,  renewable  energies).  It  is  not  surprising  that 
about  75%  of  the  MSFD  measures  stem  from  other  legislative  frameworks.  Hence, 
streamlining and coordination with other sectoral policies is essential to attain the MSFD 
objectives, both at national and EU levels. The Blue Growth strategy91, although sharing 
the key principle of sustainability with the MSFD, can potentially, if not implemented in 
a  sustainable  way,  be  somewhat  in  contradiction  with  the  MSFD  measures  to  achieve 
good  environmental  status,  especially  in  view  of  the  potential  expansion  of  maritime 
activities  such  as  offshore  energy  and  aquaculture.  To  ensure  that  the  expansion  of 
traditional or the deployment of new economic activities do not pose additional pressures 
on  the  marine  environment,  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  need  to  build  more  solid 
bridges,  informed  by  science,  between  the  MSFD  and  policies  that  regulate  maritime 
activities such as the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive, the common fisheries policy, 

90 https://water.europa.eu/marine 
91 Communication from the Commission: Innovation in the  Blue Economy: realising the  potential of our 

seas and oceans for jobs and growth, COM(2014) 254/2. 

26 

 
                                                 
energy-related  initiatives92,  maritime  transport  policy  or  any  other  activities  (e.g. 
aquaculture,  desalination,  waste  management).  These  activities  have  important  roles  to 
play  in  transforming  our  society  and  economy  into  a  sustainable  system  and  a  carbon-
free continent that the European Green Deal sets as objective93. Offshore wind parks are 
needed  to  put  an  end  to  fossil  fuel  dependency.  Sustainable  aquaculture  ensures  food 
security and a sustainable diet while avoiding  more pressure from land use. The future 
offshore  wind  strategy  and  the  revised  Strategic  Guidelines  for  a  Sustainable  EU 
Aquaculture, which are both to be adopted in 2020, will contribute to that end and should 
include  all  relevant  environmental  considerations.  Such  expansions  cannot  come  at  the 
cost of eroding marine ecosystem resilience, which would have a knock-on effect on the 
overall planetary resilience to climate change impacts. 

Members  of  the  MSFD  common  implementation  strategy  identified  the  need  to  work 
more across groups and sectors on cross-cutting issues, such as activities-pressure-status 
relationships and climate change, to achieve good environmental status. 

The  2017  Decision  specifies  how  the  marine  assessments  should  be  linked  with  the 
standards  and  processes  under  other  EU  legislation.  All  Member  States  linked  most  of 
their  monitoring  programmes  and  programmes  of  measures  to  other  legislation,  mostly 
environmental  (namely  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  Habitats  Directive  and  Birds 
Directive).  However,  the  Commission  assessments  and  scientific  analyses  show  that 
policy  integration  is  not  yet  done  at  the  operational  level  (e.g.  integration  of  data, 
planning  of  monitoring,  determination  of  assessments),  and  more  efforts  are  needed  to 
exploit the synergies, align the processes and eventually save resources. Section 3 of this 
report  points  to  potential  topics  that  could  be  better  linked  or  coordinated  among  EU 
policies.  

A particularly important case is the link between MSFD and climate policy. The oceans 
are a major component of the climate system that store anthropogenic CO2 and a much 
greater quantity of heat than the atmosphere; acting as major carbon sinks and governing 
the movement of heat around the Earth. Therefore, the oceans can have dramatic effects 
on the global climate, and vice versa. According to the recently published report by the 
Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  (IPCC)  on  Ocean  and  Cryosphere  in  a 
Changing  Climate94:  (i)  since  1993,  the  rate  of  ocean  warming  has  more  than  doubled 
and already affects the entire water column; (ii) the ocean has taken up between 20-30% 
of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the 1980s causing further ocean acidification; 
(iii) the ocean is losing oxygen and oxygen-depleted zones have expanded, and (iv) since 
1982, marine heatwaves  have doubled in frequency, and have become longer and more 
intense.  These  oceanographic  changes  can  have  dramatic  consequences  on  marine 
biodiversity  and  ecosystem  resilience.  All  the  marine  ecosystems  assessed  in  the  IPCC 
report have an elevated risk of being affected by climate trends. 

Despite its relevance, the link between the MSFD and climate change, both at monitoring 
and  policy  development  levels,  is  not  obvious.  Member  States  have  highlighted  the 
impacts  caused  by  climate  change  and  ocean  acidification  as  important  transboundary 

92  Among  others,  Directive  2013/30/EU  on  the  safety  of  offshore  oil  and  gas  operations;  Directive 
2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources; Regulation (EU) 2015/757 
on the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport. 
93  For  example,  the  Commission  proposed  in  the  Green  Deal  Communication  to  extend  European 

emissions trading to the maritime sector. 
94 IPCC, 2019 (https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/) 

27 

 
                                                 
issues  that  are  directly  or  indirectly  addressed  through  MSFD  monitoring  programmes. 
Still, key topics such as the monitoring of ocean acidification in European seas and the 
impacts of marine heatwaves on marine biodiversity are not well established. 

5.5.  Boosting regional cooperation 

Regional  cooperation  has  improved  since  the  adoption  of  the  MSFD,  but  more 
cooperation  is  needed  to  attain  full  regional  coherence  of  the  marine  strategies  (see 
SWD(2020) 60). Regarding the three main stages in the Directive’s implementation: (a) 
the  Commission  recommended  that  Member  States  use  more  standards  stemming  from 
EU  legislation  or  common  regional  indicators  for  assessing  the  status  of  their  marine 
waters;  (b)  the  regional  coherence  of  the  EU  monitoring  programmes  was  considered 
moderate to high, with the exception of the Mediterranean Sea, where it was lower; and 
(c) the overall coherence of the programmes of measures was moderate in all regions and 
high  in  the  Black  Sea.  As  a  consequence,  the  efforts  to  reduce  the  main  pressures 
affecting each (sub)region should be better coordinated. 

A preliminary analysis of the information reported in 2018 shows that, still in the second 
cycle, there are large discrepancies between adjacent Member States in the elements used 
to  assess the status  of marine ecosystems.  Member States could  use the deliverables of 
regional  sea  conventions  more  extensively  when  they  are  compatible  with  MSFD 
requirements. Importantly, these conventions integrate the actions of neighbouring (non-
EU) countries and help build capacity. However, when regional sea conventions are not 
able to cover the needs of the MSFD, Member States should develop their own strategies 
for cross-border and regional coordination in accordance with the Directive. The ultimate 
goal  is  that  the  EU  progresses  towards  a  more  efficient,  harmonised  and  cost-effective 
protection of the marine environment. Regional threshold values should be determined in 
accordance with the 2017 Commission Decision.   

5.6.  Ensuring data availability and comparability 

In the MSFD initial assessment of 2012, the status of 80% of species and habitats as well 
as 40% of commercial fish stocks was categorised as 'unknown'95. The lack of data is in 
some  cases  due  to  a  genuine  knowledge  gap  (e.g.  only  one  Member  State  could  report 
data and define a baseline of underwater noise back in 2012), but in other cases it could 
be improved reusing existing information (e.g. to measure eutrophication, less than 40% 
of the Member States used the thresholds  of chlorophyll-a concentration defined in  the 
intercalibration exercise of the Water Framework Directive)96. In more recent years, the 
inputs from research projects to feed explicitly the MSFD and policy needs have been a 
major  support  (e.g.  INDICIT97  in  developing  common  databases  and  monitoring 
protocols for litter ingestion by turtles and MISTIC SEAS II98 in aligning the assessment 
of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia). Some experts99 call for the use of innovative and 

95 https://water.europa.eu/marine/topics/state-of-marine-ecosystem  
96 Palialexis et al., 2014 (https://doi.org/10.2788/64014).  
97 https://indicit-europa.eu/  
98 http://mistic-seas.madeira.gov.pt/en/content/mistic-seas-2  
99  For  example,  Borja  et  al.,  2016  (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00020),  Danovaro  et  al.,  2016 
2016 

Lynam 

al., 

or 

et 

(https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00213) 
(https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00182). 

28 

 
                                                 
cost-effective monitoring systems that would allow broad spatial and temporal coverage 
of the regional seas. 

this, 

A  second  challenge  is  to  get  information  that  is  comparable  across  Member  States.  To 
facilitate 
the  common 
the  expert  groups  and  networks  working  under 
implementation  strategy  are  trying  to  establish  robust  methodologies,  like  for  example 
unified  list  of  elements  (e.g.  contaminants,  nutrients,  species)  or  threshold  values  for 
determining and assessing good environmental status. These methodological aspects are 
crucial to ensure that the outcomes of assessments are comparable across Member States. 
The  development  of  electronic  reporting  tools  has  improved  comparability  across 
borders, but there is still room for improvement in their design and in the variability of 
the  information  reported  (e.g.  not  all  Member  States  interpret  one  individual  MSFD 
measure in the same way; the number of reported measures ranges between 17 in Latvia 
to  417  in  Spain).  To  date,  MSFD  information  at  EU  level  is  still  fragmentary,  to  the 
extent that the review of the status of the marine environment presented in SWD(2020) 
61  could  not  be  based  only  on  MSFD  reporting.  The  2017  Decision,  if  fully 
implemented,  should  address  this.  Its  implementation  in  the  context  of  the  common 
implementation strategy will therefore remain a primary goal for the Commission to have 
common and comparable data and approaches across Member States. 

6.  KEY CONCLUSIONS  

This  report  takes  stock  of  the  main  achievements  and  major  challenges  of  the  first 
implementation cycle of the MSFD. All the conclusions presented here will be subject to 
a wide consultation process as part of the forthcoming evaluation of the MSFD. 

With  the  MSFD,  the  EU  has  a  holistic  and  comprehensive  marine  policy  in  place  that 
puts into practice the ecosystem-based approach to manage human activities in Europe’s 
seas. Importantly, it also helps in delivering key international commitments. The MSFD 
provided  the  structure  for  setting  up  the  necessary  marine  strategies  to  pursue  good 
environmental  status  in  EU  marine  waters.  The  condition  of  different  ecosystem 
components and the presence (and, when feasible, the effects) of key pressures are being 
monitored, and pertinent measures are being put in place to attain the main objective and 
environmental  targets.  Inter-departmental  collaboration  and  cross-sectoral  data  sharing 
has started within Member States, and regional coordination has expanded in recent years 
with the support of regional sea conventions. 

Still, while the push the Directive has  provided should  not  be underestimated, Member 
States’ marine strategies need to be fine-tuned in relation to the outcomes of management 
actions to reap the best possible benefits, while acknowledging that, in certain instances, 
the legal timeframe available to reach good environmental status is not sufficient.  

It  is,  moreover,  doubtful  that  both  the measures  taken  and  the  knowledge  available  are 
sufficient.  It  is  also  true  that  the  MSFD  is  not  meant  to  regulate  specific  activities  and 
needs that in some cases have to be complemented by more specific legislation when the 
current national, regional or EU legal framework has gaps. Hence, progress in reaching 
good environmental status has not been fast enough to cover all MSFD descriptors in all 
EU waters by 2020. This can be linked to a range of factors, such as the complexity of 
analysing and managing the marine environment and reporting on it, the lack of political 
will to adequately fund and enforce the necessary measures, or the lack of involvement of 
other economic and private sectors (apart from environmental public authorities). On this 
basis, and without prejudging a possible review of the Directive in accordance with better 

29 

 
regulation  processes100  to  strengthen  the  implementation  and  results  of  the  MSFD,  the 
experience acquired so far in the common implementation strategy allowed a preliminary 
identification of critical areas for improvement where there is a need to:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Step  up  the  level  of  ambition  and  will.  Member  States  and  the  Commission 
should  do  all  that  is  necessary  to  boost  the  different  steps  of  the  MSFD 
implementation process  to reach good environmental status and sustainable uses 
of  their  seas.  Policy  coherence  should  also  be  ensured  at  EU  level,  for  instance 
when defining the operational objectives of key EU common policies (such as the 
and 
common 
reviewing/updating  some  key  EU  instruments.  The  slow  implementation  of  the 
2017  Decision,  moreover,  calls 
the 
determinations  for  good  environmental  status.  Additional  challenges  come  from 
prevailing  natural  conditions,  climate  change,  and  the  time  lag  between 
implementing certain measures and the recovery of the marine environment.   

the  consistency  of 

into  question 

agricultural 

common 

fisheries 

policy) 

policy 

and 

Ensure enough human and material resources to  protect the marine environment 
and  to  apply  the  holistic  ecosystem-based  approach  of  the  MSFD.    Putting  in 
place  effective  measures  that  target  at  least  the  most  important  pressures  per 
marine  (sub)region  in  a  coordinated  manner  could  be  the  most  beneficial  for 
improving  the  environmental  status.  It  does  not  imply  that  some  impacts  on 
marine ecosystems are disregarded, but should ensure that the measures in place 
are  effective  enough  to  prevent  the  major  causes  of  deterioration  and,  where 
practicable, to  restore  adversely affected marine  ecosystems.  Effective measures 
require  integration  with  sectors  such  as  fisheries,  energy,  transport,  agriculture 
and climate. Some lack of quantification of the reported measures and uncertainty 
on  how  far  they  will  go  towards  achieving  good  environmental  status  makes  it 
unclear whether the measures adopted under existing EU policies as a whole are 
sufficient  in  terms  of delivering the  required reductions in  marine pressures and 
impacts. 

Streamline and simplify implementation of the MSFD. Simplification of timelines 
and reporting processes can be pursued, but it requires more data availability and 
harmonisation. Streamlining would require more regional coordination, alignment 
of  concepts  and  approaches  (e.g.  facilitated  by  the  common  implementation 
strategy),  and  coordination  across  policies  at  national,  regional  and  EU  level. 
With the experience of the first implementation cycle, and within the parameters 
set  by  the  Directive,  reductions  in  reporting  efforts  could  free  up  resources  to 
allow  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to  focus  on  the  substance  of 
assessments and the implementation of measures. 

As the second cycle of MSFD implementation is now in full gear, the Commission will 
consider  these  conclusions  as  part  of  its  preparations,  in  line  with  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines,  for  reviewing 
the 
implementation  of  the  European  Green  Deal  and  more  specifically  to  its  2030 
biodiversity strategy and zero pollution ambition.  

the  Directive.  This  will  directly  contribute 

to 

100  The  principles  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality:  Strengthening  their  role  in  the  EU's  policymaking, 

COM(2018) 703 final. 

30