1. Methodology for the assessment of Member States’ reporting on Programme of Measures (Article 16)
MSCG
Sarine Barsoumian
7 April 2016
18/09/2018

2. Lessons learned and foreseen challenges
Recalling the lessons learned from Article 11 reporting:
Most MS have used reporting sheets which has helped with the comparative analysis
Had challenges with the modifications of GES and targets during Article 11 process, lack of clarity in the reporting (use of EIONET for updates)
Foreseen challenges:
Timing uncertainties: synergies with WFD reporting and potential delays in the MSFD reporting
Shorter timeline for assessment in comparison to WFD assessment timeline
Reported information is mostly of a qualitative nature
- Most MS have used reporting sheets which has helped with the comparative analysis
Had challenges with the modifications of GES and targets during Article 11 process, lack of clarity in the reporting (use of EIONET for updates) –
Timing uncertainties: synergies with WFD reporting means that there can be delays in the MSFD reporting if MS report late on WFD – we are approaching the WFD component in a modular manner, so that even if reported later than the MSFD PoMs, we will integrate that section into the national reports later in the process
Short timeline for assessment in comparison to WFD assessment timeline – our report structure and content is in line with the time and resources at hand.
Info mostly qualitative  unlike what is the case for the WFD thus we have adapted our methodology and report structure to accommodate this.
18/09/2018

3. Expected products From PoM reporting Synergies with WFD reporting:
Use 2016 WFD reporting for land-based measures relevant to MSFD but already being reported under WFD;
Use WFD approach to organise measures by Key Types of Measures (KTMs) categories;
Use WFD approach to report on new ‘MSFD measures’, by using an adapted WFD template for describing each measure.
18/09/2018

4. General overview of assessment-
Has the MS assessed to which extent the existing measures are sufficient to achieve GES and environmental targets (gap analysis)?
Looking at coverage:
Are all targets reported under Article 10 covered by existing measures?
Are pressures reported by Member States under Article 8 covered by existing measures?
If not, has the MS identified new measures to bridge gap ?
Looking at adequacy:
Are the KTMs of the PoMs (existing and new) sufficient to reach all targets reported under Article 10?
Are the KTMs of PoM (existing and new) sufficient to address the pressures reported under Article 8?
Have the new measures been assessed for technical feasibility and sustainability (CBA)?
Has the MS applied exceptions?
Use of reference list
18/09/2018

5. Assessment of PoMs Use of reference list
List of pressures as defined in Article 8 per MS – comparison of KTMs reported with defined pressures
List of priority areas at the regional level as defined in the context of the RSCs
Info of priority areas at the regional level will come from coordinated/strategic action plans of RSCs
18/09/2018

6. Assessment of PoMs - Completeness
Completeness check giving an overview of the MS POM, e.g. on types of measures most reported, geographical areas covered by the measures reported, KTMs most covered and not at all covered, etc.
Data to be extracted from reporting sheets
Information to be compiled in tabular format and in graphs providing a concise overview of the state-of-play at MS level
Information extracted will then be consolidated to present PoM overviews in the Regional and European reports.
To recall the synergies with the WFD: Text from PoM recommendations
18/09/2018

7. Assessment of PoMs - Adequacy
Assessment of adequacy of existing measures
Assessment of adequacy of new measures
For each one:
Extent of coverage of targets relevant for Descriptor X
Extent of coverage of KTMs/pressures relevant for Descriptor X (use of reference list)
Assessment of MS gap analysis
Assessment of use of exceptions
Assessment of justification for use of exceptions (consistency of justifications provided in respect to the pressure that the MS is not covering)
Assessment of ad hoc measures put in place
Assessment of MS gap analysis (i.e. comparison of MS own gap analysis with expert assessment of MS reporting)
Criteria for the assessment:
Clear: Do the analyses/justifications are reported by the MS provide a link between the existing measures and the KTMs (and pressures)
Appropriate: Is the information provided understandable and logically in line with MSFD descriptor specific priorities (i.e. target definitions)?
Assessment of justification for use of exceptions and ad hoc measures put in place (consistency of justifications provided in respect to the pressure that the MS is not covering)
18/09/2018

8. Assessment of PoMs - Adequacy
Together, an overall conclusion of adequacy per descriptor:
Do new and existing measures (i.e. PoM as a whole) as reported by the Member State address target definitions and relevant KTMS? Are they adequate to allow progress towards GES (as defined by the Member State)?
Do they go beyond the targets?
If there are gaps in the coverage of targets and pressures, what are they? How are they justified?
To recall the synergies with the WFD: Text from PoM recommendations
18/09/2018

9. Art.16 reporting and data products-
Reports
Country reports
Regional reports
By marine region
By marine sub region
At EU level
Design
Graphs and visualizations
Textual assessment remains an important component - but will keep it less descriptive and more concise
18/09/2018

10. Draft Outline of National Reports
1. Introduction and cross-cutting issues
2. Overview of the member state’s programme of measures
3. Overall assessment of adequacy of the programme of measures
Annex 1. Descriptor-specific assessment of adequacy (per Descriptor)
Annex 2. Completeness check table
18/09/2018

11. MSFD Scoreboard Last updated 5 April 2016 Art. 8/ 9/10 Art 11 Art 13
Last updated 5 April 2016
Art. 8/ 9/10
Art 11
Art 13
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Art. 8/ 9/10
Art 11
Art 13
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden UK
Based on fish scoreboard available on website
Received
Part received
Not received

12. Contact
18/09/2018