The Marine Strategy Framework Directive Reporting on article 8, 9 and 10 Early findings

Art 12 Assessment Orientation debate Art 12 assessment Dec 2011 Concept paper Art 12 assessment June 2012 October 15 2012: deadline MS reports Completeness check finalized: March 2013 Conformation letters send to MS with deadline 30th April

General remarks By 30th April, 19 MS have reported on art 8, 9 and 10 17 MS reported both paper report and reporting sheets All MS reported on regional cooperation from which 11 have given a comprehensive description of efforts

GES determination (art 9) There are significant differences in defining GES: 13 MS have defined GES for all 11 descriptors 6 MS have defined GES at criteria or indicator level GES often described qualitative or GES related to other legislation

* 100% = 15 Member States

Percentage of MS which have set F and SSB at MSY levels

GES: interim conclusions Not all MS have “determined” GES in accordance with the Directive Limited coherence within marine regions and no coherence across EU Significant differences between GES definitions in terms of level of detail, reference to appropriate legislation or standards and use of criteria and indicators Confusion between Art. 9 (GES) and Art. 10 (targets), limited link to Art. 8 (assessment) GES often not “measurable” – therefore, current GES levels in the marine waters not known while monitoring and measures depend on clear and measurable GES

Targets (art. 10) Most targets set at national level, not per (sub-)region Not always clear distinction between art 9 and 10

Initial Assessment (art 8) Mostly a compilation of existing data without reporting on all pressures and impacts Some MS have defined assessment areas Accumulation of pressures/impacts is a common gap in knowledge

Initial Assessment

Initial Assessment: interim conclusions Only a small proportion of MS have used their GES determination to make a judgment on the level of impact of the relevant pressures in their initial assessment. For D8 and D10, a larger group of MS has used other standards to make this judgement (e.g. RSC standards) For D7, the relatively broad definition of GES can explain why GES determination is more frequently used in the Initial Assessment.

Early indications of assessing the MS reports Almost all MS reported through reporting sheets and text Often an extensive amount of qualitative information Limited precise/quantifiable determination of GES and targets which will make enforceability difficult Majority refer to existing policies and standards (if applicable) and does not introduce additional ambition level No or limited coherence between MSs and between marine regions Variety of assessment scales (spatial, temporal) and aggregation limiting comparability and coherence of assessments Gaps in information and knowledge identified, but often without a clear plan to address them Limited analysis of pressures and impacts (e.g. accumulation of pressures) and limited links between Article 8 and Articles 9/10

Planning 30th April 2013 deadline updated MS information Ongoing assessment of adequacy, consistency and coherence based on Reporting Sheets and text reports July: first internal results from consultant analysis Summer: drafting the art 12 assessment report and country annexes Autumn: Interservice consultation, translation, publication

The way forward Draft national assessment reports will be shared with the MS concerned for a factual confirmation of findings after July 2013 The article 12 assessment will contain recommendations at all levels: national, regional, EU The results of the assessment will feed in the CIS work programme beyond 2013, especially in view of the next cycle EU Marine Environment Conference February 2014