1. 1 MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (MSFD) COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY MSFD regional data work flow: schema and examples Document: DIKE TSG1 WP4 MSFD data workflow WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 Neil Holdsworth, ICES

2. 2 MSFD DATA FLOWS: SUMMARY WHAT: An approach to an agreed workflow between EU, MS, RSC, EMODnet, etc. HOW: Mapping out the necessary components, actors and agreements needed to provide the workflow (collection to assessment) WHY: To achieve greater regional coherence AND ensure efficient use of resources WHO: MS through TSG- and WG- DIKE WHEN: 2013 i.e. now! WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 Neil Holdsworth, ICES

3. 3 MSFD DATA FLOWS: COHERENCY MS to achieve coherence and consistency within and between MSFD regions/sub-regions -Regional coordination not so evident from 2012 reporting -Need for support from Regional Sea Conventions -Streamline data/information management WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 Neil Holdsworth, ICES

4. 4 MSFD DATA FLOWS: SCHEMAS Mapping out components -DIKE has the remit to tackle parts of the MSFD puzzle -DIKE needs to know how all the pieces fit though WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 Neil Holdsworth, ICES

5. 5 MSFD DATA FLOWS: SCHEMAS Mapping out components -Split out the processes and components -Provide the linkages -Allow for regional/descriptor variation WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 Neil Holdsworth, ICES

6. 6 Operators MSFD DATA FLOWS: SCHEMAS Structural and Process Elements WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 Neil Holdsworth, ICES EU Process governance EU Process governance Methodology Operational basis Operational basis Data Collection Data Assembly Indicator provision Assessment

7. 7 MSFD DATA FLOWS: SCHEMAS Structural and Process Elements WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 Neil Holdsworth, ICES EU Process governance EU Process governance Operators Methodology Operational basis Operational basis Data Collection Data Assembly Indicator provision Assessment 20142015 2016

8. 8 WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 Neil Holdsworth, ICES STRUCTURAL PROCESS COMPONENT Data CollectionData Assembly Indicator (in reference to COM decision and on-going RSC indicator activities) Assessment EU process Governance MSFD CIS/WG-DIKE (ultimately MS Marine Directors) Data from Member state monitoring programme(s) (art 19.3 and art 11)that provide linkage and reference to MSFD monitoring provision MSFD CIS/WG-GES (ultimately MS Marine Directors) Common understanding approach MSFD indicators derived or adapted from Regional sea and Member state indicators that provide basis for common implementation MS art 8 assessments, Regional assessments, EEA MSFD baseline assessment Methodology Regional sea and member state monitoring guidelines manuals related to specific parameter(s) Specific guidelines/Manuals on indicator production methodology, including reference to MSFD marine unit and assembly method of data Assessment methodology as agreed in MSFD or regional context Operational basis Linked to monitoring guidelines and indicator methodology Member State data provision mechanism(s)  Availability  Access rights  Temporal coverage  Observation frequency  Usage rights  Update frequency  Format/Outputs  Metadata  Spatial unit(s) Specifications for assembled data (input and output)  Location/Availability  Operational portal/web service  Usage rights  Update frequency  Format/Outputs  Metadata  MSFD Spatial unit: INSPIRE area mapping  QC applied Mechanisms to publish indicators:  Location/Availability  New/Existing provision  Supporting metadata  Frequency of provision  Spatial unit (related to MSFD units)  Context of use (consistency with MSFD scope) Definition of assessment product :  Appropriateness for MSFD output  Adaptations needed  Assessment scale  Temporal scale Potential Operators MSMS, RSC, ICES, Emodnet, Copernicus, EEA, others MS, RSC, EEA, others

9. 9 1.Do you agree to the model proposed where indicators are a central component? 2.Does it correctly reflect the roles and existing working arrangements among MS and RSC? If not, how should it be changed, or do we need to make it more regionally specific? 3.Does the model presented represent the desired continued working arrangements for fulfilling the MSFD obligations under article 19.3? If not, how should it be changed? WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 Neil Holdsworth, ICES MSFD DATA FLOWS: QUESTIONS

10. 10 4.How can this be made operational per descriptor and region? 5.Another central component of the model is sharing of observations. If other operators than the MS are to support the work under art 19.3, then relevant observations need to be made available by MS. What are barriers to sharing data? WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 Neil Holdsworth, ICES MSFD DATA FLOWS: QUESTIONS