MSCG 11/2013/16

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

Common Implementation Strategy

11th meeting of theMarine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG)

Room 2D, Conference Centre Albert Borschette, Rue Froissart 36, 1040 Brussels

12 November 2013 14:00 – 18:00

13 November 2013 09:00 – 17:00Agenda item: 8

Document: MSCG 11/2013/16

Title: Integrated environmental policy for the marine environment

Prepared by: DG Environment

Date prepared: 05/11/2013

Background In June 2012 Nature, Marine and Water Directors gave direction to future joint work, including on the following topics:

cooperation on an integrated approach in the implementation of the EU legislation on nature and water, including coherent interpretation of definitions,

streamlining and harmonisation of reporting and monitoring under the directives in order to avoid duplication.

This is a background document in support of discussions on these issues at the forthcoming joint meeting of Nature, Marine and Water Directors in December 2013 (Lithuanian Presidency). It provides an overview on progress on activities for policy integration, with a particular focus on the marine environment. For two key areas (policy objectives and information systems) the future direction of work needed has been further elaborated.

MSCG is invited to:

Note the attached document and comment on its overall scope and direction, especially in regard to future activities under WG GES (consistency of objectives) and WG DIKE (information systems).

1

MSCG 11/2013/16

Integrated environmental policy for the marine environment

1 EU Marine, Water and Nature Director’s mandate

The following extracts from the final syntheses of the EU Marine, Water and Nature Directors’ meetings provide their guidance on issues related to policy integration and streamlining:

Copenhagen, June 2012: The Water and Marine Directors confirmed that the areas agreed by the Nature Directors (Copenhagen, May 2012) should be the initial focus of further work, namely:

the establishment and management of marine protected areas, cooperation on an integrated approach in the implementation of the EU legislation on

nature and water, including coherent interpretation of definitions, joint efforts on EU fisheries issues, including the elaboration of common methodologies on

e.g. assessing the impact of fisheries, involving relevant experts and national bodies responsible for fisheries,

streamlining and harmonisation of reporting and monitoring under the directives in order to avoid duplication.

In addition, the Water and Marine Directors acknowledged that closer cooperation on activities related to ecosystem services and ecosystem-based approach would be useful.

Dublin, May 2013: Water and Marine Directors asked the Commission to report back on the progress at the next meeting and supported the idea of future Lithuanian Presidency to consider organising a joint session between the Nature, Water and Marine Directors in December 2013 which would allow discussing these issues on the basis of the outcome of a joint workshop.

This paper aims at furthering the discussion on policy integration and streamlining with a focus on 2nd and 4th bullet points above.

2 The need for integration

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC) is a framework directive which addresses the entire EU marine environment1, representing an area about 150% of the extent of EU Member States’ terrestrial territory. The Directive places a range of requirements on Member States, through the preparation of marine strategies, to assess the state of the marine environment, its pressures, environmental impacts and uses, and to establish monitoring programmes, environmental targets and measures in order to achieve good environmental status (GES).

In view of this broad scope, MSFD Article 1(4) states “This Directive shall contribute to coherence between, and aim to ensure the integration of environmental concerns into, the different policies,

1 The directive applies to Territorial Waters and the EEZs of Member States, out to 200nm, and in some cases beyond to the seabed and subsoil of the Continental Shelf area (potentially out to 350nm), if a Member State has and/or exercises jurisdictional rights in such areas. Transitional Waters of the Water Framework Directive are excluded from the geographic scope of MSFD.

2

MSCG 11/2013/16

agreements and legislative measures which have an impact on the marine environment.” The directive explicitly mentions the following Community legislation:

a. Water Framework Directive 2000/60/ECb. Habitats Directive 92/43/EECc. Birds Directive 2009/147/ECd. Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EECe. Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/ECf. Environmental Information Directive 2003/4/ECg. INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC

It refers also to the need to encompass International and regional agreements (e.g. regarding protected species and habitats, and marine protected areas) and, due to the topics addressed by the Directive, needs to engage in further policies, such as the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Agriculture Policy and the EU Biodiversity Strategy, in order to achieve its goals effectively.

And lastly, the directive requires Member States to cooperate within and across Europe’s regional seas, including via the Regional Sea Conventions2 (RSC), in order to achieve the objectives of the directive in a consistent and coordinated manner.

Figure 1: Illustration of the WFD and MSFD’s framework nature through association with various other policies and international conventions (selected policies only shown: UWWTD-Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; BWD-Bathing Water Directive; Habitats-Habitats Directive; Birds-Birds Directive; CFP-Common Fisheries Policy; EQSD-Environmental Quality Standards Directive 2008/105/EC; Nitrates- Nitrates Directive).

2 Baltic Sea – Helsinki Convention; North-east Atlantic Ocean – OSPAR Convention; Mediterranean Sea – Barcelona Convention; Black Sea – Bucharest Convention

3

MSCG 11/2013/16

3 Benefits of integration

Besides the requirements for integration and cooperation as stated in the MSFD, it is helpful to highlight the range of benefits which can arise from such activities:

a. Ensure the policies complement each other, delivering enhanced outcomes and avoiding conflict and duplication;

b. Lead to more effective protection of the marine environment and achievement each policy’s goals;

c. Lead to more efficient implementation processes within Member States, e.g. where monitoring and assessments can serve multiple purposes through the ‘do once, use many times’ principle;

d. Reduce burden on implementation through more effective and streamlined information management and reporting.

4 Progress on integration issues

This section outlines the main areas of progress and ongoing activities concerning policy integration, according to the main steps in MSFD implementation, together with cross-cutting topics of governance and information systems.

4.1 Objective setting and assessment methodsEmerging outcomes of the Commission’s MSFD Article 12 assessment of Member State’s reports on Article 9 (determination of GES) indicate a wide divergence of approaches and levels of detail across the Member States, such that there is, overall, limited coherence within and across regions for most Descriptors.

As a consequence, the MSFD CIS work plan has outlined appropriate steps to develop improved coherence in the definition of GES for each Descriptor, including through a possible review of the GES Decision (subject to approval by the MSFD Committee): this could:

a. further align MSFD GES with appropriate quality standards in other Directives, e.g. WFD, EQSD, Habitats Directive;

b. incorporate, where appropriate, ongoing work in the Regional Sea Conventions on the development of common indicators, thus ensuring alignment of approaches.

Further consideration of integration of policy objectives is given in Annex 1.

Impacts of fisheries: ICES are undertaking a review, on behalf of DG Environment, of ecosystem indicators which are based on the CFP Data Collection Framework (DCF), with a view to advising on appropriate modifications to indicators and data collection needs which would better assess the impacts of fisheries on the ecosystem and hence act as a contribution to assessments of biodiversity, food webs and seafloor integrity for the MSFD. DG Environment is working closely with DG MARE on these issues as part of the DCF revision process (to be called the Data Collection Multi-Annual Programme – DC-MAP).

4

MSCG 11/2013/16

4.2 Monitoring programmesGuidance on monitoring methods and approaches have been drawn together from existing EU and Regional Sea Convention practices to support implementation of the MSFD monitoring programmes from 2014 onwards (JRC guidance, 2013 in prep.). There will be a need to incorporate further methods and guidance as these become available in order to fully cover the range of MSFD monitoring requirements.

In October 2013 three pilot projects on monitoring started, addressing each of the four marine regions, with a total EU grant of €2 million. The projects are aimed at fostering enhanced cooperation between Member State organisations responsible for MSFD monitoring; this includes across disciplines (e.g. hazardous substances, eutrophication and biodiversity) and between countries in the region. The projects ultimately aim to ensure current resources for monitoring are used as effectively and efficiently as possible. This could be achieved for example harmonising monitoring stations (multiple disciplines), sharing of monitoring platforms (survey vessels) and enhanced cooperation between countries.

The OSPAR and Helsinki Commissions, together with ICES, have approached DG MARE with a proposal to seek cooperation between environmental monitoring and fisheries monitoring.

4.3 AssessmentsTo avoid double reporting, assessments of Habitats and Birds Directive species and habitats, due in 2012 under MSFD, were deferred to follow the 2013 reporting deadlines and assessment methodologies already in place for these two Directives.

Developments are underway, particularly in HELCOM, to prepare joint regional assessments which can be directly used by Member States to meet their 2018 MSFD reporting obligations. This will potentially save resources in the preparation of the assessments and ensure coherence in the assessment results across the region.

The ongoing work undertaken under the Mapping and Assessment of the state of Ecosystems and of their Services (MAES)3 is addressing the issue of how the data available at EU level on species and habitats (e.g. species and habitats covered under nature directives, red lists, common species) as well as biophysical indicators (e.g. water content, organic matter) can be used to support the mapping and assessment of the condition of the whole ecosystem and of their services.

Further efforts to streamline both timing and assessment methods are needed. See Annex 1.

4.4 Targets and measures to reduce pressures and impactsFollowing the recommendation of the joint MSFD/WFD workshop in Paris, June 2012, synergies in the development of Programmes of Measures are being actively encouraged through relevant CIS working groups for each Directive. The initial focus has been to distinguish the measures which will contribute to both directives from those which are primarily aimed at one directive only (Figure 2). Synergies in reporting of these common measures will be sought.

3 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper2013.pdf

5

MSCG 11/2013/16

Figure 2: Proposed integration of 2015 Programmes of Measures under WFD and MSFD (from DIKE 7/2013/15).

In 2013, Member States need to make public their information on marine protected areas for MSFD Art. 13(6). Member States were encouraged to use existing reporting streams to the EEA (e.g. N2000 database, Common database on Designated Areas - CDDA4 which is the European component of the World Database on Protected Areas5) and to the Regional Sea Conventions, as well as the Natura designations process, as this would ensure the information was captured in existing data flows.

4.5 Governance systemsThe development of an MSFD CIS work plan for the period 2013 to 2020 has provided an opportunity to make arrangements with a variety of other players and processes which will further develop synergies and integration of approaches across policies. This includes enhanced cooperation with other relevant EU working groups and further strengthening the input of the Regional Sea Conventions and ICES into the MSFD CIS process. This work planning will help reduce duplication of effort and improve coordination of work programmes between regional and EU levels.

4.6 Information systemsA project to develop a joint EU-RSC information sharing system has been developed and is planned to start in early 2014 (subject to completion of contracting processes). The project will aim to streamline data and information reporting flows from the Member States to the RSCs and to the EU, thereby ensuring streamlining of reporting where possible and avoiding duplication of effort. The project will aim to improve the reporting processes, the data management systems and give improved access to the data and information for stakeholders and the public through a common information framework.

Further details are provided in Annex 2.

5 Summary and way forward

A wide range of activities are underway which support a process of policy integration, much of which is encapsulated in the MSFD CIS work plan 2013-2020.

To gain maximum benefit from any integration there needs to be:

4 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/external/common-database-on-designated-areas-cdda-international5 http://www.wdpa.org/ hosted by from UNEP-WCMC

6

MSCG 11/2013/16

a. Further efforts to establish coherent and consistent approaches between relevant policies (on the topics outlined in section 4: objectives, monitoring, information systems, etc);

b. Willingness at national, regional and EU levels to work towards such integration;c. Further analysis of where integration is useful and feasible, outlining practical steps needed.

7

MSCG 11/2013/16

Annex 1: Towards integration of environmental policy objectives and related quality standards

In the process of determining Good Environmental Status for the MSFD Article 9 reports in 2012, in the subsequent review of this for the Commission’s Article 12 assessment, and in ongoing work within the Regional Sea Conventions, the issue of compatibility of overall policy objectives and environmental quality standards has been frequently raised. Given that there are a range of policies (both at EU and Regional Sea Convention levels) that address the same topics (whether it be ecosystem/biodiversity state or pressures on the ecosystem), it would seem logical that they in principle aim for the same goals – it is one ecosystem and one set of problems (pressures) affecting its state – what differs is the policies which are in place to improve environmental quality.

For example, the eutrophication status of marine waters needs to be assessed under MSFD, WFD, UWWTD, Nitrates Directive and by the Regional Sea Conventions. It is common sense that all these policies reach the same conclusion as to whether an area is eutrophicated or not, according to equivalent standards. Such compatibility not only makes sense when engaging industry and the public who can be confused by multiple standards for the same issue, but can also save on public resources if the necessary monitoring and assessments are done once for several policies.

Compatibility of assessments should also be sought for biodiversity issues. For example, seabed habitats assessed inside the 1nm zone (WFD coastal waters) should be assessed to the same quality standard as seabed habitats outside the 1nm zone (MSFD marine waters) and in a Habitats Directive habitat. Similarly, there should be compatibility for assessments of species (mammals, fish, etc.) – the policy goals are to achieve a good status for such species, but it makes little sense to arrive at different conclusions on the status of a harbour porpoise or a seal because the assessments under Habitats Directive, MSFD, RSC mechanism and Red List processes use different criteria, threshold values and assessment scales.

Table 1 outlines the main topics where several policies address the same aspect of quality.

Table 1: Main MSFD topics where several policies address the same aspect of environmental quality.

Descriptor Topic Relevant policies1, 4, 6 Species status

Habitat statusEcosystem health

MSFD (GEnS), WFD (GEcS), Habitats and Birds Directives (FCS), RSCs, other international conventions, IUCN and others (Red Listing of species and habitats)

2 Non-indigenous species MSFD, [WFD], RSCs3 Commercial fish and shellfish stocks MSFD, CFP, EU-BS (target 4)5 Eutrophication MSFD, WFD, UWWTD, NiD, (NECD), RSCs7 Hydrological changes MSFD, WFD, [EIA]8 Hazardous substances (in environment) MSFD, WFD, EQSD, RSCs9 Hazardous substances (in seafood) MSFD, EU seafood legislation

[8,9] Microbial pathogens MSFD, BWD, Shellfish Directive (soon under WFD)

10 Litter MSFD, RSCs11 Energy, including underwater noise MSFD, RSCs

8

MSCG 11/2013/16

The most prominent issue regarding overall environmental quality standards is the relationship between Good Environmental Status (GEnS, MSFD), Good Ecological Status (GEcS, WFD) and Favourable Conservation Status (FCS, Habitats and Birds Directives). The possible relationship between these was first expressed by the ICES/JRC Task Group on Biodiversity (Figure 3), noting that there is no formal equivalence between the status classes (i.e. that a specific species or habitat assessed under each policy would have the same status classification).

Figure 3: Status classifications in the MSFD, WFD and Habitats Directive and their possible relationship. There is currently no formal equivalence between the classes or their boundaries (i.e. GEnS, GEcS and FCS for the same quality element, such as benthic invertebrate communities, do not necessarily equate to the same quality) (from Cochrane et al. 20106).

However, in seeking to establish comparability between the objectives/standards of these and other policies, there are a number of key issues to consider and further develop:

a. Equivalence of quality elements . GEcS under WFD uses a number of quality elements (phytoplankton, fish, macrophytes, macrobenthos, chemistry), each of which must reach good status and for each a composite assessment of the quality element within each water body is required (i.e. all macrobenthic communities across the water body). Similarly GEnS under MSFD comprises at least 11 quality elements (descriptors); Descriptor 1 (biodiversity) addresses birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, water column habitats and seabed habitats, each of which can be considered broadly equivalent to the WFD quality elements. However, for FCS in the Habitats Directive, assessments are undertaken at individual species and habitat level, for example, for individual species of cetacean and seal within the broad MSFD category of

6 Cochrane, S.K.J., Connor, D.W., Nilsson, P., Mitchell, I., Reker, J., Franco, J., Valavanis, V., Moncheva, S., Ekebom, J., Nygaard, K., Serrão Santos, R., Naberhaus, I., Packeiser, T., van de Bund, W. & Cardoso, A.C. 2010. Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Task Group 1 report Biological diversity. ICES, Copenhagen & JRC, Ispra.

9

MSCG 11/2013/16

‘marine mammals’. There is a need to establish equivalence and relationships between the quality elements under the different policies.

b. Geographic scale of assessment . Assessments under WFD are undertaken at the scale of water bodies (e.g. an estuary, a bay) whilst for HD assessments are undertaken at national scale within a bioregion and then scaled up to bioregion. For MSFD there is currently a variety of approaches, but typically the areas used for 2012 assessments were at least an order of magnitude larger than WFD water bodies and sometimes at the national waters scale within each region (i.e. similar scales to HD). Scale makes a significant difference to the outcomes of an assessment – a WFD water body could fail to achieve GEcS due to a significant problem within the water body, whilst under MSFD if the rest of the marine waters had little degradation it could be classed as in GEnS. In this scenario the WFD water body represents a more localised problem when considered at the MSFD scale. There is a need to both harmonise scales for assessment (e.g. between MSFD and HD) and to develop up-scaling rules to scale up from small to larger areas (e.g. from WFD water body and HBD protected area scales up to those used for MSFD). A nested system of assessment scales should be developed (such as used by HELCOM in the Baltic) which allows scaling up from sub-national to national to (sub)regional to European scales (and eventually to global levels). Ongoing work within WG GES and a support contract will contribute to this.

c. Quality thresholds . In order to achieve full harmonisation of environmental quality objects, an equivalence should be sought, where possible, for the same quality elements. This needs to take account of aggregation rules (e.g. between assessment criteria or indicators for the element). In some cases this will depend upon the particular criteria and assessment methods used in the different policies. Even within a single policy it has proved challenging to achieve a common quality level (e.g. experiences of intercalibration under WFD). However, under MSFD there is a possibility to seek greater coherence between policies through a proposed revision of the 2010 GES Decision. This could be achieved, for example, by adopting existing standards in other policies (e.g. from EQSD, WFD) or adapting them to suite marine conditions where needed.

d. Baselines . Coupled closely with the issue of setting quality thresholds is the use of an appropriate baseline, which can differ markedly both conceptually and in practice. The use of reference conditions (often termed 'background concentrations' in the context of pollutants) forms the basis for setting thresholds for WFD and Habitats Directive, where the concept of 'reference condition plus acceptable deviation' is used to define a suitable quality threshold). This is essentially how several RSCs also set their objectives for eutrophication and hazardous substances. Whilst conceptually the approach is clear, there are challenging practical issues to implement the approach, particularly regarding state-based (biodiversity) elements. This is largely due to the notion that establishing reference conditions needs to be based on historical values (i.e. conditions before being subject to (significant) human pressures) for which there are rarely adequate data or hind-cast modelling. MSFD guidance7 attempts to overcome some of these difficulties. An alternative use of baselines is possible for certain pressures (e.g. litter and non-indigenous species) where values can be set as the current situation and targets set to improve from such a baseline. There is a need for

7 European Commission. 2012. Guidance for 2012 reporting under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, using the MSFD database tool. Version 1.0. DG Environment, Brussels. pp164.

10

MSCG 11/2013/16

consistency in approach on the setting of baselines, with a 'reference condition plus acceptable deviation' approach applicable to most situations.

e. Timing of assessments and other reporting. Most EU Directives lay down specified dates for reporting. However to support integration of policies, it can be helpful to bring assessments and other reporting together in a more coherent and mutually beneficial manner. For instance, reporting under the Birds Directive has been synchronised with that under the Habitats Directive to a 6-year cycle (instead of 3-yearly as required by the Directive), and for 2012 reporting under MSFD, reporting of Birds and Habitats Directive features was deferred to the 2013 timelines of the latter directives. Despite the 'fixed' timelines in Directives (and Conventions) it is possible to develop mechanisms (such as dynamic reporting) or agreements with Member States (such as occurred for the Birds Directive) to adjust timing to better suit an integrated approach. Such adjustments could, for example, be to synchronise reporting (e.g. for Programmes of Measures under WFD and MSFD in 2015) or to move assessments so that they better feed into each other: assessing from small areas (e.g. WFD water bodies, MPAs) to larger areas (national areas for HBD, subregions for MSFD); assessing fine-scale features (individual species and habitats (HBD, RSCs) before broader features (MSFD predominant habitats and species/functional groups) so that the former feeds into the latter. There is consequently a need to review timings to develop a mutually beneficial approach across policies.

Conclusion

Coherence in policy objectives (environmental quality standards) makes a lot of sense, as ultimately the policies are working towards improving the quality of one overall ecosystem (marine) and having differing standards across policies and between regions provides both uncertainty and ambiguity in policy delivery (no level playing field). However achieving such coherence in practice (even on paper!) remains a significant challenge, due both to the issues outlined above and to the processes that would be needed to move towards greater coherence (e.g. negotiations with Member States). A review of the GES Decision on criteria and methodological standards for MSFD (with a view to its revision by 2015/2016) offers an opportunity to address at least some of these policy coherence issues. High-level support at EU, RSC and MS levels to move towards greater coherence is essential to ensure constructive progress can be made within a reasonable timeframe (say by 2015).

11

MSCG 11/2013/16

Annex 2: Towards an integrated information system for the marine environment (WISE-Marine)

1 IntroductionThe Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC) places a range of requirements on Member States to report to the European Commission, including on the state of the marine environment and associated pressures and impacts, activities and uses of the marine environment, monitoring programmes and targets and measures to achieve good environmental status. The directive also requires Member States to cooperate within and across Europe’s regional seas, including via the Regional Sea Conventions8 (RSC), in order to achieve the objectives of the directive in a consistent and coordinated manner.

As a framework directive, the MSFD addresses the entire EU marine environment9 and encompasses a wide range of topics which have relevance to existing reporting obligations in other EU policies (e.g. Water Framework, Habitats, Birds, Bathing Water and Nitrates Directives, Common Fisheries Policy) and to those of the Regional Sea Conventions. The ICES data centre plays an important role in both EU and RSC work.

EU Member States (and as Contracting Parties to the RSC) have thus both an increased demand for reporting of data and information and increased potential for this to have similarities between reporting obligations at regional and EU levels. They are keen to minimise the 'administrative burden' of reporting and ensure there is no duplication of effort between different reporting obligations.

The reported data and information are needed at both regional and European scales (by the RSCs and the European Commission/European Environment Agency respectively) to assess the state of the marine environment, for compliance checking and to review progress against policy objectives. The reported data and information at European level needs to brought together as part of WISE (Water Information System for Europe) with linkages to EMODnet (European Marine Observation and Data Network), the Copernicus Marine Service and other information systems.

In view of this general scenario, there is a need to set out the overall scope of needs for WISE-Marine and to review the data and information reported by Member States to the RSCs (or developed directly by the RSC) in relation to that needed by the European Commission/EEA for MSFD implementation, with a view to ensuring the two processes are as complementary as possible. This should consider whether the data and information needed at regional and European levels is the same or similar and could be harmonised for mutual benefit and whether the processes for reporting and managing the data and information could be improved to facilitate sharing of the information between regional and European levels.

8 Baltic Sea – Helsinki Convention; North-east Atlantic Ocean – OSPAR Convention; Mediterranean Sea – Barcelona Convention; Black Sea – Bucharest Convention9 The directive applies to Territorial Waters and the EEZs of Member States, out to 200nm, and in some cases beyond to the seabed and subsoil of the Continental Shelf area (potentially out to 350nm), if a Member State has and/or exercises jurisdictional rights in such areas. Transitional Waters of the Water Framework Directive are excluded from the geographical scope of MSFD.

12

MSCG 11/2013/16

2 Key considerations

The topic of streamlining and harmonisation of reporting is about integration of information across policies; it represents a 'bottom-up' approach in that it aims to bring data and information together to support its integrated use. A second related topic is convergence of policy objectives/standards (see Annex 1) which can be considered more of a 'top-down' approach.

Reporting has two key objectives – provision of information for a compliance assessment (ENV) and provision of information on the State of the Environment (EEA); sometimes the same information fits both purposes.

Streamlining and harmonisation of reporting concerns three separate aspects, which are related but typically need to be considered separately:

1. Content (which can cover data, data products, status assessments, targets, measures etc);

2. Processes (including timing, aggregation from small to large areas, different communities within MS and RSCs dealing with similar topics), and

3. Technical issues (including IT tools, centralised and decentralised reporting, information flow mechanisms).

Member States are particularly keen to reduce the 'administrative burden' of reporting; demonstrating that there is no duplication of reporting under different Directives and RSC, with the Commission making effective use of all information reported, is therefore a key topic. Analysing the information reported to date within a common framework, as being done by the MRAG contract, is an essential first step to understanding what is being reported across related policies and whether there is potential for streamlining and harmonisation. This initial analysis should lead to clear conclusions on where streamlining and harmonisation should be pursued, potentially leading to adjustment of reporting needs across the policies to ensure they are mutually supportive, not duplicating effort and where possible lead to harmonised outcomes.

3 Developing integrated data and information systems

Streamlining and harmonisation of data and information systems concerns three separate aspects, which are related but typically need to be considered separately:

4. Content (which can cover data, data products, status assessments, targets, measures etc);

5. Processes (including timing, aggregation from small to large areas, different communities within MS and RSCs dealing with similar topics), and

6. Technical issues (including IT tools, centralised and decentralised reporting, information flow mechanisms).

3.1 TerminologyIt is helpful to define the terms integrated, streamlined and harmonised more clearly to ensure they are used consistently in any forward process.

13

MSCG 11/2013/16

• Integrated• Through use of a common data model (based on DPSIR framework)• Across policies• Across national, regional and European scales• Across data/information systems

• Efficient and coordinated processes (streamlined)• Data/reporting flows work together• Timing of assessments• Reporting mechanisms (report once, use many)• Automated/semi-automated data flows

• Consistent and comparable data and information (harmonised)• Consistent assessment outcomes• Consistent data

3.2 VisionIt is important to define the overall scope, aims and principles of a streamlining process at the outset as this will guide the often complex and challenging tasks of bringing data and information systems together.

The overall goal should be on convergence of reporting towards an integrated, streamlined and harmonised system which gives:

BETTER RESULTS WITH LESS EFFORT• Effective (inform management & policy, State-of-Environment reports)• Efficient (for MS, RSCs, COM and improved environmental quality)• Accessible and informative (to public and stakeholders)• Helpful (reduces 'administrative burden')• Integrative (across policies)• Avoids duplication (across Directives, with RSCs)• Up-to-date (does not wait for a 6-year update)• Consistent and improved assessments of environmental status• Synergies across policies to yield better outcomes

Whilst there is a need to develop WISE-Marine on the basis of this vision for European-scale use, there is a need to interface WISE-Marine with regional (RSC) and national information systems. These regional and national systems are likely to follow differing overall structures tailored to their needs, but would need to be capable of interfacing with an EU system (see section 5.2).

4 Framework for an integrated information system

Integration of reporting should be focused on a conceptual model for information management rather than oriented towards specific policies, as these may address only part of the overall picture (e.g. a limited part of the marine environment or a single pressure upon it or only part of the full management cycle).

4.1 DPSIR as a basis for frameworkThe DPSIR framework10 has been promoted widely as an environmental management framework and forms a good basis to develop an information framework. However, in the context of the marine

10 See for example http://www.integrated-assessment.eu/guidebook/dpsir_framework

14

MSCG 11/2013/16

environment and recent developments towards assessing ecosystem services11, it would benefit from some modification to:

a. Distinguish socio-economic Drivers from the human Activities which are undertaken to meet these drivers. This helps because of differing approaches in the past to this aspect (sometimes including activities as well as social and economic forces) and because in an information system the associated information is of a quite different nature.

b. Clarify the Impacts element of the DPSIR model; there is often confusion as to whether it refers to environmental impacts and/or socio-economic impacts12. Whilst environmental impacts are a consequence of Pressures on the environment, they are monitored and assessed as part of the environmental State in order to derive an overall Status for the environment. There is then not a clear separation of State and Impact in terms of how it is measured and reported; they are integral to each other.

c. Reflect the growing importance of ecosystem services assessments. The socio-economic aspect of Impact in DPSIR (termed Welfare by O'Higgins et al. 2011) is being progressively encompassed within the concept of Ecosystem Services, for which new methods of assessment are being developed, such as under the EU Biodiversity Strategy13. Whilst the information associated with marine ecosystem services is at present limited, it is appropriate to build the concept into a future information system.

Based on the above considerations, it is proposed to base the information model on the themes shown in Figure 4, each of which would lead to progressively more detail.

11 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper2013.pdf12 O'Higgins, T., Mee, L., Herman, P. & Newton, A. 2011 KnowSeas (Knowledge-based Sustainable Management for Europe’s Seas) Deliverable 2.3: Design of Decision Space Analysis. http://www.msfd.eu/knowseas/library/D2.3.pdf, accessed 1 October 2013)13 Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, Liquete C, Braat L, Berry P, Egoh B, Puydarrieux P, Fiorina C, Santos F, Paracchini ML, Keune H, Wittmer H, Hauck J, Fiala I, Verburg PH, Condé S, Schägner JP, San Miguel J, Estreguil C, Ostermann O, Barredo JI, Pereira HM, Stott A, Laporte V, Meiner A, Olah B, Royo Gelabert E, Spyropoulou R, Petersen JE, Maguire C, Zal N, Achilleos E, Rubin A, Ledoux L, Brown C, Raes C, Jacobs S, Vandewalle M, Connor D, Bidoglio G (2013) Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

15

MSCG 11/2013/16

Figure 4: Proposed framework for a marine information system and front-end to WISE-Marine.

4.2 Developing detail for each thematic areaEach of the topic areas illustrated in Figure 4 covers a wealth of topics and will need structure in an information system to draw together information from various policies and reporting streams in a coherent and useful manner.

A first step has been to focus on the state and pressure themes, as these are relatively well understood components with multiple policies that need some level of integration. An initial high-level framework and mapping of key policies is illustrated in Figure 5.

16

MSCG 11/2013/16

Figure 5: High-level framework for information on state and pressures, with a coarse mapping of key policies to the different state and pressure topics.

Within each topic, it is then proposed to structure the information [by policy] according to a logical framework:

a) What is the policy objective - i.e. the desired state to be achieved (e.g. GEnS for MSFD, FCS for Habitats Directive)?

b) What is the current state (including assessment criteria and methods)? Based on what monitoring and what data?

c) What is preventing the desired state being achieved (main pressures for a state topic, main activities for a pressure topic)?

d) What are the targets in place to achieve the objective (reductions in pressures and impacts)?e) What measures are in place to achieve the targets and objectives?

A mapping of these issues to a policy (MSFD) is shown in Figure 6.

17

MSCG 11/2013/16

Figure 6: Mapping of the main information topics/questions in relation to a pressure and for an example policy (MSFD).

For each of these topic areas there is typically much more detail provided in MS electronic reports and data sets associated with this. For an EU-level information system it will be necessary to consider what level of detail is helpful to have in a 'front-end' public web portal and what can be held in the 'back room' for detailed compliance checking or SoE reports.

Through bringing this information together from several policies, it is expected that a better overview can be obtained of what each policy is doing and where synergies can be made. Bringing the information together can also raise issues of compatibility such as differences in policy objectives or assessment methods.

4.3 Relationships to regional and national systemsRegional Sea Conventions and some Member States have or are developing integrated information systems. In addition there are lines of reporting from MS to RSCs which are often similar to those needed at EU level. Work is underway to review the potential overlap in reporting requirements (see section 5.1) to assess where this can be streamlined. A further project is to be initiated (see section 5.2) which will aim to develop a shared information system between EU and the RSCs, based around the framework outlined above. The way in which this framework is applied will need further consideration due to differing structures of current regional information systems and to reflect their differing user needs.

18

MSCG 11/2013/16

5 Ongoing and future work

5.1 Reviewing current reporting requirements in the marine environmentA study is currently underway (by MRAG/UNEP-WCMC/URS) to review the existing reporting obligations by theme, with a view to identifying aspects which can be considered for streamlining and harmonisation. The first element of this study is complete: it has addresses reporting on eutrophication issues under WFD, UWWTD, Nitrates Directive, MSFD and to the EEA and Regional Sea Conventions. Further reviews (on biodiversity-fish, non-indigenous species and hazardous substances) should be ready by December 2013.

5.2 Developing a shared EU-Regional Sea Convention information systemDG Environment has commissioned a project, scheduled to start early 2014, which will scope the needs of a shared information system between EU and RSC levels. It will focus on data and information issues at the regional level within RSC and will be complimented by a similar review of marine data and information at EU/EEA level, relating to EU reporting obligations as well as European data systems such as EMODnet and the Copernicus marine service. This project will therefore require close cooperation with each of the Regional Sea Conventions via their Secretariats. It is intended to support their ongoing and future work on information management, and be of long-term benefit to them, as well as to Member States and the EC/EEA. In this context, the consultants should work in close collaboration with each Secretariat, working in ways which best suit their needs and provide real benefit to them.

Work is expected to start in early 2014 which aims to:

a. review the existing and anticipated data and information flows from Member States (as Contracting Parties) to Regional Sea Conventions (or developed directly by/within the RSCs) and assess their potential to contribute to MSFD implementation needs;

b. review the processes and systems for acquiring, managing and making available these data and information and identify where these could be improved, including how these data and information flows could be streamlined and harmonised between the Member States, the RSCs and the EU/EEA in the context of MSFD and other relevant marine policies;

c. further develop a framework and data models for a marine information system, based on the DPSIR model and capable of accommodating compliance and state of the environment data and information across the range of marine-relevant EU directives and RSC data flows and to map the RSC information to this model;

d. prepare a feasibility study on the establishment of a shared information system, that is built on both existing and anticipated data and information flows, including a work plan/roadmap and identification of resources needed for its implementation;

e. describe an EU WISE-RSC data and information portal, based upon the data model defined at (c), including a suitable structure and functionality;

f. implement first elements of the system for the north-east Atlantic through the OSPAR Convention and the Baltic Sea through the Helsinki Convention.

This project will support and complement the ongoing work on development of WISE-Marine (including in the context of MSFD Article 19(3)), and it will contribute to ongoing work to streamline and harmonise marine reporting systems.

19

MSCG 11/2013/16

5.3 Term listsHarmonisation of term lists across policies (e.g. lists of activities, pressures) is an important and relatively simple task that would improve consistency in reporting and its cross use across different policies.

6 Summary and way forward

The need to integrate information systems across policies in order to support policy implementation has been outlined. Such integration should help ensure available information is more fully used and, where appropriate, foster improved synergies between the policies. As a front-end information system it is proposed to develop WISE-Marine around a holistic information model which can accommodate information from multiple policies; the front end needs to have a readily usable interface to enable easy access to the information, whilst acknowledging that additional technical detail may need to be held in internal data systems for SoE and compliance requirements. Development of streamlined data flows between the Member States, Regional Sea Conventions and EU level should aim to improve the efficiency of information exchange and ensure its wider availability to stakeholders.

The following steps are needed:

a. Complete analysis of the content of reporting by themes across the existing policies, to identify where synergies and harmonisation can be sought;

b. Develop streamlining processes where appropriate on data issues (through WG DIKE) and on policy objectives (through WG GES and revision of Decision);

c. Develop in more detail an information model which can accommodate the current reporting streams under EU policy and in RSCs (for compliance and SoE purposes) and start a step-wise implementation;

d. Build an EU-level portal (WISE-Marine) which acts as an open access point to the information and data within the model, developing links to RSC, MS and other systems (EMODnet, Copernicus, BISE, etc).

20