EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 16.1.2017

SWD(2017) 1 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying the document

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 final}

Contents

PART I - SUMMARY FINDINGS AND GUIDANCE PER MEMBER STATE ON MONITORING PROGRAMMES, REPORTED UNDER ARTICLE 11(3) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC    

1. Belgium    

2. Bulgaria    

3. Denmark    

4. Germany    20

5. Estonia    25

6. Ireland    29

7. Spain    34

8. France    38

9. Croatia    42

10. Italy    46

11. Cyprus    50

12. Latvia    55

13. Lithuania    60

14. Netherlands    64

15. Portugal    68

16. Romania    73

17. Slovenia    77

18. Finland    81

19. Sweden    85

20. United Kingdom    91

PART II – SUMMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PER MEMBER STATE ON THEIR INITIAL ASSESSMENT, GES DETERMINATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS, REPORTED UNDER ARTICLE 9(2) AND 10(2) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC    95

1. Bulgaria    96

2. Croatia    98

3. Malta    101

4. Portugal (Azores and Madeira)    106

5. United Kingdom (Gibraltar)    109

Common Fisheries Policy Regulation                        CFP

Data Collection Framework 1                                DCF

Good Environmental Status                                GES

Marine Strategy Framework Directive                        MSFD

Non-indigenous Species                                NIS

Water Framework Directive                                WFD

PART I - SUMMARY FINDINGS AND GUIDANCE PER MEMBER STATE ON MONITORING PROGRAMMES, REPORTED UNDER ARTICLE 11(3) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC 2

This Annex accompanying the Commission report on "Assessment of Member States' monitoring programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive" 3 gives a summary per Member State of the Commission's findings. These summaries result from technical Member State-specific assessments 4 , which analyse Member States' reporting of their monitoring programmes per descriptor 5 , under Article 11(3) of Directive 2008/56/EC. It describes the conclusions of these technical assessments, the achievement so far, the aspects where improvement is needed and it provides outcome per descriptor. It highlights Member State-specific guidance.

Member States are expected to take these conclusions and guidance into account when establishing and implementing the next elements of their marine strategies, and when updating their monitoring programmes under Article 17 of the MSFD, while taking into account the ongoing review process of Decision 2010/447/EU and its eventual outcome.

The following Member States are included under Part I of this Annex: Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

The cut-off date for Member States' reporting to be assessed in this report was September 2015.

The United Kingdom's report and guidance does not include waters surrounding the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar 7 .

Malta and Greece are not included in this part of the Annex as their reporting to the Commission under Article 11(3) of the MSFD did not meet the deadline of 15 October 2014 and came too late to be part of this exercise 8 . Poland was not part of this exercise either, as it had not previously reported on its environmental targets under Article 10 of the MSFD 9 and therefore the Commission had not assessed Poland in the previous assessment exercise (the results of which were used as the basis for this assessment exercise).

1. Belgium

Belgium reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October 2014. In total, Belgium’s Article 11 reporting includes 30 sub-programmes covering all descriptors, apart from water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4).

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment

The adequacy of the Belgian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards achieving good environmental status (GES) 10 and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Belgium in 2013.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-the results of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-the Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.

*2 out of 11 targets for contaminants (Descriptor 8) will be achieved by 2018

Achievements so far

-The technical assessment shows that Belgium has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its MSFD determination of GES and targets for contaminants (Descriptor 8), contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) and marine litter (Descriptor 10).

-Regional consistency: The Belgian monitoring programme shows consistency with the standards and guidelines produced by OSPAR in some descriptors (e.g. contaminants (descriptor 8) and marine litter (Descriptor 10), bringing a regional dimension to the work done by the Member State for these descriptors.

-Belgium has made relatively good use of existing monitoring programmes in the context of the MSFD. At the EU level, Belgium has reported the use of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation (CFP) 11 monitoring programmes for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), Water Framework Directive (WFD) 12 monitoring programmes for seabed habitats (Descriptor 1, 4), eutrophication (Descriptors 5) and (contaminants Descriptor 8). Monitoring of contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) is linked to the Regulation on contaminants in foodstuffs 13 and to the Shellfish Directive 14 . The existing monitoring undertaken for Birds 15 and Habitats 16 Directives have been used for the mammals (Descriptors 1, 4) monitoring, but not for birds (Descriptors 1, 4) monitoring.

Aspects where improvement is needed

-According to the technical assessment, the Belgian monitoring programme shows a number of weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets for the biodiversity descriptors (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), as well as commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and eutrophication (Descriptor 5); and descriptors considered less advanced in terms of knowledge and methodologies, i.e. non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), and hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).

-Belgium has not established a monitoring programme for water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4). The Member State reports that currently the pelagic environment is not considered because progress on the monitoring of eutrophication is a prerequisite for the development of such a monitoring programme. This point needs to be further clarified.

-No links with any Union legislation or international agreements are reported for non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). The non-indigenous species monitoring programme does not refer to potentially overlapping programmes undertaken under the WFD and OSPAR 17 . No reference is made to the indicator ‘rate of new introductions of non-indigenous species (NIS)’ that is currently being developed in OSPAR.

-Belgium has not fully used existing monitoring structures it already has in place in the context of other frameworks, especially of the OSPAR Convention. Belgium has only made links to OSPAR in four descriptors (eutrophication (Descriptor 5), marine litter (Descriptor 10), mammals (Descriptors D1, 4)).

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

Belgium should:

In general:

(a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant Union legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive, the WFD and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 18 with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensure that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored.

(b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR.

(c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level.

In particular:

On biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6):

(d)develop and implement a monitoring programme for water column habitats as soon as possible.

(e)further strengthen the monitoring programme for all its biodiversity monitoring programmes to ensure more appropriate spatial scope and frequency.

(f)monitor additional species, as the ones for mammals appear limited and the ones for fish do not appear to cover non-commercial species.

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(g)further develop its monitoring programmes to cover all habitats or species groups comprehensively in the context of non-indigenous species.

On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3):

(h)extend its monitoring programme to include all commercially-exploited species;

(i)improve monitoring and assessment of non-DCF species, and species for which analytical stock assessments are not carried out, as per GES definition.

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5):

(j)expand its monitoring programme to cover additional elements and parameters, as per its GES definition.

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7):

(k)expand its monitoring programme, to cover changes resulting from existing activities, large scale effects, impacts or changes to habitats, as per its GES definition.

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11):

(l)expand its monitoring programme, and monitor continuous and impulsive noise, where appropriate, beyond the limited scope of one activity (offshore wind).

2. Bulgaria

Bulgaria reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in January 2015. Bulgaria’s Article 11 reporting includes 43 sub-programmes.

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment

The adequacy of the Bulgarian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) 19  and achievement of environmental targets, as modified by Bulgaria in 2015.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.

Achievements so far

-The technical assessment shows that Bulgaria has developed its monitoring programmes and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES definitions and targets for biodiversity (birds, mammals, water column and seabed habitats) (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), contaminants (Descriptor 9) and marine litter (Descriptor 10); and with its GES determination for eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7).

-Bulgaria makes linkages to relevant regional and Union processes, in particular the Black Sea Commission 20 and the Common Implementation Strategy working groups and technical subgroup, to ensure coordination at regional and Union level for the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes.

-Bulgaria reports extensive bilateral cooperation with Romania in the coordinated development of its monitoring programmes, an aspect that has contributed to regional coherence in the context of the MSFD implementation.

-Even though GES and targets have not yet been defined for energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11), Bulgaria reports a monitoring programme for this descriptor, which is positive.

Aspects where improvement is needed

-According to the technical assessment, the Bulgarian monitoring programmes and sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage of GES and targets. The main weaknesses are identified in the section below. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors except birds, mammals, water column and seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) and marine litter (Descriptor 10).

-Regarding the implementation timeline, monitoring programmes are in most cases planned to start in 2015-2016 and will in most cases only be fully in place by 2018.

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

Bulgaria should:

In general:

(a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant EU legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive 21 , the Birds Directive 22 , the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 23 and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 24 with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored.

(b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by the Black Sea Commission, in cooperation with Romania.

(c)enhance, in cooperation with Romania, comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level, where such practices have been agreed and are being implemented.

In particular:

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6):

(d)building upon point (a), adapt existing monitoring (e.g. under WFD or Habitats and Birds Directives) to meet the objectives of the MSFD of achieving GES;

(e)develop more transboundary approaches and cooperation for monitoring, particularly for mobile species, which frequently move between Member States’ waters.

(f)further develop the monitoring of fish biodiversity to include non-commercial fish species, as well as rare or endangered species, as per GES definition.

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(g)develop methodologies on how non-indigenous species data will be analysed from the fish programme (as reported), developing monitoring of effects and impacts of non-indigenous species on environment, as planned;

(h)develop monitoring of mammals in the context of non-indigenous species, if relevant, as per GES definition.

On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3):

(i)extend monitoring in order to cover important black sea stock species;

(j)develop its monitoring sub-programmes to ensure the monitoring of Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) or stock demographic data (e.g. length, age).

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5):

(k)further develop its monitoring sub-programmes to ensure appropriate monitoring frequency of certain elements and parameters.

On contaminants (Descriptor 8):

(l)further develop its monitoring sub-programmes to ensure the monitoring of biological effects, as per GES definition.

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11):

(m) develop GES and targets;

(n)further refine its monitoring programme and ensure that it starts monitoring as soon as possible.

3. Denmark

Denmark reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October 2014. The Danish Article 11 reporting consists of 54 monitoring sub-programmes for the Baltic Sea marine region and 62 monitoring sub-programmes for the Greater North Sea sub-region. The sub-programmes in both (sub)regions are similar and often have the same titles. The monitoring programmes in place addresses all descriptors in both (sub) regions.

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment

The adequacy of the Danish MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) 25 and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Denmark in 2013.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-the conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-the Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps present as of 2014.

*Baltic, ** North East Atlantic region

Achievements so far

-The technical assessment shows that Denmark has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner in relation to its GES definitions and targets for contaminants (Descriptor 8) and contaminants in seafoood (Descriptor 9).

-Denmark has reported on the use of existing monitoring programmes in the context of the MSFD. Denmark has referred to relevant monitoring done as part of various EU Directives such as the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation 26 (CFP), Water Framework Directive 27 (WFD), Habitats Directive 28 , Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 29 and others. The Danish monitoring programme is however based mostly on the national monitoring of the aquatic environment (NOVANA) Nature Agency's catchment models and marine models and the Danish surveillance under the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (in the case of commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) mostly).

-Denmark reports on its coordination at regional and Union level for the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes. Firstly, Denmark’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes are linked to monitoring activities carried out by both HELCOM 30 and OSPAR 31 . The Member State often refers to elements from both Regional Sea Conventions being applied to its monitoring programmes in both regions at the same time, thus cross-referencing information throughout its descriptor-specific programmes. The Member State also links to other regional processes such as the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation. Secondly, Denmark’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes also contain links to relevant Union processes, in particular the Common Implementation Strategy working groups and technical groups for the MSFD.

Aspects where improvement is needed

-According to the technical assessment, the Danish monitoring programmes and sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage in relation to the data needed for the assessment of progress towards GES and targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors except contaminants (Descriptor 8) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). For several of these, fish, water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4), commercial fish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and marine litter (Descriptor 10) there is a lack of plans provided for one or both subregions on how these weaknesses will be addressed.

-In particular in relation to energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11), the technical assessment shows that the Danish targets are not yet adequately covered by the current monitoring programmes and sub-programmes. Denmark acknowledges that more work is needed on their energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) programmes.

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

Denmark should:

In general:

(a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant EU legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive 32 , the WFD and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 33 with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored;

(b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR and HELCOM;

(c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region or subregion, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level;

In particular:

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6):

(d)expand its monitoring programme for seabed habitats to habitats and associated species outside of areas under the remit of the Habitats Directive and WFD.

(e)develop transboundary approaches and cooperation for monitoring, particularly for mobile species, which frequently move between Member States’ waters. Such cooperation may also help to reduce financial costs of monitoring.

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(f)ensure that the NIS monitoring programme starts collecting data as soon as possible.

(g)monitor a greater number of hotspots and pathways of introduction.

On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3):

(h)improve monitoring and assessment of non-Data Collection Framework 34 species, and species for which analytical stock assessments are not carried out.

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5):

(i)expand its monitoring programme to cover additional elements and parameters as per its GES definition (e.g. macroalgal colonisation depth along transects from shore).

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7):

(j)develop targets;

(k)expand its monitoring programme to cover additional activities, where appropriate, as per GES definition.

On marine litter (Descriptor 10):

(l)expand its programmes to cover monitoring of micro-litter and, where necessary, impacts on marine biota, as per GES definition;

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11):

(m)develop a permanent monitoring programme for diffuse noise for both regions, based where appropriate on the results of the BIAS project 35 .

(n)set up a noise registry for impulsive sounds, in coordination with HELCOM and OSPAR, for both regions.

4. Germany

Germany reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October-November 2014. The German Article 11 reporting consists of 28 monitoring sub-programmes for the Baltic Sea marine region and 31 monitoring sub-programmes for the North Sea sub-region. The monitoring programme in place addresses all descriptors in both the marine region and sub-region, apart from contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9).

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment

The adequacy of the German MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) 36 and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Germany in 2012-2013.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.

* DE reports that existing food monitoring is used but that there is no separate MSFD monitoring for contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) and that the monitoring data was not yet available, at the time of reporting, for MSFD purposes. Nevertheless, Germany reported that monitoring on contaminants in seafood was adequate as of 2014 to cover GES and targets data needs.

** DE did not report a monitoring sub-programme for 'Energy including underwater noise' (Descriptor 11) but expects that monitoring will be in place by 2018.

Achievements so far

-The technical assessment shows that Germany has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its targets for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and eutrophication (Descriptor 5).

-Germany has reported on the use of existing monitoring programmes in the context of the MSFD. Germany has referred to relevant monitoring undertaken as part of various EU Directives such as the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation 37 , Water Framework Directive 38 (in the case of non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8), seabed and water column (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) monitoring), the Habitats Directive 39 (birds, fish and seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), as well as hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) monitoring), the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 40 (in the case of eutrophication (Descriptor 5) monitoring) and others.

-Germany has identified existing coordination at regional and Union level for the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes. Firstly, Germany’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes are linked to monitoring activities carried out by both HELCOM 41 and OSPAR 42 . The Member State sometimes uses standards/guidelines from either Regional Sea Convention for both regions, thus ensuring consistency in their national approach. The Member State also links to other regional processes such as the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation. Secondly, Germany’s monitoring programmes and sub-programmes also contain links to relevant EU processes, in particular the Common Implementation Strategy working groups and technical subgroup.

-Germany links its monitoring programmes to monitoring done under international conventions and agreements, such as the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention), the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD – in the case of birds monitoring) and the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS – in the case of mammals monitoring).

-Germany systematically reports plans to address the gaps in its monitoring programmes.

Aspects where improvement is needed

-According to the technical assessment, the German monitoring programmes and sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage of GES and targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors.

-While acknowledging that Germany has existing food monitoring for the purposes of other legislation, it has not reported these for MSFD purposes under contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). In addition, Germany has not reported monitoring for energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11). As such it is unclear whether Germany is monitoring progress towards GES and targets for these descriptors. However, plans and justifications are provided.

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

Germany should:

In general:

(a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant Union legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive 43 , the Water Framework Directive and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 44 with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored.

(b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR and HELCOM.

(c)continue to enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine (sub-)regions, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level.

In particular:

On biodiversity (particularly Descriptors 1, 4 and 6):

(d)finalise and implement the ‘concept’ monitoring programmes that are confirmed by research and development projects 45 .

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(e)ensure that its monitoring programme covers fish, as per its GES definition.

(f)strengthen its monitoring programmes to ensure that the assessment of changes in the ecosystem can be undertaken through the data collected.

On commercial fish (Descriptor 3):

(g)ensure that its monitoring programme covers shellfish, as per its GES definition.

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5):

(h)further develop its monitoring programme to address the gaps it has identified, e.g. in relation to the monitoring cyanobacteria blooms or of atmospheric nutrient deposition, in coordination with the work done in HELCOM and OSPAR.

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7):

(i)extend its monitoring programme to cover impacts on habitats, as per its GES definition.

On contaminants (Descriptor 8):

(j)strengthen its monitoring programme to monitor effects of contaminants on marine biota, as per its GES definition.

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9):

(k)report a monitoring programme for MSFD purposes.

On marine litter (Descriptor 10):

(l)further develop its programme to monitor micro-litter and beach litter.

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11):

(m) develop and establish a monitoring programme.

5. Estonia

Estonia reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October 2014. Estonia's Article 11 reporting includes 38 sub-programmes covering all descriptors.

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment

The adequacy of the Estonian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) 46 and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Estonia in 2012-2013.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.

Achievements so far

-The technical assessment shows that Estonia has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES determinations and environmental targets. The Estonian monitoring programme is considered sufficient to assess progress towards biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), eutrophication and contaminants in seafood GES and targets.

-Although the Member State has not yet defined GES for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) it has nevertheless reported monitoring programmes, which is positive as it indicates that some monitoring for these descriptors is already taking place in view of a future GES definition.

-Regional cooperation is systematically been referenced by the Member State, with HELCOM being linked to monitoring activities under almost all descriptors. The HELCOM Monitoring Manual is linked to all sub-programmes, apart from birds, fish and mammals, where Union Directives are referenced (Birds and Habitats, Common Fisheries Policy).

-Estonia has provided plans for future work for a number of descriptors, even though it considers that its monitoring is, for the most part, already adequate to measure progress towards its GES and targets. This approach is in line with the principle of adaptive management.

Aspects where improvement is needed

-According to the technical assessment, the Estonian monitoring programme shows a number of weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets for non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).

-Estonia reports limited amount of information on transboundary impacts, major environmental changes and emerging issues. To describe these, the Member State only refers to the HELCOM Monitoring Manual.

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

Estonia should:

In general:

(a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant Union legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive 47 , the Birds, Directive 48 , the Water Framework Directive 49 and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 50 with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored.

(b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by HELCOM.

(c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level.

In particular:

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(d)further develop its monitoring programme to monitor more hotspots and pathways of introduction, as per GES definition.

On commercial fish (Descriptor 3):

(e)further strengthen its monitoring programme by bringing in data from DCF in relation to additional relevant parameters, including fishing mortality for herring and sprat and length/age data for salmon and trout..

On contaminants (Descriptor 8):

(f)further strengthen the monitoring programme by monitoring biological impacts, as per GES definition.

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7):

(g)develop GES.

On marine litter (Descriptor 10):

(h)develop GES;

(i)strengthen its monitoring programme by monitoring, where necessary, seabed litter and impact on biota.

On energy, including underwater noise underwater noise (Descriptor 11):

(j)develop GES;

(k)strengthen its monitoring programme by monitoring impulsive noise.

6. Ireland

Ireland reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in April 2015. The Irish Article 11 reporting consists of 70 sub-programmes covering all descriptors, apart from birds (Descriptors 1, 4), for which a sub-programme is not defined yet. It should also be noted that the reported sub-programme for non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), is not a monitoring programme as such, but rather a risk assessment study.

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment

The adequacy of the Irish MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) 51  and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Ireland in 2013 and partially revised in 2015.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps present as of 2014.

Achievements so far

-The technical assessment shows that Ireland has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES definitions and targets for eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9); and with its targets only for fish and cephalopods, seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).

-Even though targets are not yet been defined by Ireland for mammals and water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4), the Member State reports monitoring programmes for these descriptors, which is positive.

-Ireland reports on its cooperation in relevant regional and Union processes, in particular OSPAR and the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy working groups and technical subgroup, to ensure coordination at regional and Union level for the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes.

-Ireland has clearly used existing monitoring programmes from other Union policies as part of its MSFD monitoring programme. The link to the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is prominent in its monitoring programmes on seabed and water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrological changes (Descriptor 7) and contaminants (Descriptor 8). The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) forms the basis of the monitoring programmes for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and fish and cephalopod (descriptors 1, 4 and 6). The Habitats Directive has been linked with the monitoring of cetaceans, seals and reptiles, seabed habitats, hydrographical changes and marine litter; while the eutrophication programme is based on existing monitoring programmes for the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the Nitrates Directive. Finally, while no sub-programmes have been reported for the monitoring of birds, the Member State has highlighted monitoring activities it undertakes within the framework of the Birds Directive.

Aspects where improvement is needed

-According to the technical assessment, the Irish monitoring programmes and sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage in relation to the data needed for the assessment of progress towards GES and targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors except eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9).

-In particular, in relation to birds (Descriptors 1, 4) non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) and hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), the technical assessment shows that the GES definition (and the targets for non-indigenous species) is not adequately covered by the current monitoring programmes and sub-programmes. In all cases, Ireland acknowledges that more work is needed on their monitoring programmes.

-Even though Ireland reported a bird monitoring programme, it did not define sub-programmes for birds, therefore it is considered that monitoring of birds is not appropriate and as such monitoring to assess progress in achieving GES is currently not addressed under the MSFD. However, Ireland reports that the bird monitoring sub-programme is under development and would be in place by 2020.

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

Ireland should:

In general:

(a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant EU legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive 52 , the Birds Directive 53 , the Water Framework Directive 54 and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 55 with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored.

(b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR.

(c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level.

In particular:

On biodiversity (in particular for Descriptors 1, 4 and 6):

(d)develop targets for birds, mammals and water column;

(e)develop monitoring sub-programmes for birds as soon as possible;

(f)further develop its mammals monitoring programme to ensure coverage of cetaceans;

(g)further develop its fish biodiversity monitoring programme to ensure coverage of non-commercial species;

(h)further develop its water column monitoring programme to ensure coverage of phytoplankton and zooplankton communities;

(i)ensure that its monitoring programmes are adaptive in view of any future changes to an environmental target (i.e. birds, mammals and water column habitats).

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(j)develop a monitoring programme to cover all relevant habitats or species groups using a risk-based approach, going beyond the risk assessment study currently in place.

On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3):

(k)extend monitoring programme to include all commercially-exploited species of fish and in particular of shellfish.

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7):

(l)develop and implement an MSFD-specific monitoring sub-programme.

On contaminants (Descriptor 8):

(m)expand its monitoring programme to measure adverse impacts on biota, as per its GES definition.

On marine litter (Descriptor 10):

(n)expand its monitoring programme to monitor litter and micro-litter, where necessary, in the water column and in biota, according to its GES definition.

On energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11):

(o) develop a sub-programme on the monitoring of continuous low-frequency sounds, according to its GES definition.

7. Spain

Spain reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) by March 2015. Spain has developed 273 sub-programmes covering all five Spanish sub-divisions (Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast North and South, Macaronesia, and Western Mediterranean Sea (Levantine Balearic Sea and Estrecho and Alboran)). Although they have reported a different set of sub-programmes for each sub-division, the content of the sub-programmes for the same descriptor is very similar from one sub-division to the next.

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment

The adequacy of the Spanish MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) 56 and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Spain in 2012.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State's monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-The Member State's own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.

Achievements so far

-The technical assessment shows that Spain has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES definitions and targets including commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8); with its GES definitions for biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9); and with its targets for marine litter (Descriptor 10).

-Spain reports to be an active member of the relevant regional and Union processes, in particular OSPAR and the United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP) and the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy working groups and technical subgroup, to ensure coordination at regional and Union level for the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes.

-As part of its Article 11 reporting Spain has done a detailed inventory and a detailed analysis of existing monitoring programmes in place in the context of other international, European, regional and national obligations and commitments, to which its monitoring programmes link to extensively.

-Spain reports that all sub-programmes have been designed based on the concept of adaptive management. Proposed indicators can be redesigned or re-adapted in the light of improved knowledge of developments in the regional coordination or simply based on the increase of information.

Aspects where improvement is needed

-According to the technical assessment, the Spanish monitoring programme shows a few weaknesses that affect the complete coverage of its GES and targets for the biodiversity descriptors (although relatively minor) and descriptors considered less advanced in terms of knowledge and methodologies, i.e. non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

Spain should:

In general:

(a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant EU legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive 57 , the Birds, Directive 58 , the Water Framework Directive 59 and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 60 with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD- specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored.

(b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR and UNEP/MAP.

(c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level.

In particular:

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptor 1, 4 and 6):

(d)further develop its biodiversity monitoring sub-programmes to address some of the minor weaknesses identified (e.g. coverage of relevant monitoring parameters such as mortality through bycatch and other human activities, as per GES definition).

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(e)ensure that its monitoring sub-programmes cover trends, as per GES definition.

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9):

(f)ensure that its monitoring sub-programmes use appropriate temporal frequency and spatial scope, as per targets definitions.

On marine litter (Descriptor 10):

(g)further develop its monitoring sub-programmes to ensure that, where necessary, impact on biota is monitored, as per GES definition.

8. France

France reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in July-August 2015. The French Article 11 reporting consists of 194 sub-programmes covering the four sub-regions (the Celtic Seas, the Greater North Sea, the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast, and the Western Mediterranean Sea). Although they have reported a different set of sub-programmes for each subdivision, the content of the sub-programmes for the same descriptor is very similar from one sub-region to the next.

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment

The adequacy of the French MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) 61 and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by France in 2013.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State's monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-The Member State's own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.

Achievements so far

-The technical assessment shows that France has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES definitions and targets for marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11), with its GES determination for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants (Descriptor 8), and with its targets only, for contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9).

-France reports to be an active member of the relevant regional and Union processes, in particular OSPAR and the United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP) and the EU Common Implementation Strategy working groups and technical subgroup, to ensure coordination at regional and Union level for the implementation of the MSFD, including for monitoring programmes.

Aspects where improvement is needed

-According to the technical assessment, the French monitoring programmes and sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage of GES and targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors except marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).

-In particular, in relation to non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), the technical assessment shows that the French GES definition and targets are not covered by the current monitoring programmes and sub-programmes. France acknowledges that more work is needed on their non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2).

-France has not reported on the links between its monitoring programmes and the monitoring undertaken for the Habitats and Birds Directive. In addition, for a number of descriptors, France has not systematically reported on the links between its monitoring and work carried out under relevant Union processes, in particular eutrophication (Descriptor 5) (Urban Water Waste Treatment Directive or Nitrates Directive), and contaminants (Descriptor 8) (Environmental Quality Standards Directive).

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

France should:

In general:

(a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant EU legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive 62 , the Birds, Directive 63 , the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 64 and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 65 with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored.

(b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR and United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP).

(c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level.

In particular:

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6):

(d)building upon point (a), adapt existing monitoring (e.g. under WFD or Habitats and Birds Directive) to meet the objectives of the MSFD of achieving GES;

(e)develop more transboundary approaches and cooperation for monitoring, particularly for mobile species, which frequently move between Member States’ waters.

(f)further develop the monitoring of fish biodiversity to include non-commercial fish species.

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(g)develop monitoring of effects and impacts of non-indigenous species on environment, as planned;

(h)develop a programme that generates information on the risk of introduction of non-indigenous species, as per the targets.

On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3):

(i)consider how to address deficiencies related to the under-sampling of some species;

(j)clearly define the temporal scope of recreational fisheries monitoring.

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5):

(k)develop relevant monitoring programmes for the North-East Atlantic targets on the abundance of opportunistic macroalgae and the abundance of perennial seaweeds and seagrasses not currently covered.

On contaminants (Descriptor 8):

(l)develop a programme for the monitoring of atmospheric deposition and of hazardous air contaminants, as per the GES definition.

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9):

(m)ensure that the selection of species for contaminants monitoring in biota under contaminants (Descriptor 8) are appropriate for the purpose of contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) monitoring, if the two programmes are grouped.

9. Croatia

Croatia reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October 2014. Croatia's Article 11 reporting includes 42 sub-programmes covering all descriptors.

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment

The adequacy of the Croatian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards Good Environmental Status (GES) 66 and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Croatia in 2014.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State's monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-The Member State's own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.

Achievements so far

-The technical assessment shows that Croatia has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES determination for contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9).

-Croatia has systematically reported on the use of existing monitoring programmes in the context of the MSFD. At Union level, a link to the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is made for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8) and marine litter (Descriptor 10); as well as for fish, seabed habitats and water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4, 6).

-Croatia has systematically made use of existing UNEP/MAP standards; i.e. in eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8) and marine litter (Descriptor 10) and seabed monitoring (Descriptors 1, 4, 6).

-Croatia has provided plans for future work for all descriptors, even though it considers that its monitoring programme is, for the most part, already adequate to measure progress towards its GES and targets. This is in line with the principle of adaptive management.

Aspects where improvement is needed

-Even though Croatia reports that its monitoring of GES will be in place by 2014, it reports that monitoring of targets will not be in place until 2018 or 2020. This should be further clarified.

-According to the technical assessment, the Croatian monitoring programmes and sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage of GES and targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors including descriptors considered less advanced in terms of knowledge and methodologies, i.e. non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), marine litter (Descriptor 10), energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).

-It was difficult to assess the monitoring programme and sub-programmes for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) with regard to the achievement of targets: Croatia's monitoring programme only monitors long-term large scale changes, while the targets defined by Croatia concern the impact of human activities, which the reported monitoring programme does not cover.

-Croatia reports limited information on monitoring transboundary impacts or any other major environmental changes or emerging issues.

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

Croatia should:

In general:

(a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant Union legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive 67 , the Birds, Directive 68 , the Water Framework Directive 69 and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 70 with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD-specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored.

(b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP).

(c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level.

In particular:

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptor 1, 4 and 6):

(d)strengthen its monitoring programmes by extending the geographical coverage (in the case of birds, mammals and reptiles) and adjusting the frequency of monitoring (mammals, reptiles and water column habitats), as per GES definition.

(e)further develop its monitoring programme to cover additional relevant species (e.g. sardine and tuna species (as part of fish), as per GES definition.

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(f)further develop its monitoring programme to ensure the coverage of all relevant elements and parameters (i.e. fish abundance), as per the targets definition;

(g)further develop its monitoring programme to ensure the monitoring of impacts, as per GES definition.

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5):

(h)further develop its monitoring programme by adopting either an improved method of monitoring submerged aquatic vegetation to incorporate a method of assessing ecological health and species abundance, and an increased monitoring frequency for nutrients and organic matter loads calculations, as per GES definition.

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7):

(i)strengthen monitoring programme

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9):

(j)strengthen its monitoring programme to ensure adequate spatial and temporal coverage, as per GES definition.

(k)strengthen its monitoring programme to ensure the traceability of its D9 biota samples to the location of the contamination.

On marine litter (Descriptor 10):

(l)further develop its monitoring programme to measure impacts of marine litter on biota, where necessary, as per GES definition.

10. Italy

Italy reported Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October 2014. Italy’s Article 11 reporting includes 62 sub-programmes covering all descriptors, in all its sub-divisions (Adriatic Sea, the Ionian Sea and the Central Mediterranean Sea and the Western Mediterranean Sea).

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment

The adequacy of the Italian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) 71 and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Italy in 2012-2013, and modified in 2014.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.

* Timeline of coverage is not reported on by Italy for these descriptors

Achievements so far

-The technical assessment shows that Italy has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its MSFD GES and targets for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and marine litter (Descriptor 10); and with its GES determination for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).

-Italy’s monitoring sub-programmes show relative consistency with Union level standards, mainly in the context of non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and contaminants (Descriptor 8) as well as in the monitoring sub-programmes for water column habitats (Descriptors1, 4 and 6). The Common Fisheries Policy forms the basis of commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) sub-programmes, and Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 forms the basis of contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9) sub-programmes. The Habitats Directive is linked to seabed, mammals and fish biodiversity monitoring, while the Birds Directive contributes to the birds MSFD monitoring.

-Italy’s monitoring programme shows consistency with United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP) monitoring programmes, which form the basis of many monitoring programmes of the MSFD; namely in the case of biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) in relation to the management and the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), as well as monitoring for seabed habitats, mammals and reptiles, birds (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) and contaminants (Descriptor 8).

Aspects where improvement is needed

-According to the technical assessment, the Italian monitoring programme shows a number of weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets, in particular for the biodiversity descriptors, and pressure descriptors commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), contaminants (Descriptor 8), contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9); and descriptors considered less advanced in terms of knowledge and methodologies such as non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).

-Italy reports limited information on monitoring transboundary impacts or any other major environmental changes or emerging issues. To describe these, the Member State refers to its efforts in the context of UNEP/MAP and regional cooperation, but does not elaborate further.

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

Italy should:

In general:

(a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant Union legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive 72 , the Birds, Directive 73 , the Water Framework Directive 74 and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 75 with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD- specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored.

(b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by UNEP/MAP.

(c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level.

In particular:

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptor 1, 4 and 6):

(d)ensure that all necessary elements and parameters are monitored to ensure that its monitoring needs are covered, in particular on food webs and ecosystem indicators of the programme concerning species exploited by commercial fisheries.

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(e)ensure that results from multiple survey schemes are analysed appropriately to draw conclusions on MSFD GES.

On commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3):

(f)improve monitoring and assessment of non-'Data Collection Framework' species and of data-limited stocks;

(g)ensure appropriate geographical scope .

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5):

(h)develop its monitoring programme and cover chlorophyll levels and phytoplankton community composition and abundance, as per GES definition.

On contaminants (Descriptor 8):

(i)ensure that all relevant contaminants, as well as significant acute pollution event, if they occur, and their effects are monitored, as per GES definition.

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9):

(j)strengthen its monitoring programme to ensure the traceability of its biota samples to the location of the contamination.

11. Cyprus

Cyprus reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October 2014. In total, Cyprus’ Article 11 reporting consists of 25 sub-programmes covering all descriptors.

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment

The adequacy of the Cypriot MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) 76 and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by the Member State in 2013, and revised and re-submitted on 15 April 2015.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address (any) gaps.

*Timeline not reported

Achievements so far

-The technical assessment shows that Cyprus has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES determinations and targets for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), with its GES determinations for eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9); and with its targets for marine litter (Descriptor 10).

-The technical assessment also shows that even though targets have not yet been defined for birds, mammals, non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11), the Member State has already designed monitoring sub-programmes for these descriptors, which is positive.

-The Cypriot monitoring programme shows consistency with the standards and guidelines produced by the United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP), bringing in a regional dimension to the work done by the Member State. Furthermore, the modified GES indicators make the direct link with UNEP/MAP guidance indicators in all descriptors.

-Cyprus has provided plans for future work for all descriptors, even though it considers that its monitoring programme is, for the most part, already adequate to measure progress towards its GES and targets. This is in line with the principle of adaptive management.

Aspects where improvement is needed

-According to the technical assessment, the Cypriot monitoring programme shows a number of weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets for the biodiversity descriptors (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) as well as contaminants (Descriptor 8); and descriptors considered less advanced in terms of knowledge and methodologies, i.e. non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).

-A number of descriptors have no targets. The establishment of these targets would help inform the development of the monitoring programme for these descriptors.

-Cyprus has not reported on the links between its monitoring and the relevant Regional Sea Convention and EU work for eutrophication (Descriptor 5) (Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) (MSFD technical group on underwater noise).

-Cyprus does not elaborate on monitoring transboundary impacts or any other major environmental changes or emerging issues, but refers to the impacts and features it monitors as part of its monitoring sub-programmes.

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

Cyprus should:

In general:

(a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant EU legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive 77 , the Birds, Directive 78 , the Water Framework Directive 79 and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 80 with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD- specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements (habitats and species) and parameters monitored.

(b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by UNEP/MAP.

(c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level.

In particular:

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6):

(d)develop targets for birds and mammals;

(e)building upon point (a), adapt existing monitoring (e.g. under HBD or WFD) to meet the objectives of the MSFD of achieving GES;

(f)develop the monitoring programme to cover offshore areas, where appropriate, and cover terrestrial habitats in the case of birds;

(g)develop the monitoring programme for fish biodiversity to include non-commercial fish species and coastal fish;

(h)develop the monitoring programme for seabed habitats to ensure a wider spatial scope is monitored, where appropriate.

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(i)develop targets;

(j)extend monitoring to other key species groups and habitat types such as phytoplankton and zooplanktonic species; macrobenthos (sediments) and pelagic fish.

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5):

(k)extend its monitoring sub-programmes to cover additional geographic areas beyond coastal waters, where necessary based on a risk assessment.

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7):

(l)develop targets;

(m)strengthen the monitoring programme to assess hydrographical significant and permanent changes.

On contaminants (Descriptor 8):

(n)develop a monitoring programme of contamination effects on biota, where necessary, as per GES definition.

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9):

(o)develop a monitoring programme that covers all seafood for consumption, as per GES definition.

On marine litter (Descriptor 10):

(p)develop monitoring of micro-litter.

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11):

(q)develop targets ;

(r)develop, as appropriate, monitoring on impulsive noise.

12. Latvia

Latvia reported under Article 11 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in December 2014. In total, Latvia’s Article 11 reporting includes consists of 22 sub-programmes covering all descriptors, apart from mammals and fish (D1, 4). Latvia has not defined good environmental status (GES) 81 and targets for birds, mammals and fish (Descriptors 1, 4), as well as hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment

The adequacy of the Latvian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Latvia in 2013.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.

*Timeline of coverage is not reported by Latvia

Achievements so far

-Although Latvia has not yet defined GES and targets for birds (Descriptors 1, 4) hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8), marine litter (Descriptor 10), energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11), it has nevertheless reported monitoring programmes, which is positive as it indicates that some monitoring for these descriptors is already taking place in view of a future GES/targets definition.

-Efforts have been by Latvia to link its monitoring programmes with existing ones at Union level in the context of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (seabed and water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8), contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9), the Common Fisheries Policy (Descriptor 3), the Birds Directive (birds), the Habitats Directive (non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6)), the Nitrates Directive (eutrophication (Descriptor 5)) and Commission Regulation No 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9)).

-Regional cooperation is referred to by Latvia, with HELCOM being linked to monitoring activities under most descriptors. Latvia reports that existing gaps in its monitoring programmes, as well as transboundary issues will be progressively addressed, often in the context of regional cooperation through HELCOM.

Aspects where improvement is needed

-According to the technical assessment, the Latvian monitoring programme and sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses that affect their coverage of GES and targets. This is applicable, to various extents, to all descriptors.

-Latvia has not defined GES and targets for birds, mammals and fish (Descriptors 1, 4), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).

-Latvia does not report any monitoring programmes and associated timeline for mammals and fish (Descriptors 1, 4).

-Latvia does not elaborate on major environmental changes and emerging issues. It states that its monitoring programmes are not statistically tested for their ability to identify major changes in the environment, and thus cannot identify new and emerging issues.

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

Latvia should:

In general:

(a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant Union legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive 82 , the Birds Directive 83 , the Water Framework Directive 84 and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 85 with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD- specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored.

(b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by HELCOM.

(c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level.

In particular:

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6):

(d)develop GES and targets for birds, mammals and fish

(e)develop monitoring programmes for mammals as soon as possible.

(f)further develop its monitoring programmes, refine survey methods and render them operational as soon as possible.

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(g)further develop its existing monitoring programme to cover pathways of introduction;

(h)further develop its existing monitoring programme to monitor NIS distribution and biomass, as per GES definition.

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5):

(i)expand its monitoring programme to cover additional elements and parameters (e.g. macroalgal colonisation depth along transects from shore), as per its GES definition.

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7)

(j)develop GES and targets.

On contaminants (Descriptor 8):

(k)develop GES and targets.

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9):

(l)expand its monitoring programme to cover additional species (beyond the four species identified), as per its GES definition.

On marine litter (Descriptor 10)

(m)develop GES and targets.

On energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11

(n)develop GES and targets.

13. Lithuania

Lithuania reported under article 11 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in March

2015. In total, Lithuania’s article 11 reporting consists of 23 sub-programmes covering all descriptors, apart from mammals (Descriptors 1, 4) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment

The adequacy of the Lithuanian MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) 86 and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by Lithuania in 2013.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.

*Not reported, **inaccuracies and lack of data in paper report

Achievements so far

-According to the technical assessment Lithuania has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its GES determination and environmental targets, for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5), and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9).

-Although Lithuania has not yet defined GES and targets for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11), it has nevertheless reported monitoring programmes, which is positive as it indicates that some monitoring for these descriptors is already taking place in view of a future GES/targets definition, even though it is fairly high-level for energy, including underwater noise (Descriptor 11).

-Some efforts have been by Lithuania to link its monitoring programmes with existing ones at Union level in the context of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for fish and cephalopods, seabed habitats, and water column habitats (Descriptors 1, 4, 6) monitoring, as well as for eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), contaminants (Descriptor 8) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9). The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) forms the basis of the monitoring programmes for commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and fish (Descriptors 1, 4). The Habitats Directive has been linked with fish and cephalopods, seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) and eutrophication (Descriptor 5).

-Regional cooperation is systematically referenced by the Member State, with HELCOM being linked to monitoring activities under most descriptors. Lithuania reports that existing gaps in its monitoring programme, as well as transboundary issues will be progressively addressed, often in the context of regional cooperation through HELCOM.

Aspects where improvement is needed

-According to the technical assessment, the Lithuanian monitoring programmes and sub-programmes show a number of weaknesses for birds, fish and cephalopods, water column and seabed habitats (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6), non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) and contaminants (Descriptor 8).

-Furthermore, Lithuania has not defined a specific MSFD monitoring programme for mammals (Descriptors 1, 4).

-Lithuania has not defined GES and targets for mammals (Descriptors 1, 4), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and energy and underwater noise (Descriptor 11).

-A timeline for adequate monitoring of mammals has not been reported by the Member State.

-Justifications and plans have not been presented for the birds monitoring, which the Member State reports will be adequate after 2020.

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

Lithuania should:

In general:

(a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant EU legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive 87 , the Birds, Directive 88 , the Water Framework Directive 89 and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 90 with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD- specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored.

(b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by HELCOM.

(c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level.

In particular:

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6):

(d)develop GES and targets on mammals;

(e)develop a monitoring programme for mammals as soon as possible;

(f)further develop its monitoring programme for fish to ensure the coverage of non-commercial species.

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(g)make efforts to monitor more hotspots and pathways of introduction, as per GES definition.

(h)further develop its existing monitoring programme to ensure that collected data is adequately assessed to monitor impact, as per GES definition.

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7):

(i)develop GES and targets.

On marine litter (Descriptor 10):

(j)develop GES and targets.

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11):

(k)develop GES and targets.

(l)develop monitoring sub-programmes for underwater noise.

14. Netherlands

The Netherlands reported under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in October 2014. The Dutch Article 11 reporting includes 28 sub-programmes covering all descriptors except hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7). This descriptor was reported in the general monitoring programme reporting sheet.

Conclusions on Member State-specific technical assessment

The adequacy of the Dutch MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering whether the programme and related sub-programmes are sufficient to cover the monitoring needs for the assessment of progress towards good environmental status (GES) 91 and achievement of environmental targets, as defined by the Netherlands in 2013.

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of:

-The conclusions of the technical assessment in relation to the coverage of GES and targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes;

-The Member State’s own assessment of the date by which their monitoring programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets;

-Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps.

Achievements so far

-The technical assessment shows that the Netherlands has developed its monitoring programme and sub-programmes in a consistent manner with its MSFD environmental targets. The Dutch monitoring programme is considered sufficient to assess progress towards all targets except those for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7),

-With regard to measuring progress towards GES, the Dutch programme is considered sufficient for a number of key pressure descriptors, including those on commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3), eutrophication (Descriptor 5) and contaminants (Descriptor 8) and contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9).

-The Dutch monitoring programme shows a high level of consistency with the standards and guidelines produced by OSPAR, bringing in a strong regional dimension in the work done by the Member State.

-The Netherlands has provided plans for future work for a number of descriptors, even though it considers that its monitoring programme is, for the most part, already adequate to measure progress towards its GES and targets. This is in line with the principle of adaptive management.

Aspects where improvement is needed

-According to the technical assessment, the Dutch monitoring programme shows a few weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets for biodiversity (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6) (although relatively minor) and descriptors considered less advanced in terms of knowledge and methodologies, i.e. non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7).

-In particular for hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7), the Netherlands has not yet defined a specific MSFD monitoring sub-programme and any monitoring currently done on hydrographical changes is done under other processes (e.g. Water Framework Directive and licensing procedures).

Outcome of descriptor-specific assessment

Netherlands should:

In general:

(a)continue to integrate monitoring programmes already existing under relevant Union legislation and other international agreements, in particular the Habitats Directive 92 , the Birds, Directive 93 , the Water Framework Directive 94 and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 95 with MSFD monitoring programmes, while at the same time ensuring that MSFD- specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored.

(b)continue to implement, where they exist, coordinated and joint monitoring programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by OSPAR.

(c)enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within its marine region, in particular, by considering the monitoring scope, coverage, frequency and choice of indicators with practices at the regional level.

In particular:

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptor 1, 4 and 6):

(d)develop further its biodiversity monitoring sub-programmes to addresses some of the minor weaknesses identified (e.g. coverage of relevant monitoring parameters).

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2):

(e)further develop its monitoring programme to cover relevant habitats or species groups (e.g. water-bound NIS, such as phytoplankton and zooplankton species) using a risk-based approach, as well as additional activities, hotspots and pathways of introduction.

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7):

(f)complement the monitoring sub-programme, in particular to ensure the monitoring of activities beyond coastal zones, where necessary.

On marine litter (Descriptor 10):

(g)further improve its sub-programmes in relation to the monitoring of microlitter and, where necessary, impacts on marine biota.

15. Portugal