MSFD Article 16 – Notifications and Commission’s assessment

On the basis of the notifications of programmes of measures made pursuant to Article 13(9), the Commission shall assess whether, in the case of each Member State, the programmes notified constitute an appropriate framework to meet the requirements of this Directive and may ask the Member State concerned to provide any additional information that is available and necessary.

In drawing up those assessments, the Commission shall consider the coherence of programmes of measures within the different marine regions or subregions and across the Community.

Within six months of receiving all those notifications, the Commission informs Member States concerned whether, in its opinion, the programmes of measures notified are consistent with this Directive and provides guidance on any modifications it considers necessary.

Good examples

Belgium has addressed a prior gap and has covered impulsive noise from unexploded ordnances (UxO) by focusing on limiting the amount of impulsive noise events. With regards to continuous noise, Belgium has defined a measure focussing on optimizing shipping approach routes during construction/maintenance of offshore wind farms or other offshore infrastructure to avoid vulnerable areas functioning as a biodiversity hotspot, breeding or nursery spots for herring, sharks, rays, etc.

Similarly to other countries in the Baltic Sea, Estonia has committed to actively contribute to HELCOM activities on underwater noise, and to apply HELCOM recommendations and action plan in Estonian waters. This commitment ensures that the management of underwater noise will be at the state-of-the-art of practices in the region, and consistent with the implementation made by the other Member States of the region.

Examples of measures related to climate change mitigation:

Blue carbon ecosystem protection - Spain is quantifiyng the CO2 capture service by seagrass meadows and macroalgae forests. This work should contribute to identify the most vulnerable grasslands and forests and thus evaluate projects that may threaten these communities or to propose conservation projects, mitigation and restoration of climate change in Spanish waters.

Offshore wind and renewable energy - Portugal is drawing up of the Public Initiative Allocation Plan for Offshore Renewable Energy (PAER). The plan applied the ecosystem-based approach to maritime spatial planning in order to define the areas dedicated to the development of offshore wind farm while protecting marine ecosystems and habitats. France will set up the National Offshore Wind Observatory to disseminate existing studies and data on offshore wind power and to share the knowledge.

Greening shipping - Spain will make an analysis the impacts of liner ferries possibility in view of a possible adjustment of the frequency of inter-island ferries to the real demand. This option would have the purpose of reducing the potential impact on cetacean populations in these areas and reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

Examples of measures related to adaptation and resilience:

Study/assessment impact of climate change – Latvia is carrying out an assessment of the effectiveness of the measures taken to protect seals, taking into account trends in seal populations as well as the impact of climate change on the marine environment.

Flood protection – Finland is implementing nature-based solutions to reduce flood impacts in river basin districts. Slovenia is implementing measures to prevent adverse effects of flood events on important nature protection habitats.

Good examples

Noteworthy practices include Germany’s "climate check" to ensure future measure effectiveness, Estonia inclusion of a study to assess climate change impacts, and Slovenia’s emphasis on habitat protection. These examples highlight proactive steps taken by some countries to integrate climate change considerations into their marine strategies comprehensively.

Ireland included the National Climate Action Plan as a measure to make sure that marine considerations were included in its development. In the country, the public consultation process specifically addressed how the impact of climate change could be considered in the programmes of measures.

Cyprus recognition of climate change as a cross-cutting issue and Portugal emphasis on the key role of the MSFD in addressing climate change and pollution underline the multifaceted approach needed to tackle environmental challenges effectively.

Descriptor

Coherence of programmes of measures

Justification

Use of exceptions in the region

Pollution

Eutrophication (D5)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

Only some Member States provide an overview of the current status of the marine environment in relation to D5: BE, DE and SE report that they have not achieved GES for D5 while PT reports that it has achieved GES already. Five Member States (BE, DE, ES, IE and SE)  provide a partial analysis of the gaps to achieve GES for D5. None of the Member States provide a detailed analysis of the activities causing nutrient pressures nor how current measures taken under other frameworks address these pressures. Only DE assesses the potential contribution of individual measures within the programmes of measures to the achievement of the GES. It is unclear for most Member States when GES might be achieved with a general lack of information on timelines for achieving GES.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

Overall, the Member States relied more on measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks (68%) compared to MSFD-specific measures (32%) although this varied significantly between Member States ( 235 ). Out of 90 measures reported for D5, 40 were WFD measures and 6 Member States out of 8 refer to the WFD as a driver for their D5 measures. Other frameworks referred to by Member States for D5 include UWWTD and OSPAR. Less than half of the Member States mention MARPOL or existing legislative/policy frameworks relevant to controlling air emissions. Only BE, DE, ES and FR) reported new MSFD-specific measures, including measures to address airborne nutrient inputs, inputs from aquaculture and shipping, handling of fertiliser in ports and restoration of seagrass beds and tidal nature.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

Only DE and SE adequately covered all relevant pressures with their measures in this second cyle and BE and ES did so partially. 90% of the measures for D5 address the input of nutrient, 55% also address the input of organic matter and only 5% of measures address biological disturbance. Key activities related to D5 pressures identified by Member States include urban wastewater, agriculture, shipping, airborne emissions and urban run-off. DE also identifies aquaculture and handling of fertiliser at ports as activities giving rise to pressures that require management.

·Purpose and content of measures

Given that legislation and policy is well established in this area, the measures across Member States have a similar focus. There is evidence of further measures being brought forward, particularly in relation airborne emissions, ship emissions and nutrient inputs from agriculture and aquaculture. Some measures seeking to reduce the effects of eutrophication are also being implemented, for example, restoring tidal nature (BE) and restoring seagrass meadows (DE).

Three Member States out of eight applied for exception, FR, NL and SE. Two Member States, NL and FR, applied exceptions under Art. 14(4), both citing the disproportionate cost of reducing eutrophication.

Two Member States, NL ands SE, applied exceptions under Art. 14(1)(e), justifying that the factors contributing to eutrophication are complex, making estimating any date for achieving GES highly speculative. In addition, one Member State, NL, also applies for exception under Art. 14(1)(a), that other Member States’ actions also influence eutrophication.

Contaminants (D8)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

None of the Member States provided a clear and comprehensive gap analysis, all reported partial (BE, DE, IE, SE and NL) to poor (ES, FR and PT) information. The main gaps identified are in relation to Hg, Pb, PCBs and TBT. FR did not provide a quantitative gap analysis, although clear thresholds have been set for D8. BE, IE, NL, and SE provided an overview of the current status of contaminants, with IE reporting that it has achieved GES for D8. In the remaining Member States, although GES is not achieved for D8, some report progress for some substances, e.g. BE reports a positive trend for priority substances (EQS) and illegal discharges (GES ≥ 50%) and NL highlights that pollutant concentrations have been significantly reduced and are still decreasing or stable. NL highlights that for most substances GES is likely to be achieved in the period 2022-2028. However, for persistent substances it is still difficult to demonstrate the impact of the policy. SE notes that despite the reduction of some pollutants above the GES thresholds, the current rate of reduction will not be sufficient to achieve GES in the near future. No Member State analyse how first cycle and updated existing measures will reduce the pressures. No Member State clearly presented conclusions on future socio-economic development to determine future environmental pressures. Only DE indicates that MSFD-specific measures have been subject to an appropriate level of socio-economic impact assessment.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States reported measures falling under the WFD, all but PT and SE reported measures taken under OSPAR, all but ES and SE refer to MARPOL, ES, IE, PT, and SE refer to UWWTD and BE, DE, NL, and SE refer to the Bonn Agreement. BE, DE, ES, FR, IE refer to IMO International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation while BE, DE, FR, and NL refer to International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships. Only DE and FR referred to the National Emissions Ceiling Directive. No Member States refer to the Zero Pollution targets. All of IE and NL’s measures and between 63-75% of measures in BE, DE, FR, PT and SE come from other legislative/policy frameworks. On the other hand, ES reported most measures as MSFD-specific. DE, IE, PT and SE include measures from the 3rd RMPBs under the WFD. In no Member State in the region is the link between the measures and the gap analysis clear.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

All Member States in the region reported measures concerning input of nutrients and input of organic matter. All Member States except IE reported measures for input of synthetic and non-synthetic substances. BE, ES, IE, PT, SE also reported measures concerning contamination from ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (uPBT) substances and measures concerning acute pollution events. Only DE, ES, and SE reported measures related to the input of water-point sources (e.g. brine), while BE, ES, IE, and SE reported measures concerning adverse effects on species or habitats. It is worth noting that Member States reported a large number of pressures not specifically related to D8 (contamination in seafood (ES, IE, SE), eutrophication (BE, ES, IE, PT, SE) and newly introduced non-indigenous species (BE, ES, SE), as well as various physical and biological pressures. There is moderate coherence in the activities identified by Member States in the region. BE, ES, FR, SE and DE linked their measures to most activities relevant to D8, while PT and IE focused on a smaller number of activities. MSFD-specific measures in BE, DE, SE focus on anti-fouling, while ES, FR, and SE focus on recreational activities. DE and SE tackle underwater munitions, BE shipwrecks, ES and FR cover dredging, SE addresses contaminated sediment and DE takes measures related to mining. Aquaculture is tackled by BE and DE, and DE, FR, and SE focus on shipping. ES and FR refer to scrubbers. NL takes measures referring to PFAS, ES to oiled fauna, BE to fishing lead, DE to sunscreen, and FR has a number of measures focused on education and raising awareness.

·Purpose and content of measures

The types of measures reported by Member States are moderately coherent, although it is noted that neither IE nor NL reported the purpose of measures in the electronic reporting, and BE and DE did not do so for a significant share of measures. The other Member States took direct measures to prevent further inputs of a pressure (e.g. by managing the source activity), BE, DE, ES and SE took direct measures to reduce existing levels of the pressure (e.g. removal of litter or oil spill clean-up) and all except PT took measures to indirectly prevent further inputs of a pressure (e.g. by governance mechanisms, financial incentives, awareness campaigns). DE, ES, FR, SE, PT also took measures to improve the knowledge based and/or establish monitoring programmes. Only SE reported measures to assess the effectiveness of measures and PT reported a measure to directly restore a species or habitat.

Four Member States out of eight applied for an exception: FR, NL, PT and SE. Among those Member States, coherence is considered as moderate.

FR, NL and SE applied for exceptions under Art. 14(1)(e). The reasons given by these three Member States are linked: persistent contaminants are a long-term issue, and it can take many years for measures to be effective. PT applied for an exception under Art. 14(4) - 'No significant risk or disproportionate cost', however, it did not provide details to understand the spatial extent of contamination is and whether there are ongoing contaminant inputs that might delay recovery.

FR additionally applied for exception under Art. 14(1)(a), reasoning that harmonised rules for the use of scrubbers in specific areas is the responsibility of the IMO and the EU and the adoption of Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA) is the responsibility of IMO.

Contaminants in seafood (D9)

Poor coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

BE, IE and NL did not carry out a gap analysis because they assess that GES is currently achieved in their waters for D9 and should continue to be without the need for further measures. The other Member States reported either a partial gap analysis (DE, SE) or insufficient information on the main elements of the gap analysis (ES, FR, PT). Half of the Member States provide clear information on the current status of contaminants in seafood (BE, IE, NL, SE). In addition to the three Member States concluding that GES is currently achieved for D9, SE indicates that GES is achieved for contaminants in food in the North Sea. DE reports on GES for D8 in the North Sea, but not for D9. For the remaining Member States, the current status is not known (ES, FR, PT). No Member State provides information on the extent to which current measures will reduce pressures. In most Member States it is unclear whether the baseline used to inform the gap analysis takes into account future development activity, considers alternative scenarios or indicates the extent to which socio-economic factors have been taken into account. In addition, no Member State provides information on the effectiveness of the measures. All Member States fail to report on a timeline for achieving GES.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

Looking at all measures reported under D9, 75% of them fall under other legislative/policy frameworks. While FR, IE and SE relied heavily on measures under other legislative/policy frameworks (90% of their measures), BE relied mostly on MSFD-specific measures (85% of their measures). DE, ES, NL and PL defined a balanced mix of already existing and MSFD-specific measures. The most common reference to an existing framework is obviously the Regulation setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (BE, ES, FR, IE, NL and PT). The WFD is also reported as relevant to D9 by ES, FR, IE, PT and SE, and the UWWTD by PT and SE. ES and PT link to the MSP Directive. Only DE and FR link their measures to OSPAR and SE links D9 measures to many additional frameworks related to pollution (e.g. REACH, Stockholm Convention, etc.) Even if gaps were not clearly identified in any Member State, DE, ES, FR, IE and SE modified MSFD-specific measures from the first cycle or defined additional ones in the second cycle. This includes one measure to improve data collection on contaminants in fishing products and for the proposal of new contaminants (ES) and the other to raise awareness among boaters on the issue of managing discharges from offshore pleasure craft (FR). It is noted that most MS report that they have either achieved GES or are close to doing so – this would explain the lack of additional/modified measures (moderate coherence).

·Coverage of pressures and activities

All Member States except BE address the D9-specific pressure of ‘Contaminants in seafood’. Other pressures linked to D9 measures directly overlap with D8: ‘Input of other substances (e.g. synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides)’ (DE, ES, FR, NL, PT, SE), ‘Input of organic matter’ (ES, FR, IE, PT, SE) and ‘Input of nutrients’ (FR, SE). Of all the measures related to the pressure 'Contaminants in seafood', 31% are linked to specific activities, in particular ‘Waste treatment and disposal’ (FR, SE), ‘Agriculture’ (IE, SE), ‘Military operations’ (DE, SE), ‘Research, survey and educational activities’ (FR, SE) and ‘Tourism and leisure activities’ (FR, SE). One Member State partially addresses the relevant pressures (SE) and three Member States insufficiently (DE, ES, FR). For the remaining Member States, no MSFD-specific measures for D9 were adopted in the second cycle, either because they do not correspond to relevant pressures (PT) or because GES for D9 is considered to be achieved in their waters (BE, IE, NL).

·Purpose and content of measures

Looking at both first and second cycle measures, only 58% of the measures for D9 are linked to a ‘measure purpose’ (IE did not report a measure purpose for its D9 measures). Most of the measures reported will have an indirect impact on the pressures, either by indirectly preventing further inputs of a pressure (DE, FR), improving the knowledge base (DE, ES, PT) or establishing monitoring programmes (DE, ES, PT). Few measures aim at directly preventing further inputs of a pressure (SE only) or directly reducing existing levels of the pressure in the marine environment (DE, ES).

No Member State applied for an exception.

Marine litter (D10)

Moderate to high coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

Almost all Member States (except PT) provide a clear overview of the current status of the marine environment in relation to D10, mainly focusing on beach litter as all acknowledge the lack of data for assessing other D10 criteria, but only DE and SE elaborate baseline scenarios against which alternative options are compared. Only half of Member States (SE, NL, BE and FR) provide an estimation of how much the first cycle measures will reduce pressures and the related measures needed in the second cycle. Only ES and BE clearly identify gaps to be addressed (microliter and litter from fishing) and only NL refers to socio-economic developments to determine future environmental pressures. No Member State provided a timeline for achieving GES.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

IE and SE mostly relied on measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks for D10, while DE and ES mostly on MSFD-specific measures. The other four (FR, BE, NL and PT) adopted a balanced mix of already established and MSFD-specific measures. EU legislation ( 236 ) is a clear driver for defining measures. Additional measures from other frameworks mostly focused on tackling single plastic uses and fisheries-induced litter. All but two Member States (BE and FR) explicitly refer to the OSPAR Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

All Member States in the region except IE have made progress during the second cycle in terms of pressure coverage. 47% of MSFD-specific measures aim at reducing the input of litter while 30% aim at reducing the pressure level in the environment. Of those that aim at reducing the input, however, only 20% are direct measures, managing the source activities and 40% are indirect, aiming at preventing further inputs of a pressure (e.g. by governance mechanisms, financial incentives, awareness campaigns). Almost 30% of measures are still dedicated to improving the knowledge base and therefore have no immediate effect on reducing marine litter. All Member States in the region report addressing the same group of activities with their D10 measures: fisheries, shipping, tourism and recreational activities, port operations, industry and urban areas. In addition, some Member States identify other sources at sea (e.g. offshore installations in DE), and on land (e.g. packaging in DE and NL, aquaculture in FR and DE) as main contributors to the litter problem and defined new measures to address them.

·Purpose and content of measures

As far as macrolitter is concerned, all Member States put their main focus on beach litter and less on seabed or water column litter. DE and ES specify that their cleaning actions should address litter in all areas, not only the beach, and NL defines different measures for different categories of litter (e.g. measures specifically dedicated to doly rope, balloons, plastic pellets). In total, 54 measures in five Member States (BE, NL, ES, DE and SE) address microlitter, targeting industry and urban areas as well as tourism/recreational activities and to a small degree fisheries (measures for better management of fishing gears). Some measures are directly aimed at reducing the input of the pressure (e.g. management of fishing gears), while the majority are aimed at reducing the pressure level (e.g. fishing for litter, beach and street clean-up activities).

Two Member States out of eight (BE and SE) applied for exceptions, but under different Articles. BE applied under Art. 14(1)(a), and SE under Art. 14(1)(e). BE’s exception however may be a reporting mistake ( 237 ). SE’s justification is that 80 % of litter found on its beaches are from other countries, with estimates that more time is therefore required to meet the threshold (4-5 management cycles).

Underwater noise (D11)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

The information regarding the gap analysis varies a lot across the Member States in the region. BE is the only Member State that provides a complete gap analysis, identifying which additional measures are in place to address gaps. DE, IE and NL do not provide all information, but have, to some extent identified significant gaps to achieve targets and ultimately GES for D11. It is not clear whether ES, FR and SE have adequately addressed all significant gaps to achieve GES. For ES, a gap analysis was carried out focused mainly on progress against environmental targets. There is no information about the current GES status baseline scenario, consideration of how much current measures will reduce pressures, future socio-economic developments, or an indication of the timeline for when GES will be achieved. Similarly, FR carried out a gap analysis but with limited details and SE explained how the gap analysis was performed and how it was the basis for the selection of the new measures for the second cycle. PT does not provide a gap analysis for D11.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

Some Member States, such as DE, ES and FR, provide many links to various relevant existing policies for D11, while others only refer to a few. IE only refers to OSPAR and IMO and NL only to IMO. Overall, measures are aften linked to OSPAR (DE, ES, FR and IE), and IMO guidelines for reduction of underwater noise from commercial shipping (FR, NL, IE) and the Habitats and Birds Directive (ES, FR). Overall, the Member States relied both on measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks and MSFD specific measures. While IE and NL defined only measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks, the other Member States defined a mix of both types. As a result of the gap analysis, even if clear shortcomings were not identified in most Member States, all Member States except IE and NL modified MSFD-specific measures from the first cycle or defined additional ones in the second cycle to address the gap to achieve GES.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

All Member States in the region have made some progress during the second cycle in terms of pressure coverage. BE reinforced the first cycle measure to tackle the most prominent source of underwater noise in their water. DE updated its MSFD-specific measure by leveraging HELCOM recommendations to reduce the use of continuous and impulse sound. SE implemented guidelines for minimizing the risk of adverse effects to marine mammals from seismic surveys. PT addresses explicitly continuous noise but not impulsive noise. Its measures are still focused on improving the knowledge base. ES also sets out to increase their knowledge of the current state of underwater noise. Except for one measure generally addressing ‘industrial operations’, most of FR measures are ‘soft measures’ aimed at raising awareness and knowledge. In terms of activities, all Member States address some relevant human activities causing both impulsive (defence operations (DE, SE, BE, ES, FR, NL), renewable energy (BE, DE, NL, SE, ES) and continuous noise (shipping (all MS), recreational activities (ES, FR), fishing (ES, FR). FR talks generally about ‘industrial operations’.

·Purpose and content of measures

Considering both first and second cycle reporting, around 35% of the measures are direct measures (aimed at directly reducing further input of the pressure or aimed at directly reduce existing levels of the pressure in the marine environment) and this is from all Member States except FR. The majority of the measures (60%) are indirect, including, around 34% of the measures dedicated to improving the knowledge base (from all Member States except IE and SE) and establishing monitoring programmes (DE, ES and PT). Continuous and impulsive sound are equally addressed by most Member States except PT, which only addresses continuous noise explicitly. DE and BE remain the only Member States to have defined specific measures to address other form of energy, including electromagnetic fields, light and heat (e.g. in DE application of threshold values for the introduction of heat and development and application of environmentally sound lighting of offshore installations; in BE, investigating the impact of electromagnetic fields on gravel beds and associated fauna). NL reported a measure to address light on oil and gas platforms in 2016, but it seems to have been dropped in the second cycle.

No Member State applied for an exception.

Biodiversity

Biodiversity (D1)

Moderate to high coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

A gap analysis was undertaken by almost all Member States in the region (BE, DE, ES, FR, IE, NL, SE).Almost all Member States provide a clear overview of the current status (BE, DE, FR (Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast), IE, NL, SE), focusing on four feature groups (birds, mammals, fish and pelagic habitats) and identifying pressures and activities affecting the marine environment. Only DE elaborates a baseline scenario to use as a benchmark against which alternative options are compared and only FR presents an estimate of how much the first cycle measures will reduce pressures. BE, DE and FR consider future socio-economic development to determine future environmental pressures and present clear conclusions of the effectiveness of the measures. All Member States fail to report on a timeline for achieving GES.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States defined measures linked to the Habitats and Birds Directives. The CFP was also linked to biodiversity measures by all Member States, the MSP Directive by most (BE, DE, ES, IE, PT, SE) and OSPAR in a majority (DE, ES, FR, IE, NL, PT). Four Member States (DE, FR, IE, NL) mentioned the CBD but only two DE and FR have measures linked to the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Overall, most Member States (BE, DE, FR, PT, SE) defined a balanced mix of measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks and MSFD-specific measures for D1. A few Member States (ES, IE, NL) relied more heavily on the former than the latter when drawing up their PoMs. MSFD-specific measures directly address the pressures in ES, FR and SE, and partially in DE, IE and NL ( 238 ).

·Coverage of pressures and activities

All Member states have recognised the need to address pressures on marine species and habitats and have made progress since the previous cycle. There is a general trend towards implementing spatial protection measures and targeting specific pressures like species disturbance (all Member States), fisheries (ES, FR, and DE), and bycatch (all but IE). All but one Member States (IE) defined measures addressing disturbance of species (e.g., where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence, and all but two (NL, PT) defined measures addressing extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities. DE, ES and FR reported measures targeting loss of, or change to, natural biological communities due to cultivation of animal or plant species. The primary activities causing pressures on marine biodiversity, including fish and shellfish harvesting, maritime transport, tourism and recreational pursuits, port operations, industrial processes, urban development and hunting, are broadly and effectively addressed by all Member States.

·Purpose and content of measures

Over half of the new MSFD-specific measures aim to directly reduce or prevent inputs of pressures, the rest focusing on monitoring, gaining knowledge, or assessing effectiveness of measures. BE, ES, PT, and SE report considerably more direct measures than other Member States and FR reports more indirect measures. IE reports only a small number of MSFD-specific measures, a few are dedicated to MPA legislation and management, and one is linked to the OSPAR North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy 2030. Around a third of the measures continues to focus on enriching the knowledge base, as reported by all Member States except IE and NL, with a notable number of such measures in FR and ES. Only ES, FR, and SE have dedicated measures to evaluate their effectiveness. In addition to the activities mentioned before, several Member States pinpoint additional sources at sea (e.g., offshore installations in DE) and on land (e.g., packaging in DE and NL; aquaculture in FR and DE) as significant contributors to biodiversity pressures, introducing new measures to tackle these challenges. BE, NL and FR focus on fishing and development plans for specific species. PT defines as main issues human activities such as tourism, recreational activities, and urban development. ES and SE cover different activities through monitoring, research and improving knowledge. IE mainly focuses on MPAs designation and OSPAR activities. All Member States use spatial protection measures, but only BE, ES, PT, SE expand existing MPAs or create new ones.

Two Member States out of eight, FR and SE, applied for the same type of exception (Art.(1)(a) for Descriptor 1 but provide different justifications.

Both Member States invoke the need to involve higher-level processes to adopt measures to protect biodiversity against fisheries impacts. FR mentions the processes of mapping Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems under the Deep-Sea Access Regulation and the joint adoption of technical measures applicable to all EU vessels under the Technical Measures Regulation. SE considered that the GES for fish depends heavily on implementation of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

NIS (D2)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

A gap analysis was undertaken by all Member States in the region. Almost all Member States provide a clear overview of the current status (BE, DE, IE, NL, SE) mainly focusing on newly introduced NIS (D2C1) as information on established NIS and adverse effects is missing (only BE stated that two NIS could lead to changes in the ecosystem). All Member States except PT present pressures and activities causing NIS: shipping, aquaculture (BE, DE, ES, IE, NL, SE), recreational activities (IE and SE), offshore windfarms (BE) and release of species (FR and SE). The other elements of the gap analysis are less coherent. DE, SE and partially IE provide an estimation of how much the first cycle measures will reduce pressures, concluding on the need to define additional measures in the second cycle. While gaps are not clearly defined in most Member States, ES and DE clearly identify priorities for the second programmes of measures, including early warning system for NIS. The elements of the gap analysis that were more difficult to elaborate on are baseline scenarios and consideration of future socio-economic development to determine future environmental pressures (only presented by BE). Most importantly, all Member States fail to report on a timeline for achieving GES.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States except BE and DE refer to the Invasive Alien Species Regulation, FR, NL, PT and SE refer to the IMO Ballast Water Convention and DE, ES, FR and IE refer to OSPAR. Other EU legislation are also a clear driver for defining measures: Habitats Directive (ES, FR, BE IE and PT), regulation on the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture (DE, IE and SE), WFD (ES, FR and SE) and CFP (ES and FR). Member States relied to a different degree on measures taken under other frameworks. IE and NL only relied on measures taken under other frameworks while ES relied mostly on MSFD-specific measures. FR, BE, DE, PT and SE defined a balanced mix of already established measures and MSFD-specific. 39% of the measures are specific to D2, i.e. they specifically address the implementation of guidelines for biofouling, tackle invasive species (e.g. the proliferation of Rugulopteryx okamurae) or define early warning systems. These measures have addressed to a great extent the relevant pressures. The other measures (61%) are reported as being relevant to more than one descriptor (in particular they also cover D1, D10, D6 and D8).

·Coverage of pressures and activities

Half of the Member States in the region have made some progress during the second cycle in terms of pressure coverage (SE, BE, NL, DE). DE and SE adequately address all pressures with their new measures in the second cycle, while FR, ES, BE and PT) do this only partially. IE and NL do not report any MSFD-specific new measures for D2. Relevant activities are targeted by most Member States: shipping for both ballast water and hull fouling (BE, DE, ES, IE, NL and SE) and aquaculture (All Member States except NL). In addition, other Member States identify other pathways of NIS introduction: recreational boating (IE and SE), offshore windfarms (BE) and release of species (FR and SE).

·Purpose and content of measures

There are more MSFD-specific measures aimed at reducing the input of NIS (68% from BE, DE, ES, FR, and SE), than measures aimed at reducing the pressure level in the environment (13% from ES, FR and SE). In addition, of those that aim at reducing the input, 46% of the measures are direct measures, managing the source activities and 54% are indirect measures aiming at preventing further inputs of a pressure (e.g. by governance mechanisms, financial incentives, awareness campaigns). A high proportion of measures is still dedicated to improving the knowledge base (19% - defined by ES, FR, PT and SE). BE, DE, ES and SE defined measures aimed at establishing monitoring programmes and only SE defined measures aimed at assessing their effectiveness. FR and SE are the only Member States that established measures aimed at restoring habitats.

No Member State applied for an exception.

Commercial fish and shellfish (D3)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

A gap analysis was undertaken by all Member States in the region. Most provided a clear overview of the current status (BE, DE, IE, NL, SE) mainly focusing on the status of the different commercially fished stocks. Across multiple Member States it is acknowledged that GES for D3 has not been fully achieved (BE, DE, ES, FR, NL, PT). Although some stocks were showing ‘good status’ or improving trends (BE, IE, NL, SE), most stocks in the NEA region remain ‘not good’ and ‘poor’ status (BE, DE, IE, NL, PT). All Member States identified the main pressure as extraction of fish and shellfish species, resulting from fishing activities. The other elements of the gap analysis are less coherently presented. Five Member States partially provided an estimate of how much first cycle measures reduced pressures (BE, DE, ES, NL, SE) concluding on the need for additional measures (ES, BE, FR) or strengthening implementation of first cycle measures (DE, NL, SE). The following priorities were identfied for D3 measure updates: recreational fisheries (ES, FR), control of artisanal fishing (ES), locally-managed stocks (FR) and collection of data for dogfish, sharks and rays (BE). The elements of the gap analysis that were less well elaborated were baseline scenarios (only presented by BE and partially by IE) and consideration of future socio-economic development (only presented by BE). Most importantly, all Member States failed to report on a timeline for achieving GES. NL stated that existing policies are adequate to achieve GES in the coming years, however it did not provide a clear timeframe for this.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States linked their D3 measures to the CFP. Some Member States reported only the main CFP regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013) as a measure (e.g. DE, PT, NL), while others reported additional regulations (multi-annual plans, Technical Measures Regulation, EMFAF, DCF) (e.g. BE, SE, FR, IE, ES). ES and PT also specifically referred to regulations from ICCAT. FR, IE and PT mostly relied on measures taken under other frameworks for D3, while ES and SE on MSFD-specific measures. BE and DE defined a mix of already established measures and MSFD-specific. NL only relied on already established measures.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

Only FR and SE adequately address all pressures with the new measures in the second cycle, while BE, DE and ES did this only partially. NL and PT did not report any new measures specific for D3 and new measures reported by IE are considered to be cross-cutting to all descriptors. Logically, all Member States identify fishing as the main activity causing the pressure for D3 and all have measures that address commercial fishing activity but only some explicitly address recreational fishing (ES, BE, FR, SE). In addition, some Member States identified other relevant activities for the health of fish and shellfish populations, such as tourism (ES and SE), aquaculture (ES, IE, SE), agriculture (ES, SE), extraction of minerals (BE, ES and SE), renewable energy generation (ES, SE) and research (ES, IE) and defined new measures to address them (e.g. to minimise tourism impact, SE report a measure on the protection of the habitat of specific species).

·Purpose and content of measures

In total 165 measures address the extraction of species by Member States in the region, 37 measures (22.4%) are directly aimed at reducing the input of the pressure (e.g. by implementing the CFP, enforcing technical measures, introducing fisheries resources management plans and enhancing control over commercial fishing activities) and at reducing the pressure level (e.g. promoting the collection of lost fishing gear and ensuring compliance with discard policies). Increasing monitoring efforts is covered by 10 measures from BE, ES and SE; and raising awareness by 50 measures (34%) from BE, DE, ES, FR, PT and SE. Most Member States in the region cover also nationally/locally managed stocks (ES, BE, DE FR, IE and SE). It is unclear whether this is the case for PT and NL. 23 measures explicitly mention ‘recreational fisheries’ from BE, ES, FR, IE and SE, ranging from regulating recreational fishing, in particular for sea bass (FR), improving fishing gear regulations (SE), implementing monitoring systems (BE). Most Member States do not have specific measures for “age and size distribution” (D3C3). Measures on this include “Promote a sustainable size distribution of coastal fish communities to retain important ecological functions in the food web” but lack practical details on implementation (SE).

Only SE applied for an exception, under Art. 14(1)(a), with the reason that SE is not responsible for all the measures that would need to be taken. Good environmental status for commercially exploited fish and shellfish is highly dependent on the implementation of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and that regulation taking into account the objectives of the MSFD. This means that SE cannot, on its own, influence whether different fish species meet the set thresholds.

Foodwebs (D4)

Poor coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

None of the Member States in the region has carried out an adequate gap analysis for food webs. FR, IE, and SE have done so only partially and BE, NL and PT have not done any. Information for DE and ES is unclear. Assessment of current status is patchy: IE simply reports status as ‘unknown’, while SE limits discussion to the size structure of different fish communities. DE concludes that food webs are not in good condition but reports that owing to a lack of methods for assessing food webs, it is not possible to provide a large amount of detail. ES does not include discussion of food webs in its gap analyses. Only IE, SE, and DE discuss pressures on food webs, with IE reporting commercial and non-commercial fishing as the main pressure, and the associated damage to benthic habitats. Clear conclusions of the effectiveness of the measures are reported by FR, DE, and SE. Baseline scenarios have been prepared by DE and FR whose analysis also considered future socio-economic development. DE also attempts to provide an indication of a timeline for achieving GES, but it is vague.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States linked their D4 measures to other legislative/policy frameworks, in particular the Habitats and Birds Directives (all Member States), the WFD (DE, FR, IE, NL, and SE) and the CFP (DE, ES, FR, IE, and SE). Links to OSPAR are also made by all Member States apart from BE while only DE and FR mentioned the Biodiversity Strategy. Five Member States (BE, DE, ES, PT, and SE) defined MSFD-specific measures for D4.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

Only ES, FR, and SE have successfully addressed previously identified pressures. IE and PT are considered as partially addressing pressures and information for BE and DE is not clear. NL has not reported new measures for D4 in the second cycle. The main pressures addressed by Member States’ measures are species extraction and disturbance, introduction of invasive species, input of sound and disturbance of seabed habitats. Only BE, DE, and SE address all of these. Extraction of species (i.e. fishing) is addressed by all Member States and disturbance of species by all except NL. NL and PT also address input of sound and PT also physical disturbance of the seabed. The main activities addressed by measures are extraction of species, restructuring of habitats, aquaculture, production of energy, transport, extraction of non-living resources and research. DE, ES, BE, FR, and SE address all these activities. NL does not mention activities at all, and IE and PT only a few.

·Purpose and content of measures

Birds, mammals, benthic habitats and ecosystems are addressed by all Member States and DE, ES and FR also address fish, cephalopods and hydrological characteristics. D4 food webs specifically links to pelagic habitats, and only NL fails to address this in its measures. BE, DE, ES, and SE report developing new MPAs, covering both D4 and D1, and FR and PT also take MPA-related measures for D4. Several Member States (DE, ES, FR, IE, SE) reported fisheries-related measures including addressing monitoring of fisheries, bycatch, or the reduction of fishing gear loss. Slightly fewer than one third of the measures aim to reduce or prevent inputs of pressures – the rest relate to monitoring, gaining knowledge, or assessing effectiveness of measures. BE and SE report considerably more direct measures, FR more indirect measures, and DE and ES about the same.

Only FR has reported exceptions for Descriptor 4 under Art. 14(1)(a), reasoning that fishing of fodder species is covered under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). As France is not solely responsible for the CFP, the European Commission must ensure that actions are being taken to meet this objective under the CFP and that fodder species are being protected.

Seabed habitats (D6)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

A gap analysis was carried out for D6 by BE, DE, FR, IE, NL and SE, while only partially by ES and PT. Only a few Member States provide a detailed overview of the current status of the seabed (BE, DE and NL). SE, IE and FR only provide partial overviews of the status of seabed integrity. ES and PT do not provide an overall view of the current state of the seabed. DE, BE, FR and NL identify significant gaps in achieving GES for D6, whilst gaps are only partially identified by SE and IE, and not identified at all by ES and PT. Most of the Member States present pressures affecting seabed integrity (FR, NL, SE, BE, DE, ES, and IE), i.e. physical disturbance and physical loss (with biological disturbance and species extraction also reported frequently), however, only DE and IE assign a main contributing human activity to these pressures (bottom-gear fishing and dredging). PT does not identify pressures or activities affecting seabed integrity. DE discusses the extent to which measures could reduce relevant pressures and only provides a vague estimate of the timeline for the expected impact of these measures. FR provides information on the potential for measures to impact pressures, however the pressures reported are more relevant to D1 than D6. BE and SE outline clearly how planned measures will reduce relevant pressures. Only BE and DE consider future socio-economic development to determine future environmental pressures. Only DE provides conclusions on the effectiveness of the measures in achieving GES and identifies significant gaps in achieving GES (partially identified by BE, IE, NL, SE, and not at all by ES and PT). All Member States fail to report on a timeline for achieving GES.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States link their D6 measures to the Habitats and Birds Directives, all except BE link to the CFP and all but FR and NL mention the MSP Directive. Only DE, IE and NL link to the EIA Directive. The CBD is mentioned by half of the Member States (DE, FR, IE, NL). All Member States except BE link their PoM to OSPAR. Overall, considering both first and second cycle measures, IE and NL mostly relied on measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks for D6, while ES, PT and SE on MSFD-specific measures. The others (BE, DE and FR) defined a balanced mix of already established measures and MSFD-specific. As a result of the gap analysis, even if clear shortcomings were not identified in most Member States, all of them modified measures from the first cycle or defined additional ones in the second cycle. New measures cover the training of fishermen to manage negative impacts in PT, national species protection plans in NL, and the coordination of the HELCOM Joint Action plan and OSPAR NE Atlantic Strategy and the regulation of water management under the Water Framework Directive in SE.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

The technical adequacy assessment concluded that only SE and ES adequately addressed all pressures while BE and DE only partially covered the relevant pressures. NL, FR, PT and IE insufficiently covered the two essential pressures. The main pressures affecting seabed habitats include both physical loss (addressed by 108 measures) and physical disturbance of the seabed (addressed by 132 measures). However, less than half of all measures reported for D6 in the North-East Atlantic are linked to these pressures. Overall, most D6 measures overlap with descriptors D1 and D4, indicating a general approach rather than specificity to the essential pressures affecting seabed integrity. Only 39% of measures for D6 are tied to activities that cause these two essential pressures on seabed integrity (and ES and PT do not report any activity). The most common activity causing physical loss and disturbance of the seabed is bottom trawl fishing, and the other most common activities are seabed mining and dredging. BE, DE, ES, FR and SE have made progress in improving the coverage of D6 pressures in the second cycle. Strong progress is seen particularly in FR while IE and PT seem to have stagnated.

·Purpose and content of measures

Looking at both first and second cycle reporting, BE, DE, ES, IE, PT and SE report more measures that prevent further inputs of the pressure than measures aimed at directly reducing its existing level in the environment (only ES) or measures directly restoring a species or habitats (only BE, DE, ES and SE). However, of those that aim at reducing the input, only 48% of the measures are direct measures, managing the source activities; 52% are indirect measures aiming at preventing further inputs of a pressure (e.g. by governance mechanisms, financial incentives, awareness campaigns). Additionally, a few measures are dedicated to improving the knowledge base (BE, DE, ES, PT and SE), establishing monitoring programmes (SE only) and assessing measure effectiveness (SE only). Most Member States rely on spatial protection and MPA measures to reduce both physical loss and disturbance of sensitive seabed habitats, with all Member States in the region reporting new spatial protection measures in the second cycle apart from PT and IE. These measures range from designing and implementing new protected areas (SE, DE, FR, BBE), to improving and enlarging the scope of existing protection (NL). PT does not report any new spatial protection measures at all and IE reports measures for the development of a framework which can be used to designate protected areas.

FR is the only Member State to apply for an exception under Art. 14(1)(a). FR reasons that action is required from the European Commission for the measures to be implemented, which is out of the control of the Member State. FR argues that the European Commission must undertake the necessary mapping of VMEs under the deep-sea fisheries regulation using Member State data.

Hydrographical changes (D7)

Poor coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

Almost all Member States reported a gap analysis for D7 (BE, DE, ES, IE, NL, SE). A majority of Member States provide an overview of the current status (BE, DE, IE, NL, SE), all of which note there are no changes since the first cycle (BE) or that GES is achieved (DE, IE, NL, SE). Activities and pressures, such as offshore structures, dredging, and coastal developments, are explicitly mentioned in the assessments of the majority Member States (BE, IE, NL, PT, SE), and all Member States that have performed gap analyses for D7 mention (large scale) human activities as having an effect on hydrography. Most Member States estimate how much measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks will reduce pressures. Some of these measures are seen as sufficient to reach GES (BE, NL, SE), while for other Member States they are not (DE, ES, PT). France, despite not having a gap analysis for D7, included a qualitative appraisal of the contribution of the measures taken under other legislative/policy towards GES. None of the Member States report a baseline, nor consider future socio-economic development to determine future environmental pressures, even for EU policy-based activities such as renewable energy and aquaculture, and when reference is made to marine plans under MSP. Clear conclusions on the effectiveness of the measures are given by most of the Member States. Some of them state that there are no changes for this descriptor (BE), or that GES is achieved (DE, IE, NL, SE). The Member States for which GES was not achieved do not give a timeline for when it would be achieved. No common forward vision has been reported for future activities and pressures that could hamper achievement of GES for D7 by causing permanent alteration in hydrological conditions.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

Some Member States (FR, PT) report multiple links to various existing policies, while some Member States (BE, IE, NL, SE) assign few specific measures to D7. The legislation most cited is the WFD (DE, ES, FR, PT, SE), followed by the Habitat Directive (DE, FR, PT) and UWWTD (FR). The MSP (ES, PT, SE) was cited, without reference to regional cooperation under this Directive; Member States also cited the Birds Directive (DE) and the EIA Directive (DE, NL). Only IE and ES cited OSPAR for D7. Considering the measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks and MSFD-specific measures, half of the Member States defined a balanced mix of both (DE, ES, FR, PT), whereas IE and NL relied more on other frameworks, and BE and SE more on MSFD-specific measures.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

Almost all Member States report MSFD-specific measures (BE, DE, ES, FR, PT). Almost all Member States report measures that address a D7-related pressure, which is related to reducing the level of impact on hydrographical changes (BE, DE, ES, IE, PT, SE). According to the adequacy assessment, however, none of the Member States comprehensively cover all pressures. BE and NL are the only Member States that show progress since the first programme of measures (BE did not have any measures for D7 in 2016, and NL improved by taking into account future impacts). Activities targeted by the measures include sand management (BE, DE, ES, FR), reducing turbidity (BE, DE), the consideration of freshwater supply needs (FR), and a monitoring study on the conditions of the state of the sea and marine currents (PT).

·Purpose and content of measures

Considering both first and second cycle reporting, about half of the measures aim at reducing the input of pressures, of which the majority addresses the pressures directly (DE, ES, FR, SE), and only a few measures do so indirectly (BE, DE, ES). A majority of the measures aim at improving the knowledge base, for example by conducting research (DE, FR, ES, PT, SE). There is a clear trend towards improving the knowledge base and management of physical disturbances to the seabed and hydrographical changes. However, the content and focus of the measures vary significantly, ranging from an impact assessment methodology in BE to targeted measures addressing salinity changes in FR and PT, and sediment management in FR, ES, and DE.

No Member State applied for an exception.

Descriptor

Coherence of Programmes of measures

Justification

Use of exceptions in the region

Pollution

Eutrophication (D5)

High to moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

All Member States have provided an overall coherent analysis of pressures and impacts drawing on information prepared for the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). HELCOM has facilitated co-operation to undertake detailed modelling of nutrient pressures and estimate the potential nutrient reductions required to achieve GES in different parts of the Baltic Sea. All Member States provide an overview of current status. GES for D5 is not met by any Member State. The main activities giving rise to nutrient pressures are well understood. While the BSAP analysis takes account of measures that have been implemented, it does not take account of updates to RBMPs under WFD. Member States have generally sought to analyse the impact of such measures qualitatively. The baseline scenario contained within the BSAP modelling work (and used by all Member States) reflects the situation as of 2030 taking account of known trends, looking at how nutrient pressures might change over time as a result of development activities. Some Member States have explicitly recognised future pressures in their gap analysis (EE, FI, LT, LV PL) but others have not (DE, SE). Only FI has indicated that it has sought to take account of climate change. All Member States have indicated broad timelines for achieving GES for D5. It is likely to be many decades before GES can be achieved in all Member State waters and only if all relevant parties take the necessary action to further reduce nutrient inputs by significant amounts.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States refer to the WFD, HELCOM and the Nitrates Directive (except EE and LV). 25% of the measures reported for D5 in the region are WFD measures. Half of the Member States refer to MARPOL but few Member States refer to legislation and policy relating to airborne emissions (Industrial Emissions Directive (FI, SE), National Emissions Ceiling Directive (DE, FI, SE)). Only FI and SE refer to the UWWTD and only LV mentions the Zero Pollution targets. The Member States rely slightly more on measures taken under other frameworks (60%) compared to MSFD-specific measures (40%) although this varies significantly between Member States. In EE and SE around 90% are measures taken under other frameworks, while in PL around 90% are MSFD-specific measures. All Member States apart from SE report new MSFD-related measures: the 41 new MSFD-specific measures reported address airborne nutrient inputs, inputs from aquaculture and shipping, handling of fertiliser in ports, reducing impact of food production and consumption, sustainable use of wastewater sludge and removal of dead plant biomass as well as a range of actions to better understand nutrient sources and pressures.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

The coverage of pressures and activities is assessed as adequate for DE, FI and SE and partially adequate for the other Member States. Of the more than 200 measures relevant to D5, over 90% of the measures address the pressure input of nutrients. Approximately 50% of the measures also address input of organic matter. The sources of nutrient pressures are generally well understood and already addressed through existing legislation. Key activities related to D5 pressures identified by Member States include urban wastewater, agriculture, shipping, airborne emissions and urban run-off. Some Member States also identify aquaculture (DE, FI) and handling of fertiliser at ports (DE, FI, PL) as activities giving rise to pressures that require management.

·Purpose and content of measures

Around 40% of the measures aim to directly prevent or reduce nutrient pressures and a further 40% to indirectly reduce pressures. Around 10% of measures aim to improve knowledge. Given that legislation and policy are well established in this area, the measures across Member States have a similar focus. There is evidence of additional measures being brought forward, particularly in relation to airborne emissions, ship emissions and nutrient inputs from aquaculture. Some measures seeking to reduce the effects of eutrophication are also being implemented, for example removal of dead plant biomass from the marine environment (FI and LT).

Five Member States out of seven applied for exceptions, all under Art. 14(1)(e) (EE, FI, LT, PL and SE). All five Member States provided the same reason for exception: that there is a long time lag for measures to reduce eutrophication to have effect, and GES is only likely to be achieved in the long term. EE additionally mentions the effects of climate change on eutrophication, and SE states that it is not responsible for the measures needing to be taken. LT provides a very limited justification unrelated to D5 which could be a reporting error. Applying for an exception is probably justified also for LT.

PL additionally applied for an exception under Art. 14(1)(a), with the reason that eutrophication is an issue requiring action from other Member States.

Contaminants (D8)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

Member States’ gap analyses have benefitted from regional modelling and work within HELCOM for the Baltic Sea Action Plan. This work assessed a number of substances including mercury, TBT, PFOS and diclofenac in the Baltic Sea. However, only FI provided a complete gap analysis, the remaining Member States have only partially covered the different elements of the gap analysis. All Member States provide an overview of the current status drawing on the BSAP modelling study. The most recurrent substances identified as not meeting GES are Hg, mercury, PBDEs, PFOS and TBT. PL and SE note that, despite the reduction of some pollutants above the GES thresholds, the current rate of reduction will not be sufficient to achieve GES in the near future. EE, FI, LT, LV and PL have provided information on the pressures and their impact on the achievement of GES, with FI even indicated how pressures have changed over time. No Member State provides information on the activities causing the pressures, nor analyse how first cycle and updated existing measures will reduce the pressures. EE, LT and LV elaborate on baseline scenarios reflecting the situation in 2030. No Member States clearly presented conclusions on future socio-economic development to determine future environmental pressures. Similarly, no Member State clearly presented conclusions on the effectiveness of measures. Nevertheless, gaps are identified for all Member States, indicating a range of high concentrations of persistent substances. Only FI reports on a timeline for achieving GES. FI points out that PBDEs may not be in good condition by 2027, as they are persistent in the environment and there are largely no external sources of loading.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States report measures falling under the WFD and HELCOM. Measures relating to MARPOL and the IMO Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness are reported by DE, EE, FI, LT, PL, and the convention on ships anti-fouling is covered by DE, FI, LT, and LV. On the other hand, UWWTD is only covered by FI, LT, and SE, and REACH and PRF by DE, FI, and SE, which are the only three countries to mention legislative/policy frameworks relevant to combatting air pollution (Industrial Emissions Directive, CLRTAP). Only LV has referred to the Zero Pollution targets. DE, EE, FI, LT, and SE reported most measures as measures under other legislative/policy frameworks (68-85%) while LV and PL both reported most measures as MSFD-specific (75-89%). All Member States have included WFD-related measures (assumed to be part of the 3rd RBMP) related to control of contaminants from land-based sources including wastewater treatment, agriculture, industry and urban run-off. LT and PL both have additional measures concerning pollution from agriculture, DE and EE on ship emissions and LV on waste management (generally and with regard to mercury) and persistent organic pollutants (specifically with regard to PBDE and PFOS). PL refers to priority (hazardous) substances and pollution from urban areas/transport/built infrastructure. SE refers to mercury and the coast guard (which seems to be national legislation with ties to EU fisheries and pollution policies). LT refers to emergency response, in particular oil spills, and sediment. In PL, FI, and EE, PBDE, PFOS, new pharmaceuticals or microplastics are not clearly addressed. In addition in EE emissions from power generation and industrial plants are missing and in PL, coal combustion and heavy industry (heavy metals) are not directly targeted by the measures.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

All Member States in the region reported measures to address the input of synthetic and non-synthetic substances and radionuclides. The other pressures identified as being specifically relevant to D8 were not reported by all Member States: only EE and SE reported contamination from (non)UPBT substances, and DE and SE were the only to report ‘input of water-point sources (e.g. brine)’. DE, EE, and FI report measures concerning acute pollution events. It is worth noting that Member States reported a large number of pressures linked to other descriptors (eutrophication, newly introduced non-indigenous species (EE, SE), as various physical and biological pressures (DE, EE, FI, SE, PL)). Measures concerning litter in the environment were reported by DE, EE, FI, PL, and SE. There is poor coherence in the activities identified by Member States in the region. EE reported measures covering all activities, while DE and SE included all activities except the extraction of salt and water. FI and LV did not report any activities, LT only reported ship and air transport, while PL reported agriculture, fish and shellfish harvesting, military operations, research, canalisation and other watercourse modifications survey and educational activities, restructuring of seabed morphology, including dredging & depositing of materials, land transport, urban and industrial uses and waste treatment and disposal.

·Purpose and content of measures

All Member States but LV reported direct measures to prevent further inputs of a pressure (e.g. by managing the source), all but FI reported direct measures to reduce existing levels of a pressure in the marine environment (e.g. removal of litter or oil spill clean-up), all reported indirect measures to prevent further inputs of a pressure (e.g. by governance mechanisms, financial incentives, awareness campaigns) and all Member States reported measures to improve the knowledge base (e.g. by research or one-off surveys).

Five out of seven Member States applied for exceptions under Art. 14(1)(e): EE, FI, LT, PL, and SE. Although the specific substances mentioned are not always the same, the reason given by all five Member States is that it takes a long time for the concentration of existing substances to reduce.

LT applied for an exception under Art. 14(1)(e), however, since it was noted that the issue of contaminants cannot be addressed by LT alone, the basis for the exception should have rather be Art. 14(1)(a). PL additionally applied for an exception under Art. 14(1)(a), with the reason that actions by PL may not be sufficient, and responsibility for the necessary measures should be shared by emitting countries.

Contaminants in seafood (D9)

Poor coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

Only PL provided a clear gap analysis. Of the remaining Member States, most provided partial (DE, FI, SE) or poor information on the key elements of the gap analysis (EE), while LT and LV did not provide any information on the gap analysis for D9. Overall, for most Member States, the technical assessment concludes that the gap analysis prepared for D8 is, to some extent, relevant for D9. Only a few Member States provided clear information on the current status of contaminants in seafood (FI, LV and PL), while SE also provides information, but only partially. FI and LV indicate that the GES level for D9 is currently reached. PL reports that GES is met in its waters, with the exception of PBDE. SE states that for hazardous substances in food, GES is not achieved since the marketing limit values for dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs are often exceeded in wild-caught herring, salmon and trout. For other Member States, no specific information was given (DE, EE and LT). No Member State provides information on the extent to which current measures will reduce pressures or on the effectiveness of the measures. In most Member States it is unclear whether the baseline used to inform the gap analysis takes into account future development activity, considers alternative scenarios or indicates the extent to which socio-economic factors have been taken into account (DE, EE, PL and SE). Only FI and PL report on a timeline for achieving GES before 2030 for FI, not before 2050 for PL because the slow degradation of PBDE).

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States reported measures falling under HELCOM and EE, FI, PL and SE under the WFD. Other policies are mentioned by fewer countries, e.g. MARPOL (FI, LT and PL) and the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (EE and LT). FI and SE link their D9 measures to the UWWTD, the REACH Regulation, the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLTRAP) and the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Other policies include the Port Reception Facilities Directive (SE) and the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutions (POPs) (FI). All Member States, except DE, took more measures under other legislative/policy frameworks for D9 than MSFD-specific measures. Only SE has defined additional measures.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

Although no measures were reported specifically for D9, five Member States address the D9 specific pressure Contaminants in seafood (DE, EE, FI, PL and SE). As all measures overlap with D8, the most frequently reported pressure remains Input of synthetic substances and non-synthetic substances. Other reported pressures include Input of nutrients and Input of organic matter (EE, FI, PL, SE). Waste treatment and disposal and agriculture are the two activities most linked to D9 measures (PL and SE). Other activities include shipping (EE), aquaculture (EE, SE), military operations (DE, SE), industrial uses (PL, SE) and urban uses (PL, SE). Only one Member State adequately addresses the relevant pressures (PL), three Member States partially (EE, FI, SE), and one Member State insufficiently (DE). For LT and LV, no MSFD-specific measures were identified in the second cycle. In PL, the updated measures will not directly contribute significantly to pressure reduction, but when considered together with measures under other legislative/policy frameworks, relevant pressures will continue to be reduced. EE and FI had already adequately addressed pressures in 2016.

·Purpose and content of measures

All the reported measures for D9 are linked to a ‘measure purpose’. Most of the measures aim directly at preventing further inputs of a pressure (EE, FI, PL, SE); fewer aim directly at reducing existing pressure levels in the marine environment (DE only). Other reported purposes are: indirectly preventing further pressures (DE only), establishing monitoring programmes (DE, SE), improving the knowledge base (DE only) or improving the effectiveness of measures (SE only).

Two Member States out of seven, PL and SE, applied for exceptions under Art. 14(1)(e). The reasons are different. PL’s justification for exception is that no effective measures can be taken to accelerate the achievement of GES for PBDE – there are no significant ongoing inputs, PBDE is widespread in sediments in the marine environment and achievement of GES is therefore dependent on natural degradation which only occurs slowly in the marine environment.

SE provides the reason that a reduction of contaminant inputs through SE’s measures will not be sufficient to achieve GES and that actions and inactions of neighbouring Member States will impact the achievement of GES. SE’s justification seems more appropriate for an exception under Art. 14(1)(a) – requiring action from other Member States.

Marine litter (D10)

Moderate to high coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

A gap analysis was undertaken by all Member States in the region, although partially in most of them (DE, FI, LT, LV, PL). All Member States provide a clear overview of the current status mainly focusing on beach litter as all acknowledge the lack of data and/or indicators for assessing micro-litter and other D10 criteria. SE, LV and PL specifically refer to EU Beach litter thresholds in their report. EE states that the status for macrolitter in the water column and microlitter in surface waters is good but everything else is not achieved/unknown. GES is reported as not achieved by the other Member States. FI highlights the lack of a clear definition of GES, thus the current status could not be assessed. All Member States have provided a coherent analysis of pressures and impacts that need to be addressed to close the gaps to achieve GES, drawing on information prepared for the BSAP. Pressures and activities causing litter are: tourism and leisure activities, followed by fisheries, shipping, and land-based sources. Microlitter and litter in water column and seabed are identified as knowledge gaps to be addressed. An estimate of how much the first cycle measures reduce pressures, as well as clear conclusions on the effectiveness of the measures were given by EE, FI, LT, LV, PL and SE. Baseline scenarios were drawn up by DE, EE, LV, PL, SE, with EE, LV and PL also considering future socio-economic development. SE refers to 2050 for achievement of GES, while EE states that GES will be reached for macrolitter by the end of implementation of the second programme of measures.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

DE, EE, FI and SE provide many links to relevant existing policies for D10, while LT and LV provide far fewer such links. Six out of seven Member States refer to HELCOM (47 measures, DE EE, FI, LT, PL and SE), but only DE and SE specifically refer to the HELCOM Regional Action Plan on marine Litter. Member States refer to a lesser extent to MARPOL (11 measures, DE, EE, FI, LT and PL). EU legislation is also a clear driver for defining measures: the higher number of measures are linked to the Single Use Plastic Directive (16 measures, DE, FI, LT and SE) and the EU Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy (11 measures, DE, FI and LT). Other legislations are mentioned less frequently, including Waste Framework Directive, WFD, PRF Directive and UWWTD. FI and SE rely more on measures taken under other frameworks, while DE and PL more on MSFD-specific measures. EE, LT and LV defined a balanced mix of already established measures and MSFD-specific.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

All Member States have made some progress during the second cycle in terms of pressure coverage. DE, EE and PL adequately address all pressures with the new measures in the second cycle, while FI, LT, LV and SE do this only partially. There are more MSFD-specific measures aimed at reducing the input of litter (81% from all Member States), than measures aimed at reducing the pressure level in the environment (14% from DE, EE, FI and SE). Of those that aim at reducing the input, the majority (63%) are direct measures (e.g. managing the source activities), while 44% are indirect measures (e.g. by governance mechanisms, financial incentives, awareness campaigns). A small proportion of measures is still dedicated to improving the knowledge base (7% - defined by all Member States except EE). The most relevant activities causing the pressures are targeted by all Member States: fisheries (mainly by DE, PL, SE, FI and EE), shipping including port operations (mainly by DE, EE, SE, FI, LT and PL), tourism and recreational activities (DE, EE, LT and SE), industry and urban areas (DE, EE, LT, PL, SE). Some Member States identify other sources at sea (e.g. offshore installations DE), and on land (aquaculture SE, DE) as main contributors to the litter problem and defined new measures to address them. FI made progress defining many additional direct measures, covering a gap from the first cycle (mainly indirect measures). SE made progress in addressing tourism/recreation which was not covered in the first cycle.

·Purpose and content of measures

As far as macrolitter is concerned, all Member States put their main effort and focus on litter on beaches and less on seabed litter and surface litter. Only DE, FI and SE specify that cleaning actions specifically address all elements of litter and not only beach litter. FI defines different measures for different categories of litter (e.g. specifically dedicated to tire, artificial turfs, plastic pellets). Measures addressing microlitter target industry and urban areas, shipping, as well as tourism/recreational activities and to a small extent fisheries (measures for better management of fishing gears). 36% of the MSFD-specific measures tackles microlitter, through different approaches (e.g. reducing microplastic loads from road traffic (FI), treatment of stormwater and wastewater to reduce amounts of microplastics (EE), lobbying for a ban on micro- and nanoplastic particles (PL) or tackling microparticles through management of fishing gears (SE)). More measures aim to reduce the input of the pressure than the pressure level in the environment (e.g. fishing for litter, beach and street clean-up activities).

No Member States applied for an exception ( 239 ).

Underwater noise (D11)

High to moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

The information regarding the gap analysis varies a lot across the Member States in the region. PL is the only Member State that provides a complete gap analysis: it clearly provides an overview of the current status and of progress on the targets and assesses progress made by first cycle measures, concluding that they are not sufficient to achieve GES. It also explains how future developments are taken into account, focusing on increased level of shipping and as offshore wind infrastructure. DE and EE have partially identified significant gaps to achieve targets and ultimately GES for D11. DE clearly addresses the effectiveness of its measures and states that for underwater sound it is not possible to estimate whether current measures are sufficient to achieve good environmental status. It also considers other anthropogenic energy sources such as light in their gap analysis. EE also does not present a complete gap analysis, but acknowledges the benefits of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan which provides data, analysis and recommendations, including for underwater noise and on this basis defined a new measure for D11 in the updated PoMs. SE and FI explained how the gap analysis was performed and how it was the basis for the selection of the new measures for the second cycle but did not specify conclusions on underwater noise. LT and LV do not provide a gap analysis for D11. It must be noted that neither Member State defined GES for D11 under Article 9. Despite this, LT acknowledges in the text report lack of data regarding underwater noise and defines monitoring measures to address the gaps in the updated PoMs; LV, on the other side, does not address underwater noise in its updated PoMs.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

Some Member States, such as SE, FI and DE provide many links to various relevant existing policies for D11, while others, such as EE, LT and PL mainly refer to HELCOM and national legislations/policies. LV does not define any D11 specific measure and appears to have withdrawn the horizontal measures from the first cycle that were relevant for D11. All Member States, except LV, refer to HELCOM. This shows a high level of coherence. However, other policy/legislation are mentioned by a few Member States only: only DE and SE mention the Habitats and Birds Directive, only DE and FI the EU Biodiversity Strategy, and only FI and PL explicitly link some measures to IMO guidelines on underwater noise from shipping, although also DE has measures to address this pressure from shipping; only FI and SE refer to MSP. Overall, considering both first and second cycle measures, PL defined only MSFD specific measures, while the other Member States defined a mix of both measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks and MSFD-specific measures. Three Member States (SE, EE and FI) define measures to implement the HELCOM Regional Action Plan on underwater noise, although SE categorises it as ‘existing measure’ while EE as ‘MSFD specific measure’. The same measure from FI is from the first cycle and it is not clear if it has been updated. As a result of the gap analysis, even if clear shortcomings were not identified in most Member States, all of them, except LV, either modified measures from the first cycle or defined additional ones in the second cycle.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

All Member States in the region, except for LV, have made some progress during the second cycle with regard to D11 in terms of pressure coverage. The technical adequacy assessment concluded that five MSs (EE, SE, PL, FI and DE) adequately address all pressures with the modified and the additional new measures in the second cycle, while LT does this only partially. LV does not report any measure for D11 in the second cycle and has withdrawn D11 relevant (horizontal) measures from the first cycle. In terms of activities, DE, EE, FI and SE define measures that target different sources of activity of the pressures (e.g. marine-based renewable energy generation, defence operations, shipping, extraction of minerals). PL defined one measure to address noise from shipping and two measures to address noise from defense operations. LT still focuses its measures of the establishment of monitoring systems.

·Purpose and content of measures

No Member State applied for an exception.

Biodiversity

Biodiversity (D1)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

Most Member States have adequately identified all gaps, LV and SE ( 240 ) have partially done so and LT is considered not to have produced an adequate gap analysis. DE, EE, PL and SE presented a clear overview of current status of all four relevant feature groups (birds, fish, mammals and pelagic habitats). Reasons for not reaching GES/targets include high level of pressure caused by fisheries/bycatch (DE, EE, LT, LV, PL), eutrophication (DE, EE, LV) and pollution (LV, PL). Only FI provided an estimation of how much the first cycle and updated existing measures will reduce pressures. Three Member States provide clear conclusions on the effectiveness of the measures (DE, EE, FI) and only DE and PL consider future socio-economic development to determine future environmental pressures.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

Clear links between biodiversity measures and existing legislation and policies are made, in particular with HELCOM (DE, EE, FI, LT, LV, PL), the Habitats Directive (DE, EE, FI, LT, LV, PL), the Birds Directive (DE, EE, FI, LT, SE) and Biodiversity Strategy (DE, EE, FI). A smaller number of measures are also linked to the CFP (DE, EE, FI, LT, PL, SE), the MSP (DE, FI, SE), the EIA Directive (DE, FI ) and Convention on Biological Diversity (DE, FI, PL). Five Member States (DE, EE, LV, FI and SE) rely both on MSFD-specific measures and measures from existing instruments, while LT and PL do not report any MSFD-specific measures.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

Only EE and SE have fully addressed previously identified pressures, all others address them only partially either by relying prominently on indirect measures or not addressing identified pressures (bird hunting in FI or bird bycatch in LT). The main pressures addressed include extraction and disturbance of species, physical disturbance of seabed, input of nutrients, underwater noise, physical loss of seabed habitats and introduction of invasive species. Primary activities addressed include fisheries, maritime transport, tourism and recreational activities, port operations, and urban development. In addition, certain Member States have identified further pressures, both at sea (e.g., underwater noise and the introduction of non-indigenous species in DE) and on land (e.g., agricultural runoff affecting eutrophication in EE and SE; industrial discharges in PL). Other activities include extraction of production of electricity, aquaculture, extraction of non-living material and research.

·Purpose and content of measures

Five Member States (DE, EE, FI, PL, SE and LV) address all relevant features (fish, birds, mammals, pelagic habitats, ecosystems). LT predominantly focus on fish species. More than half of the new measures aim at reducing or preventing the inputs of pressures, in particular from fisheries, nutrients and hazardous substances, while the others focus on enhancing monitoring, expanding the knowledge base, including the development of innovative technologies (in EE and LT), or assessing the effectiveness of existing measures. A number of measures also focus designating new MPAs (DE, FI, and SE ) and improving their management (EE, PL and LV) and governance, as well as on active restoration of certain habitats (in DE and SE). Only LT does not include MPA-related measures.

Five Member States out of seven applied for exceptions (EE, FI, LT, PL and SE). Across those Member States’ applications for exception, coherence is poor.

For Descriptor 1, all five applied for exceptions under Art.(1)(e) (natural conditions), with FI, PL and SE giving the same reason that GES may not be achieved due to long breeding / life cycle of species which makes species recovery slow, EE invoking climate change and LT the need to maintain the structure of the nutrient network.

FI, PL and SE also applied for exceptions for Descriptor 1 under Art.(1)(a) (action for which the Member State is not responsible) for species not residing full time within national boundaries. FI and PL report that the seabirds do not reside all year round within the national boundaries, while SE reports that the GES for fish depends heavily on implementation of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). PL additionally identifies nutrient concentrations in the water as also dependent on neighbouring states.

PL additionally applied for an exception for Descriptor 1 under Art.(1)(b) (natural causes), using the same justification as its application under Art.(1)(a).

NIS (D2)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

A gap analysis was undertaken by all Member States in the region. All Member States provide a clear overview of the current status with most Member States stating not to have been able to achieve GES (except FI). FI concludes that GES has been achieved but acknowledges that the situation is not good when looking at the input and spread of already established alien species. The others have not achieved GES mainly because existing measures are insufficient. Most Member States (EE, FI, LV, PL) state that shipping activities (ballast water, ship hull fouling) are the main source and pathway of introductions and contributing to the existing pressure. DE, EE and PL provide partial information regarding how much the first cycle and updated existing measures will reduce pressures but most Member States conclude on the need to define additional measures in the second cycle. None of the Member State clearly state by when GES is expected to be achieved. EE, DE, PL and SE identify key gaps highlighting the need for additional measures and implementation of existing legislation /policies.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States provide links to relevant existing policies for D2, in particular the Invasive Alien Species Regulation. All Member States except PL and DE refer to the IMO Ballast Water Convention. The CFP is only mentioned by EE. Most Member States (DE, EE, LT, LV, FI) refer to HELCOM. All Member States except PL and LV rely to some degree on measures taken under other framework. DE and EE defined a balanced mix of already established measures and MSFD-specific measures whereas PL rely only on MSFD -specific measures. LT, SE and LV adapt measures taken under other frameworks in the first cycle, e.g. developing guidance for authorities and commercial operations for the disposal of contaminants and fouling in the cleaning of ship hulls and reducing the spread of contaminants from recreational crafts. Almost 70% of the MSFD-specific measures were newly proposed for the second cycle. A number of measures are specific to D2 focusing on shipping and establishing early warning system (LT, DE, LV).

·Coverage of pressures and activities

All Member States except FI have made progress during the second cycle on D2 in terms of pressure coverage. PL, EE and SE have adequately addressed all pressures with their new measures, while DE and LT do this only partially. FI stated to have achieved GES and relied on measures taken under other frameworks. There are more MSFD-specific measures aimed at reducing the input or spread of NIS (63% of all measures) than measures aimed at reducing existing level of pressure (15% from PL, FI, SE). Of those that aim at reducing the input, only 46% are direct measures, managing the source activities; 51% are indirect aiming at preventing further inputs of a pressure (e.g. by governance mechanisms, financial incentives, awareness campaigns). A very small proportion of measures is dedicated to improving the knowledge base (6% - defined by LT, PL and SE). The most relevant activities causing the pressures are addressed by DE, SE and EE: shipping, tourism and recreational activities, aquaculture – freshwater and marine, including infrastructure. Most Member States in the region (FI, LV, LT and PL) do not provide data on relevant activities but some of their measures clearly target main activities, e.g. PL (fisheries), LV (ship’s ballast water and deposition), LT (investigations to assess the impact of recreational navigation).

·Purpose and content of measures

The measures addressing newly introduced NIS target shipping and to a small degree tourism, aquaculture and recreational activities. Most of the measures focus on managing sources of activities by directly preventing further inputs of a pressure (e.g. EE - Ensuring environmental safety of shipping, SE- measure addresses reduction of the populations of invasive Gobiidae species in transitional waters through biomanipulation employing predatory fish). FI, PL and SE focus on measures directly restoring a species or habitat(s). Some Member States report measures to establish monitoring programmes (of relevant activities, pressures, or impacts) and measures to indirectly prevent further inputs of a pressure (e.g. by governance mechanisms, financial incentives etc.), e.g. PL -measure on educating aquarists and anglers on the dangers of releasing specimens of invasive alien species into the natural environment.

Two Member States out of seven, LT and PL, applied for exceptions.

LT applied for an exception under Art.14(1)(e) but did not report a robust and detailed justification based on scientific evidence for the exception. It does however provide the required estimation of when GES is expected to be achieved (2033).

PL applied for exceptions under Art. 14(1)(a) and Art. 14(1)(b). For Art. 14(1)(a), PL reports that the transfer and introduction of NIS is an international responsibility and PL cannot bear sole responsibility for introductions to its waters. In addition, the spread of that species, already in the Baltic Sea, to PL waters is out of their control. For Art. 14(1)(b), justification relates to eradication of NIS being difficult and unlikely once the NIS is established.

Commercial fish and shellfish (D3)

Moderate to high coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

A gap analysis was undertaken by all Member States in the region, except for LV. FI, LT, EE and PL based their gap analysis on the HELCOM Sufficiency of Measures (SOM) analysis, providing high level of coherence to the approach across the region. SE and DE carried out a more high-level, qualitative assessment to understand gaps. Almost all Member States provided a clear overview of the current status (DE, EE, FI, LV, PL and SE) mainly focusing on the status of some commercial fishing stocks. Some Member States also provided explanation on why GES has not yet been achieved (DE, FI, PL and SE). All Member States, except LT, explicitly presented pressures and activities for D3. EE, FI and PL clearly estimated how much the first cycle and updated existing measures will reduce pressures and DE and SE did so partially. No information on this was presented by LT and LV. Only FI and PL elaborated baseline scenarios and EE, FI and LV considered future socio-economic development. Regarding barriers to achieving GES, EE and LT stressed the need to address knowledge gaps, DE highlighted the inefficiency of the implementation process of its measures and FI underscored the inefficiency of the measures in covering all key species for D3. EE, FI, LV and PL provided a timeline for achieving GES, while DE, LT and SE did not mention it in their reports.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures ( 241 ) 

Most Member States link their measures to the CFP, some reporting only the main CFP regulation as a measure (e.g. DE), while others report additional regulations such as multi-annual plans, technical measures, EMFAF and the DCF. Only LT did not clearly report any CFP-related legislation for D3. EE relies more on measures taken under other frameworks for D3, while FI, PL and SE rely more on MSFD-specific measures. DE defined a balanced mix of already established measures and MSFD-specific. The only measure proposed by LT is MSFD-specific. Among the new measures, Member States propose to improve the condition of fish spawning areas (EE), cross-border cooperation and action plans to promote more sustainable fish stocks (FI) and promotion of a sustainable size distribution of coastal fish communities (SE).

·Coverage of pressures and activities

All Member States have measures that address the main pressure for D3, which is extraction of species, and measures that address physical disturbance of the seabed. Although not directly related to achieving GES for D3, fisheries management measures can contribute to GES for D6. Some Member States address additional pressures: bycatch (DE, SE), seaweed harvesting (EE), eutrophication (PL), disturbance of species (FI). EE, FI and SE adequately address all pressures with the new measures in the second cycle, while DE and PL do this only partially. PL’s measures predominantly focus on reducing nutrient enrichment, as this has been identified as a pressure that may hinder the recovery of Baltic cod. LT measures will not reduce pressures relevant to D3. LV does not report any measures for D3 and states that GES will be achieved through measures under LV fisheries policy. The primary activity exerting pressure, i.e. commercial fishing, is targeted by all Member States in the region. There is an evident gap in relation to recreational fishing (SE is the only MS that addresses the pressure from recreational fisheries). Some Member States identified other activities impacting the health of fish and shellfish populations: production of energy and aquaculture (SE); construction of canalisation and other water course modifications (EE) and agriculture (PL).

·Purpose and content of measures

In total 50 measures are reported that address the extraction of species in the region, as direct measures (FI, PL and SE), indirect measures (DE) and a mix of both direct and indirect (EE). More than half of the measures (30) are aimed at directly reducing the input of the pressure (e.g. by establishing fishing restrictions and size limits, implementing new marine protected areas, or promoting the use of selective and low impact fishing gears) and at directly reducing the pressure level (e.g. by developing guidance for the implementation of ecosystem based marine management). Raising awareness measures are adopted by DE, EE, FI, LT and SE, while monitoring efforts measures are adopted by SE only. While all Member States present measures to cover CFP-managed stocks, there is inconsistency in the coverage of stocks and sources, especially concerning locally/nationally managed stocks (addressed by SE, LT and FI only), and from the recreational sector (addressed only by SE).

Four Member States out of seven, FI, LT, PL and SE, applied for exceptions.

FI, PL and SE applied under Art. 14(1)(a). The reasons given are the same: that fish stocks are dependent on other countries’ actions. PL additionally highlights eutrophication as a problem and SE specifically mentions the implementation of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

FI, PL and LT applied under Art. 14(1)(e), with different justifications, although both LT and PL note the broader marine environment (e.g. deoxygenation) as a factor.

FI gave the reason of delayed effect of measures, with the good status of stocks expected to be achieved by 2030. LT gave the reason that biological changes in the stock have reduced the stocks’ reproductive potential. This is due to high natural mortality, close to zero fishing mortality (targeted fishing for eastern cod has been prohibited in the Baltic Sea from 2020 to 2022), and changes in the ecosystem (poor oxygen conditions, reduced availability of prey, high levels of parasites). PL gave the reason that the fishing ban in place for the past few years is not “a sufficiently strong impulse to allow swift regeneration of the population”. PL also argued that restoration of GES with regard to cod stocks will likely require an improvement of the environmental conditions, and that climate change may derail the expectation of achieving GES after 2050.

Food webs (D4)

Poor coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

Not all Member States have carried out a gap analysis for food webs in the region. Only PL has adequately identified all gaps, and DE, EE, and SE partially. LT and LV are missing elements in their analysis and FI analysis is only sparsely completed. PL, DE, EE, and SE present an assessment of current status. DE does not provide sufficient details to make a conclusion and SE’s assessment is based only on size structure of fish communities. DE, PL, and SE identify pressures affecting food webs, with DE linking these with pressures affecting D1 and D6, and PL listing a broad range, including destruction of habitats, fishing pressure, nutrient input, underwater noise, and pollution, especially from heavy metals. DE, FI, and PL present clear conclusions of the effectiveness of the measures. DE mentions the poor implementation of measures from the first cycle. Only DE and PL present a baseline scenario and consider future socio-economic development, and only DE attempts to provide an indication of a timeline for achieving GES, but this is only vague.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States but LV link their D4 measures to other legislative/policy frameworks. HELCOM is cited most often by nearly all the Member States, followed by the Habitats and Birds Directives, the WFD and the CFP. DE, EE, and PL also cite the Biodiversity Strategy as a driver for D4 measures. Considering both MSFD and second cycle measures, DE, EE, FI, and SE present a mix of MSFD-specific and measures based on existing frameworks for D4, although SE relies heavily on MSFD-specific measures.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

EE and SE successfully address previously identified pressures, FI and PL only partially, LT and LV not at all, and the information for DE is not clear. The main pressures addressed include species extraction and disturbance, introduction of invasive species, microbial pathogens or genetically modified organisms, input of sound and cultivation/artificialisation of natural habitat. Only one pressure, extraction of species (i.e. fishing), is addressed by all Member States (except LV), while disturbance of species is addressed by all except LV and LT. FI and PL also address input of sound, and PL also introduction of invasive species. The main activities addressed include fisheries, restructuring of habitat, extraction of non-living resources, production of energy, aquaculture, transport, urbanisation, tourism, military and research. DE, EE, and SE address all these activities, while LT and LV do not mention activities at all.

·Purpose and content of measures

The main features covered by D4 measures include birds, mammals, fish, benthic and pelagic habitats, hydrological characteristics and ecosystems. DE, EE, PL and SE address all of these (except hydrological characteristics for PL). FI address most habitats and species, while LT only reports on fish. Most Member States (DE, EE, FI, PL, SE) reported fisheries-related measures, such as promoting a sustainable fishing industry, monitoring fishing efforts, or developing alternative fishing gear to prevent bycatch. Slightly fewer than half of the measures for D4 are measures to reduce or prevent inputs of pressures while the rest relate to monitoring, gaining knowledge or assessing effectiveness of measures. EE, PL, and SE report considerably more direct measures and DE, FI, and LT equally direct and indirect. DE, FI, and SE report developing new MPAs linking also to D1, EE and PL focus on improving the management of existing MPAs.

LT is the only Member State in the region to apply for an exception for Descriptor 4, under Art. 14(1)(e) (natural conditions). LT’s justification is that the nutrient network in the Baltic is a natural condition and cannot be controlled on a Member State level and needs to be maintained by all Baltic countries. LT does not provide an approximate timeline for achieving GES.

Seabed habitats (D6)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

All Member States in the region carried out a gap analysis for D6, except LT. Only DE reports on almost all elements of the gap analysis. The majority of Member States provide a clear and detailed overview of the current status of the seabed (DE, EE, LV, PL). SE, LT and FI provide a limited overview. LT focuses on human activities undertaken on the seabed and their extent, while FI assessment of the current status is clear but covers only some habitats due to insufficient data for others. DE, EE, FI, LV, and PL adequately identify gaps in achieving GES, only partially by SE, and not at all by LT. All Member States present pressures and activities affecting seabed integrity (DE, EE, FI, LV, PL, SE), with the exception of LT. The most important pressures and activities listed include bottom trawling (DE, EE, PL, SE), excessive nutrient flow (DE, FI, PL), dredging (EE, FI), climate change (DE) and construction of permanent facilities, coastal erosion defences, and shipping (EE). Only DE and FI discuss the extent to which the measures could reduce the pressures. DE provides only a vague estimate of the timeline for the expected impact of these measures. In four Member States, the gap analysis elaborates on baseline scenarios that serve as a benchmark against which alternative options are compared (DE, EE, LV and PL). Only DE and EE consider future socio-economic development to determine future environmental pressures. Only DE provides conclusions on the effectiveness of the measures in achieving GES, describing the ability of each measure to reduce anthropogenic pressures. Only FI reports on a timeline for achieving GES, which has been set to 2027. FI however stresses the challenge to provide a timeline for when GES will be reached, pointing out that restoring habitats can take decades. 

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States link their D6 measures to HELCOM and the Habitats Directive, five mention the Birds Directive (DE, EE, FI, LT and SE) and four the MSP Directive (DE, FI, PL, SE). Only DE, FI and LT mention the EIA Directive and DE, FI and PL the CBD. The CFP is mentioned by all Member States, except LV. DE is the only country reporting links to OSPAR. However, as shown below, Member States do not always clearly link the actual measures to these other legislative/policy frameworks. Overall, considering both the first and second cycle measures, Member States mostly relied on MSFD-specific measures for D6. Only LT relied heavily on measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks. As a result of the gap analysis, even if clear shortcomings were not identified in most Member States, all of them, (except LT which did not carry out a gap analysis), modified measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks identified in the first cycle or defined additional ones in the second cycle.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

·Purpose and content of measures

Looking at both first and second cycle reporting, ES, EE, FI and SE report more measures that prevent further inputs of the pressures than measures aimed at directly reducing its existing level in the environment (only FI and SE) or measures directly restoring a species or habitats (only DE, EE and SE). Of those that aim at reducing input, only 27% of the measures are direct measures, managing the source activities; 44% are indirect measures aiming at preventing further inputs of a pressure (e.g. by governance mechanisms, financial incentives, awareness campaigns). A few measures are dedicated to improving the knowledge base (DE, FI and SE), establishing monitoring programmes (DE, EE and SE) and assessing measure effectiveness (EE, FI and SE). Aside from LT, all Member States in the region reported new spatial protection measures also for D6.

PL is the only Member State to apply for exceptions. PL applied for exceptions under Art. 14(1)(a), Art. 14(1)(e), and Art. 14(1)(d). The reason given under Art. 14(1)(a) and Art. 14(1)(e) is that reducing nutrient concentration in Polish waters requires significant action on the part of other neighbouring states. The reason given under Art. 14(1)(d) is that PL does not believe that reversing all physical loss in PL waters is in the public interest. Ensuring no loss will require the removal of several structures which would have a negative economic impact and may cause a loss of jobs.

Hydrographical changes (D7)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

All Member States reported a gap analysis (DE, EE, FI, LT, LV, PL, SE). A majority of the Member States provided an overview of the current status (DE, EE, FI, LV, PL, SE) and some of them mention GES is achieved (DE, FI, SE). Human activities and pressures such as dams and windfarms are explicitly mentioned in the assessments of almost all Member States (DE, EE, FI, LT, PL, SE), and all Member States that have performed a gap analysis for D7 mention these large scale human activities as having an effect on hydrography. Climate change as a pressure is mentioned by a few Member States (FI, PL). A few Member States estimate how much measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks will reduce pressures (DE, EE, FI, SE). None of the Member States reported a baseline. Some Member States consider future socio-economic development to determine future environmental pressures (FI, LT, PL). Clear conclusions on the effectiveness of the measures are given by most of the Member States (DE, EE, FI SE). It should be noted that several Member States are not adopting new MSFD-specific measures (FI, LT, LV), in case of FI and SE because the Member States do not see the need. The Member States for which GES was not achieved do not give a timeline for when it would be achieved. Coherence is moderate in both the methodological approach and the conclusions on assessment of status and gap analysis. Despite the work done within HELCOM, no common forward vision has been reported for future activities and pressures that could hamper achievement of GES for D7 by causing permanent alteration in hydrological conditions.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

The most cited legislation is the WFD (DE, FI, PL, SE). followed by HELCOM, the Habitats Directive (DE, EE, FI), and the Birds Directive (DE). The MSP was referred to only a few times (DE, FI, SE) as was the EIA Directive (DE). DE is the only Member State that links multiple existing policies to more than one measure. Considering the measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks and MSFD-specific measures, almost all Member States defined a balanced mix of both (DE, FI, PL, SE), whereas EE relied purely on MSFD-specific measures.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

Compared to the 2016 assessment, no progress in terms of pressure coverage has taken place with regard to D7. Three Member States report additional or modified MSFD specific measures (DE, PL and EE). They primarily address changes to hydrological conditions (DE, EE), and disturbance of the seabed (DE, PL). These three Member States cover various activities with their D7 measures: DE focuses on sediment management, EE’s measures relate to infrastructure and renewable energy, and PL measures focuses on the protection of the seafloor. Several Member States do not report new D7 measures in the second cycle (FI, LT, LV, SE).

·Purpose and content of measures

Considering both first and second cycle reporting, most of the MSFD-specific measures aim at reducing the input of pressures, of which the majority addresses the pressures directly (DE, EE, FI, PL, SE), and some measures do so indirectly (DE, FI, PL). Some Member States (DE, EE, FI) provide measures to assess the impact/effectiveness of measures or restoring of an ecosystem. Only a few measures aim at improving the knowledge base, for example by conducting research (DE, SE). Overall, the measures across Member States do not cover similar content or purposes in the Baltic region. While some Member States focus on sediment management (DE) or on improving environmental governance and data management (EE), others (PL) have a mix of indirect measures focusing on governance and knowledge improvement. Some Member States have been assessed as not reporting D7 relevant measures because GES is achieved (FI, SE) or because of a lack of information (LT, LV).

Only PL applied for an exception under Art. 14(1)(d), with the reason that achieving GES for D7 in three transitional water bodies would require destruction of major infrastructures that are deemed necessary for public services and economic activities and in some cases threaten wild species that live in these areas.

Descriptor

Coherence of Programmes of measures

Justification

Use of exceptions in the region

Pollution

Eutrophication (D5)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

CY, ES and SI have provided a partial gap analysis. CY, ES and SI report to be achieving GES for D5. Insufficient information has been provided by FR and IT to inform such an assessment. While all five Member States ( 242 ) provide some reference to pressures and activities, none of the Member States provide a detailed analysis of the activities causing nutrient pressures nor how current measures under other frameworks address these pressures apart from some limited analysis by SI. It is thus unclear to what extent the measures will support achievement of GES for D5. None of the Member States provided a baseline scenario or alternative scenarios to inform the gap analysis. Nor do Member States indicate whether the gap analysis has taken account of future development activity or socio-economic factors. No timelines for achieving GES are provided by IT and FR (the others having already achieved GES for D5).

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States refer to the WFD, UWWTD and Nitrates Directive, apart from FR which has not identified any specific measures for D5 in the Mediterranean. Of the total of 55 measures, 11 are specifically identified as WFD measures. ES and IT refer to MARPOL. CY and SI refer to the Industrial Emissions Directive. Only ES refers to UNEP-MAP. No Member States refer to the Zero Pollution targets. The Member States rely more on measures taken under other frameworks (65%) compared to MSFD-specific measures (35%) although this varies between Member States. In CY and SI all the identified measures are taken under other frameworks. For ES, 14 of the 15 measures are MSFD-specific measures. Only ES and IT report new MSFD-related measures, including measures to address water pollution in port areas through improvements to port waste reception facilities and measures to address inputs from shipping.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

The coverage of pressures and activities is considered partially adequate for ES, not clear for IT and not relevant to CY and SI as they have not identified any new measures for D5 (as D5 is considered as being achieved). Similarly, FR has not identified any specific new measures for D5, although it is unclear whether FR is achieving GES for D5. Nutrient pressures are overall well understood and addressed by existing laws and policies that seek to manage the input of nutrients into marine waters. Key activities related to D5 pressures identified by the Member States include urban wastewater, agriculture and urban run-off. Some Member States also identify aquaculture (CY, IT) and ports/shipping (CY, ES, IT) as activities giving rise to pressures that require management. ES references pressures from shipping.

·Purpose and content of measures

Of the 55 measures, around 85% of the measures aim to directly prevent or reduce nutrient pressures and a further 10% aim to indirectly reduce pressures. This is reasonably consistent across Member States. Given that legislation and policy is well established in this area, the measures across Member States tend to have a similar focus. There is evidence of some further measures being brought forward by ES and IT, including in relation to ship emissions, nutrient inputs from agriculture and aquaculture and from recreational vessels. No measures have been identified that are seeking to reduce the effects of eutrophication within the marine environment.

No Member State applied for an exception.

Contaminants (D8)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

None of the Member States in the region provided a clear gap analysis so it cannot be considered that a coherent approach has been used. CY and SI provided partial gap analyses, while in ES it was not clear. No gap analysis was presented by FR or IT. No Member States clearly presented conclusions on future socio-economic development to determine future environmental pressures or a timeline for achieving GES, an analysis of how first cycle and updated existing measures will reduce pressures, or clear conclusions on the effectiveness of measures. Only SI and ES presented information on pressures/impacts and their influence of GES achievement, and FR makes some reference to pressures/activities. GES is considered achieved in some Member States (CY), and it is unclear in others (FR). Gaps identified related to coverage of PCB (ES) and TBT in seawater and mercury/benzo(a)pyrene in sediment (SI). There does not seem to be any coherence with regard to the gaps or barriers to achieving GES.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

Member States in the region have made clear links with existing legislation and policies. All Member States refer to UNEP-MAP, while all except SI refer to the WFD. CY, ES, FR and IT refer to the Nitrates Directive and IMO, specifically MARPOL (CY, FR, IT), and the London Convention (CY and FR). Other policies include the UWWTD (CY, ES, SI), while CY and SI refer to the IED. FR and IT refer to REACH, while ES and FR also refer to the Habitats Directive. No references are made to Zero Pollution targets, Barcelona Convention or National Ceilings Emissions Directive which are all potentially relevant updated existing measures for D8. Overall, considering both first and second cycle measures, the Member States relied to a similar degree on measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks. CY and IT have reported only measures taken under other legislation/policy frameworks, and at 75% for FR and SI. ES is the outlier with most measures reported as being MSFD-specific (59%). Only CY and SI have taken new measures under other legislative/policy frameworks, e.g. on radioactivity pollution, sulfur emissions, agriculture and pollution from maritime transport.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

All Member States reported measures to address the pressure of input of synthetic and non-synthetic substances and radionuclides. This pressure was reported for 100 out of 122 relevant measures. CY, ES, and IT also reported measures to address the input of water–point sources (e.g. brine). One ES measure also addresses (non)UPBT substances and acute pollution events specifically. The pressures reported can therefore be considered coherent across Member States in the region. Almost all relevant activities are considered addressed by FR and ES and 4 out of the 5 countries also reported aquaculture and shipping.

·Purpose and content of measures

The new/modified measures in ES, FR, CY and SI cover some of the same pressures, in particular those caused by maritime transport and ports/marinas. However, the measures reported cover a wide variety of topics, including measures to improve knowledge and monitor. The measures also focus on the source activities, with only SI referring to reducing specific contaminants. It is noted that the majority of contaminants covered under D8 do not seem to be covered under the reported measures. In terms of the purpose of measures, there is moderate coherence. All Member States report measures to directly reduce existing levels of the pressures in the marine environment (e.g. removal of litter or oil spill clean-up). Most Member States (except IT) report measures to directly prevent further inputs of a pressure (e.g. by managing the source activity) or to directly prevent further inputs of a pressure (e.g. by governance mechanisms, financial incentives etc.). Measures to improve knowledge were only reported by ES and FR, while CY, ES and FR reported measures to establish monitoring programmes. Only CY reported D8 measures to directly restore a species or habitat.

Two Member States out of five, FR and SI, applied for exception, both under Art. 14(1)(a), but for different reasons. In addition, both applied for an exception under Art. 14(1)(e). FR’s justification was that action is needed either by the EU (e.g. CFP) or by another international Competent Authority (e.g. IMO). SI applied two exceptions with separate justifications for TBT and mercury. However, for TBT, recent monitoring data indicates that GES is now being achieved (and likely to continue to be achieved) and it is therefore questionable why an exception is still needed.

Contaminants in seafood (D9)

Poor coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

None of the Member States provided a clear gap analysis, most reported partial (CY) to poor (ES, FR and SI) information on the essential elements of the gap analysis. Additionally, IT failed to submit any information on the gap analysis for D9. It is worth noting that neither FR nor SI provided a quantitative gap analysis, although clear thresholds have been set for D9. As for ES, it is unclear whether all significant gaps to the achievement of GES for D9 have been identified, as the gap analysis provided is general and not broken down by descriptor. None of the Member States provide clear information on the current status of contaminants in seafood. However, CY refers to WFD and MED POL monitoring data, which suggest that GES is currently achieved for D9. SI states that the available monitoring data indicate that the standards laid down in Regulation 1881/2006 are met. No Member State referred to pressures/activities in relation to the gap analysis. No Member State provides information on the extent to which current measures will reduce pressures. In all Member States it is unclear whether the baseline used to inform the gap analysis considers future development activity, considers alternative scenarios or indicates the extent to which socio-economic factors have been taken into account. No Member State provides information on the effectiveness of the measures. All Member States fail to report on a timeline for achieving GES.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States, except ES, reported more measures under other legislative/policy frameworks than MSFD-specific measures for D9. IT and FR linked all their D9 measures to other frameworks. On the other hand, ES reported only MSFD-specific measures. Surprisingly, only CY explicitly refers to Regulation 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. Looking at the other policies linked to D9 measures, the most common are the WFD (ES, FR and IT) and the REACH Directive (FR and IT). Other frameworks are reported but only by one or two Member States every time (nitrates, MSP, UWWTD, UNEP-MAP and IMO instruments). Only ES defined an additional measure for D9 in the second cycle, although they did not carry out a gap analysis specifically for D9, focusing on studies to improve data collection on contaminants in fishery products and to propose new contaminants.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

·Purpose and content of measures

Considering all reported measures for D9 (first and second cycle), all measures reported under D9 are linked to a ‘measure purpose’. Most of the measures aim at indirectly preventing further pressure inputs (CY, ES, FR, SI) and/or directly reducing existing pressure levels in the marine environment (ES, FR, IT). Fewer measures directly prevent further pressures (only SI), improve the knowledge base (ES, FR) and establish monitoring programmes (ES, FR).

No Member State applied for an exception.

Marine litter (D10)

Moderate to high coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

All Member States in the region, except IT, provided a gap analysis which was considered partially adequate. Only SI present a clear overview of the current status as part of the gap analysis (GES is not achieved). ES, SI and CY provide some details regarding relevant pressures and activities causing marine litter and identify the priorities to be addressed by the update (e.g. reduction of litter inputs from various sources (aquaculture, fisheries, tourism, leisure and submerged vessels) (SI), focus on fishing-related waste and river-based input into the sea (both from agricultural as well as other sectors) (ES), seabed and floating microplastics (CY)). None of the Member States provide an estimation of how much the measures from the first cycle will reduce pressures nor conclusions on the effectiveness of the second cycle measures to close the gaps. Similarly, none of the Member States elaborate on baseline scenarios or considers future socio-economic developments. Finally, none of the Member States indicate a timeline for achieving GES.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

ES, FR and CY provide many links to relevant existing policies, while IT and SI make fewer of such links. All Member States refer to UNEP-MAP in general (20 measures), while MARPOL is mentioned only by ES, FR and IT (9 measures). EU legislation is also a driver for defining measures, in particular the Waste Framework Directive (48 measures, all except SI). Other EU legislation is mentioned less frequently: WFD, SUP Directive, CFP, UWWTD or PRF Directive. All Member States except ES defined a balanced mix of measures taken under other frameworks and MSFD-specific. ES relied mostly on MSFD-specific measures. As a result of the gap analysis, all Member States, except CY, modified MSFD-specific measures from the first cycle or defined additional ones in the second cycle. The vast majority of these measures (86%) are specific to D10, i.e. they uniquely target marine litter.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

All Member States in the region, except CY, have made some progress during the second cycle in terms of pressure coverage. All Member States partially address the relevant pressures with new measures in the second cycle. The most relevant activities causing the pressure of litter inputs are targeted by all. The main focus is on specific litter sources in the marine environment (e.g., fisheries, shipping, leisure & tourism). In addition ES, SI and IT also include specific measures tackling land-based sources (waste waters), and IT and SI also tackle aquaculture specifically. Overall, there is more focus on macro-litter but some Member States (e.g. ES, IT) included specific direct measures for microlitter too. For some countries, the reported measures lack detailed descriptions making it difficult to assess their effectiveness fully (IT, FR). Around 25% of measures (from ES FR and SI, the vast majority from ES) aim to directly prevent further inputs of a pressures (by reducing the source activity), 43% of measures (from ES, IT and SI) aim to directly reduce existing levels of the pressure in the environment (e.g., through removal of litter) and 26% of measures aim to indirectly prevent further input of a pressure.

·Purpose and content of measures

As far as macrolitter is concerned, IT, SI and FR put effort and focus on seabed and surface litter in addition to beaches. SI does this through measures that tackle fisheries, shipping and tourisms activities. Other Member States have more specific measures, e.g. expert group to identify the most appropriate measures to combat the impacts of litter on the seabed (IT) or a dedicated measure on macrolitter on beaches, seabed and sea surface for the highly touristic Western Med region (FR). All Member States, except CY, address microlitter, but to different degrees. SI does so only indirectly with the inclusion of a measure on ‘fishing for litter’, as well as a measure to support municipalities in the implementation of the SUP Directive. FR and IT address microlitter together with macrolitter with a measure on waste- and storm-waters. ES takes several soft but specific measures to close knowledge gaps and raise awareness. Litter in biota is marginally addressed. SI has identified accumulation of micro-waste in fish as a significant pressure but does not take a measure. IT, ES and CY mention loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in one of their targets but fail to include dedicated measures in their programmes of measures (except for knowledge improvement measures).

Only SI applied for an exception under Art. 14(1)(a), Art. 14(1)(b) and Art. 14(1)(e). SI’s reason is that marine litter is a transboundary problem (Art. 14(1)(a)), litter is brought to SI via marine currents and various rivers (Art. 14(1)(b)), and the shallowness and enclosed nature of the Adriatic Sea mean concentrations of litter tend to accumulate in the northern part of the Adriatic Sea (Art. 14(1)(e)).

Underwater noise (D11)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

The information regarding the gap analysis varies across the Member States in the region. For ES, a gap analysis was carried out and described, but it focused mainly on progress against environmental targets. There is no information about the current GES status baseline scenario, consideration of how much current measures will reduce pressures, future socio-economic developments, or an indication of the timeline for when GES will be achieved. Similarly, FR carried out a gap analysis, but does not present enough details. SI and CY both stated that they did not carry out a gap analysis due to lack of data for impulsive noise or continuous noise. SI acknowledges that thresholds were not yet defined in 2022 when the PoMs was being updated. CY participated and benefited from the QuietMED2 and QuietSEAS European project, which are considered as contributing to the gap analysis. No conclusions or summary of findings from the project are presented though, and no rational, plan or measures are built upon those projects. However, CY does at identify the main activities causing the pressures in its waters: fishing and pleasure vessel for low continuous noise, and hydrocarbon exploration for impulsive noise. No information regarding the gap analysis was provided by IT.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

Measures for D11 are often linked to the Habitats Directive (ES, FR and IT) and the EIA Directive (CY, ES, IT). CY, ES and FR refer to UNEP/MAP policies. In particular, ES has a dedicated measure to implement Recommendations, decisions and documents approved by the Barcelona Convention (2016-2021) although it is a cross-cutting measure, and CY has a dedicated measure to implement the Offshore Protocol. ACCOBAMS is mentioned by ES and SI only, while IMO Guidelines on the assessment of impacts and the limitation of submarine noise are mentioned by IT and SI only. Overall, considering both first and second cycle measures, the Member States relied more heavily on measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks than MSFD specific measures. ES, FR and SI defined both MSFD specific measures and measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks, while CY and IT only relied on the latter. As a result of the gap analysis, even if clear shortcomings were not identified in most Member States, three MS (ES, FR and SI) have modified some measures from the first cycle or defined several additional ones in the second cycle, e.g. mitigation measures derived from IMO and ACCOBAMS to reduce continuous and impulsive underwater noise (SI) or measuree implementing LIFE projects (FR aimed at restoring and maintaining the good conservation status of natural marine habitats, ES consisting of pilot activities to mitigate underwater noise in areas of the Natura 2000 Network).

·Coverage of pressures and activities

The Member States in the region did not make much progress on D11 during the second cycle in terms of pressure coverage. The technical adequacy assessment concluded that ES and FR have partially adequately addressed all pressures. One measure from ES aims to minimise the emission of underwater noise in general and specifically from commercial and industrial activities. FR aims to collect and disseminate impulsive noise data from industrial operations. SI has two MSFD-specific measures, one addressing continuous sound for individual vessels and specific activities such as dredging and drilling and another one addressing impulsive sound. In terms of activities, all Member States address some relevant human activities causing both impulsive (dredging and pile drilling, defence operations (SI), renewable energy (ES)) and continuous noise (recreational activities (ES, FR and SI), fishing (ES, FR, SI), shipping (ES, FR), port activities (ES, SI)). FR talks generally about ‘industrial operations’. In the second cycle, IT did not report in detail, so it is impossible to understand what activities are addressed by its two D11 measures (one implementing EIA, VAS and environmental impact assessment and the other one ‘Guidelines relating to the assessment of impacts and the limitation of submarine noise’).

·Purpose and content of measures

Considering both first and second cycle reporting, most of the measures from all Member States in the region aim to reduce the input of sound. There are no measures aiming to reduce the pressure level in the environment. Around 32% of the measures are direct measures. Another 35% (mainly from FR) are indirect measures and there are several measures (mainly from ES and FR) still dedicated to improving the knowledge base and establishing monitoring programmes. Continuous and impulsive sound are equally addressed by ES, FR and SI. CY does not explicitly address activities causing continuous noise, while it is not clear what type of noise is addressed by the measures defined by IT. None of the Member States in the region address other anthropogenic input source such as heat/light.

No Member State applied for an exception.

Biodiversity

Biodiversity (D1)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

A gap analysis was undertaken by four out of five Member States in the region. Only FR is considered to adequately identify all significant gaps. SI and CY partially identify significant gaps, and ES very partially. Only CY and SI reported on the current status with detailed updates on the status of birds, marine mammals, reptiles, fish, cephalopods, and pelagic habitats. The FR gap analysis focuses on design of new measures and not current status. The ES analysis is restricted to progress on environmental targets. The need for additional data collection is identified by CY, FR and SI, in particular in relation to demographic and distribution data which is essential for mapping and tracking species populations. Only FR considers future socio-economic development to determine future environmental. None of the Member States prepared a baseline scenario, nor indicated a timeline for achieving GES.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States have measures linked to the Habitats and Birds Directives, the CFP and UNEP/MAP. Links to MSP Directive (ES), EIA Directive (CY, IT), Biodiversity Strategy (FR, IT) and CBD (FR, IT) are less common.    FR adopted a balanced mix of existing and MSFD-specific measures. IT and SI adpoted a larger number of extising measures, while the opposite is true for ES; CY did not adopt any MSFD-specific measures. With their MSFD-specific measures, ES and FR cover relevant pressures through direct measures while SI cover pressures indirectly. 

·Coverage of pressures and activities

CY, ES, FR, SI have all made some progress since the first cycle, but only FR has improved in terms of addressing pressures with targeted measures for habitats and species. FR, ES, SI and CY all aim to address disturbance of species, and extraction or mortality/harmfulness of wild species, but only FR and ES do it adequately, using direct and indirect measures. SI and IT measures are all indirect. There is a lack of uniformity in addressing the same kind of pressure among the Member States: incidental bycatch is a common concern, yet approaches vary significantly. ES and FR aim to tackle a broader range of pressures, but with different focuses (species vs. habitats). CY, FR, SI also report on the activities causing pressures, in particular fish and shellfish harvesting (professional, recreational) and shipping.

·Purpose and content of measures

While there is coherence in terms of the types of features that are addressed, the specific features on which Member States focus vary. Generally, benthic broad habitats are the features most often targeted by D1 measures in the Mediterranean (ES, FR, IT, SI) although protection of seabed habitats falls more naturally under D6. Measures include protection of Posidonia beds (SI) or mapping of biogenic seabed (IT). Small-toothed cetaceans (all Member States) and baleen whales (CY, ES, FR, IT) are also commonly targeted features, for example through the education of fishermen on reducing bycatch (IT), the improvement of response to strandings (ES), and reducing the risk of collisions with vessels (FR). Improvement or expansion of MPAs are reported by all Member States. ES, IT and SI report developing new MPAs, ES and FR focus on strengthening the management of existing MPAs. In some cases, particular features are targeted (e.g. biogenic reefs in SI) while in other cases protection is more general, based on the precautionary principle where data on biodiversity is limited. With the exception of CY, the Mediterranean Member States have made progress with regards to the protection target, with all reporting an aim to increase the percentage of their national waters which are protected.

Two Member States out of five, IT and FR, applied for exceptions for Descriptor 1, under Art. 14(1)(a) with different justifications.

IT mentions “Benthic-feeding birds” but provides no other justification for the exception.

FR’s justification is that the control to implement the measures lies with EU processes rather than France, notably under the Deep-Sea Access Regulation and the Technical Measures Regulation.

NIS (D2)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

Only ES and SI undertook a clear gap analysis. Except IT, all other Member States provide a clear overview of the current status. GES has not been achieved in these Member States acknowledging lack of data for assessing NIS introductions. Only three Member States specifically present pressures and activities causing new introductions: CY (aquaculture, ballast waters and hull fouling), FR (import of fauna and flora, ballast waters and introduction and transfer of aquaculture species); SI (hull fouling and ballast water discharges). While the gaps are not clearly defined in most Member States, FR identifies priorities for the measures update for D2 and SI states that GES for D2 should be achieved through cross-border (sub)regional responses. The elements of the gap analysis that were more difficult to elaborate on are baseline scenarios (only SI), and consideration of future socio-economic development to determine future environmental pressures. Most importantly, all Member States fail to report on a timeline for achieving GES.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States link their measures for D2 to relevant existing policies. All Member States refer to the Invasive Alien Species Regulation. FR, IT, CY, and ES refer to the CFP, FR and SI refer to UNEP-MAP, only FR and CY mention the IMO Ballast Water Convention. SI has referred to national and other policies. All Member States in the region are coherent in linking their measures to specific legislation/policies. CY considered measures only taken under other legislative/policy frameworks for D2, whereas ES mostly relied on MSFD-specific measures. FR, IT and SI adopted both measures under other legislative/policy frameworks and MSFD-specified measures. FR, IT and ES identified additional MSFD-specific measures as a result of gap analysis. Few measures are specific however.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

ES, FR, IT have made some progress during the second cycle regarding D2 in terms of pressure coverage, but they have only partially addressed the relevant pressures. SI does not report any modified or additional MSFD specific measures specific for D2 and rather rely on measures taken under other frameworks. The most relevant activities causing the pressures for D2 are targeted by most Member States (FR, CY, SI, ES) in the region: aquaculture, tourism and shipping. CY have also identified some measures which cover research, survey and educational activities.

·Purpose and content of measures

Most of the measures focus on managing sources of activities by directly preventing further inputs of a pressure (e.g. CY - Control and / or limitation of the use NIS in aquaculture through the implementation of regulation, SI - regulating the introduction of NIS into the aquatic environment); a small portion of measures from ES and IT are aimed at directly reducing existing levels of the pressure in the marine environment (e.g. control and management of biofouling of vessels to minimize the transfer of aquatic invasive species respectively). Most Member States (IT, ES, FR, SI) report measures to establish monitoring programmes (of relevant activities, pressures, or impacts) and measures to indirectly prevent further inputs of a pressure (e.g. by governance mechanisms, financial incentives etc.)

Only CY applied for an exception in this region for D2 under Art. 14(1)(a), giving the reason that the Suez Canal is the most significant source of introduction and increase in NIS, and there are inherent difficulties in dealing with and preventing the introduction of NIS through it. Taking preventive measures is not possible since the management of the Suez Canal is not under the control of the EU or any Member State and therefore no measures can be taken/implemented at this level.

Commercial fish and shellfish (D3)

Moderate to high coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

A gap analysis was undertaken by all Member States in the region, except for IT. Only SI provided an overview of current status for D3, highlighting the overfishing conditions of its stocks and declining trends in cephalopods’ landings. FR, CY and ES provides a partial overview of current status. Only FR and SI state clearly that professional or recreational fishing activities are contributing to the pressure. No information regarding how much the first cycle measures reduce pressures is presented by any of the Member States. CY, ES, and SI still conclude on the need to define additional measures (e.g. monitoring programmes for pelagic species (CY) and measures for recreational fisheries (ES)). FR highlights the need for additional measures for locally-managed stocks and recreational fisheries. The elements of the gap analysis that were more difficult to elaborate are baseline scenarios, and consideration of future socio-economic development to determine future environmental pressures (only presented by FR). Most importantly, all Member States failed to report on a timeline for achieving GES.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States provide links to relevant existing policies for D3 in particular the CFP. ES and CY also refer explicitly to EMFAF and CY, ES and IT to the DCF. All Member States except ES refer to the GFCM. Other EU legislation and policies are also drivers for defining measures, e.g. Birds and Habitat Directives (ES, FR and IT) and WFD (ES and FR), Biodiversity Strategy (IT) and MSP Directive (ES). ES, FR and IT also refer to UNEP-MAP. CY and SI rely only, and IT predominantly, on measures taken under other frameworks and ES mostly relied on MSFD-specific measures. FR defined a balanced mix of already established and MSFD-specific measures. As a result of the gap analysis, all Member States except CY have modified or added MSFD-related measures. ES and FR have included measures regarding the strengthening of control and surveillance of fisheries (e.g. fight against IUU fishing and installation of onboard remote electronic monitoring systems – ES or developing skills of different users such as community agents or coast guard – FR) and the same plus IT have added or modified a regulatory framework for recreational fishing (e.g. moratorium on recreational fishing of species of high conservation value such as grouper and corvina).

·Coverage of pressures and activities

All Member States have measures that address the main pressure for D3, which is extraction of species. Only FR adequately address all relevant pressures with the new measures in the second cycle, ES, IT, SI and CY only partially address relevant pressures, while SI and CY did not report any new measures specific to D3. The most relevant activity causing the pressures, fishing (both commercial and recreational), is targeted by all Member States in the region. In addition, some Member States identified other sources of pressure that might impact D3 such as activities related to research (CY and ES), dredging (FR and ES), and aquaculture (ES, FR and SI) as contributors to the status of fish and shellfish and defined new measures to address them.

·Purpose and content of measures

In total 97 measures address the extraction of species (fishing) by all Member States. The vast majority (80% of all measures) aim to directly reduce the pressure level in the environment (e.g. implementation of fishing management plans, enforcement of discard policy, measures to protect specific species) or the input of the pressure (e.g. limiting the use of trawl nets, adaptation of practices of professional fishermen); 7% of measures aim to indirectly prevent further input of the pressure (e.g. governance mechanisms, financial incentives or awareness campaigns). Another 13% of measures aim to improve knowledge and establishing monitoring programmes (from ES, FR and IT) and three measures by CY, ES and FR also aim to directly restore species or habitats (e.g. fish population restoration by implanting artificial reefs (FR)). A few measures (explicitly) mention recreational fisheries in ES, FR and IT. The adequacy assessment particularly underscores the efforts of ES, IT and FR in implementing measures that effectively cover local and national stocks not regulated under the CFP.

No Member State applied for an exception.

Food webs (D4)

Poor coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

None of the Member States in the region have carried out an adequate gap analysis, FR and SI have done so only partially, CY and IT do not report a gap analysis for D4, and information is unclear for ES. None of the Member States describe current status in a great extent. SI limits discussion to the state of primary seabed producers under D5 (human-induced eutrophication) and FR focuses on status of species linked to D1. Fra and SI discuss pressureson food webs, though SI limits this to eutrophication and FR assumes that the same pressures as D1 apply on food webs. Only FR reports clear conclusions of the effectiveness of previous measures, presents a baseline scenario and considers future socio-economic development, but together with D1, not separated for D4. No timelines for achieving GES are discussed.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All Member States link their D4 measures to other frameworks. SI only reports three measures for D4, all national, so is not covered by the following analysis. Member States make links to the Habitats and the Birds Directives, the CFP and the WFD (only FR), as well as UNEP-MAP. CY, FR, and IT mention the Biodiversity Strategy. Only ES defined MSFD-specific measures for D4.

·Coverage of pressures and activities

Only ES and FR have adequately addressed previously identified pressures, while SI does this only partially and the information is not clear for IT due to a lack of detail in the gap analysis and the measures themselves. CY only reports first cycle measures. The main pressures addressed by measures are species extraction and disturbance, introduction of invasive species, input of sound and disturbance of seabed habitats. Only CY, ES, and FR address all of these, but extraction and disturbance of species are addressed by all Member States (apart from SI). The main activities addressed by measures include, extraction of species (fishing), tourism, research, restructuring of habitats, aquaculture, transport, urban uses, military activities, and extraction of non-living resources. ES, FR, and SI address all these activities, while CY only mentions three: fish harvesting, fish processing and research, and IT only tourism.

·Purpose and content of measures

The main features covered include birds, mammals, fish and benthic habitats, with mammals and fish covered by all Member States and pelagic habitats by all except IT. Cephalopods, reptiles and ecosystems overall are also addressed, but to a lesser extent. Fisheries-related measures reported by almost all Member States (ES, FR, IT, SI) included monitoring of fisheries, development of training measures for fishing operators, and prevention of negative impacts of marine aquaculture. ES addresses D4 through the expansion of existing MPAs, designation of new sites and review of management plans. FR, IT and SI partially address D4 pressures through spatial protection, but details are lacking. No new spatial measures are reported for CY. Slightly less than half of the measures aim to reduce or prevent inputs of pressures, the rest relate to monitoring, gaining knowledge or assessing effectiveness of measures. CY and IT report considerably more direct measures, FR more indirect measures and ES and SI an equal share of direct and indirect measures.

Only FR has reported exceptions for Descriptor 4 under Art. 14(1)(a), reasoning that fishing of fodder species is covered under the common fisheries policy (CFP). As FR is not solely responsible for the CFP, the European Commission must ensure that actions are being taken to meet this objective under the CFP and that fodder species are being protected.

Seabed habitats (D6)

Moderate coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

A clear gap analysis was carried out by FR and SI. The gap analysis provided by ES was not clear, and only consisted of a table of targets and associated measures. CY provided only a partial gap analysis and IT did not provide any. SI is the only Member State to provide a clear overview of the current state of the seabed. FR falls short of providing a comprehensive overview on the current environmental status of seabed habitats. ES, CY, and IT do not provide any overview of the current state of the seabed. None of the five Member States explicitly identify relevant pressures and activities. Only SI assessment of the current state implicitly identifies pressures and activities causing damage by detailing the state of seabed habitats and the extent of their degradation or loss. While the gaps are not clearly defined for CY, ES and IT, SI and FR identify clear gaps in the progress towards GES, however FR gaps are tailored more to D1. Clear conclusions are not provided for FR, IT or ES regarding the effectiveness of measures. ES explains this lack of effectiveness analysis is due to a lack of information, lack of monitoring programmes and poorly defined targets. The gap analysis for FR focuses more on presenting new measures to fill gaps and does not discuss effectiveness, and IT does not report any gap analysis information. None of the Member States elaborated on baseline scenarios as a benchmark against which alternative options are compared, nor did they consider future socio-economic development to determine future environmental pressures. All Member States fail to report on a timeline for achieving GES.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

All five Member States link their D6 measures to the Habitats and Birds Directives, the WFD and the CFP. Only ES reports the MSP Directive as relevant and only two Member States mention the CBD (FR, IT). All Member States establish links between their D6 measures and the Barcelona Convention. Overall, considering both first and second cycle measures, Member States mostly relied for D6 on measures taken under other legislative/policy framework. Only ES relied heavily on MSFD-specific measures. CY did not report any MSFD-specific measures under D6. As a result of the gap analysis, even if clear shortcomings were not identified in most Member States, all of them, except CY, modified measures from the first cycle or defined additional ones in the second cycle. The proportion of these measures which are specific to D6 is low at only 23%. These specific measures target seabed integrity through reducing relevant pressures such as extraction, physical loss, and physical disturbance. The remaining measures are reported as relevant to more than one descriptor and are therefore more general actions (often also cover D1 and D4).

·Coverage of pressures and activities

The main pressures affecting seabed habitats include both physical loss and physical disturbance of the seabed. Considering both first and second cycle measures, only ES and SI identified additional measures addressing both pressures. Overall, most D6 measures overlap with descriptors D1 and D4, indicating a general approach rather than specificity to the essential pressures on seabed integrity (physical loss and disturbance). Other recurrent pressures include biological disturbance to species and extraction of species (CY, ES, FR, IT and SI), biological cultivation of habitats (ES, FR, IT, and SI) and input of litter (CY, ES, FR, IT and SI). Only half of the measures addressing physical loss and disturbance of the seabed reported by ES and SI are tied to activities. The most common activity causing physical loss and disturbance of the seabed is identified as fishing, as in the first cycle. Others include transport infrastructure, tourism and recreation, and agriculture. The technical adequacy assessment concluded that ES and SI adequately address all the relevant pressures with the MSFD-specific measures reported in the second cycle. FR and IT only partially covers the relevant pressures. All Member States in the region, with the exception of CY, have made progress in improving the coverage of D6 pressures in the second cycle.

·Purpose and content of measures

Looking at both first and second cycle reporting, ES and SI (the only Member States to address the two relevant pressures) report more measures that prevent further inputs of the pressure (86 %), than measures aimed at directly reducing its existing level in the environment (13 % from only ES) or measures directly restoring a species or habitats (19% from only ES). Only 32% of the measures are direct measures, managing the source activities; 53% are indirect measures aiming at preventing further inputs of a pressure (e.g. by governance mechanisms, financial incentives, awareness campaigns). Additionally, a high proportion of measures is dedicated to improving the knowledge base (32% from ES and SI), and a few measures are aimed at establishing monitoring programmes (9% from ES) and even fewer aimed at assessing their effectiveness (2% from ES). Most Member States rely on spatial protection and MPA measures to reduce both physical loss and disturbance of sensitive seabed habitats. Aside from CY which did not report any new measures, all four remaining Member States reported new spatial protection measures. A large proportion of the spatial protection measures reported under D6 are also reported under D1. In some cases (notably in SI), habitat-specific protected areas are proposed, for example to protect Zostera beds, detritus beds, rock reefs or biogenic reefs.

FR is the only Member State to apply for an exception under Art. 14(1)(a). FR reasons that action is required from the European Commission for the measures to be implemented, which is out of the control of the Member State. FR argues that the European Commission must undertake the necessary mapping of VMEs under the deep-sea fisheries regulation using Member State data.

Hydrographical changes (D7)

Poor coherence

·Coherence of gap analyses

Almost all Member States (CY, ES, FR, SI) reported a gap analysis, but only CY and ES do so with D7 specific findings. SI merely reports information about expected improvements related to permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions. CY, ES and SI mention that there is a need for better data, knowledge, and understanding of the effects of human activities and hydrographical changes on marine ecosystems. An overview of the current status is not given by any of the Member States, nor it is estimated how much measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks will reduce pressures. A baseline or consideration of future socio-economic development to determine future environmental pressures was not given either, and clear conclusions on the effectiveness of measures were missing as well as a timeline for when GES would be achieved. Coherence is poor in both the methodological approach and the conclusions on assessment of status (missing for all Member States) and gap analysis. No common forward vision has been reported for future activities and pressures that could hamper achievement of GES for D7 by causing permanent alteration in hydrological conditions.

·MSFD-specific measures vs other measures

Most Member States report a single policy linked to the measures relevant to D7: EIA Directive (CY, IT) Habitats Directive (FR, SI) and WFD (ES, FR). The MSP (ES), Birds Directive (SI) and UWWTD (FR) were least mentioned. Few Member States (FR, SI) mention measures linked to UNEP/MAP. Considering the measures taken under other legislative/policy frameworks and MSFD-specific measures, SI defines a balanced mix of both, whereas CY relied more on the first type, and ES relied more on the second type. The Member States in the region fail to mobilise the MSP Directive that could provide forward-looking vision of activities, pressures and impacts. Almost all Member States report MSFD-specific measures (ES, FR IT, SI), but only a small portion of the measures are linked specifically to D7 (ES, FR). The other measures are reported as being relevant to more than one descriptor (and also cover in particular D1 and D6).

·Coverage of pressures and activities

According to the adequacy assessment, none of the Member States have made progress on the coverage of relevant pressures. Only ES and FR report measures on a D7-related pressure, which are related to reducing the level of impact on hydrographical changes. In the second cycle the Member States do not cover activities in a coherent way. Both ES and FR have measures related to sediment management, while the other Member States’s measures cover activities that are less relevant for D7. SI D7 measures mostly cover aquaculture, and protection of the seabed. In IT, the D7 measures are related to the input of sound and energy.

·Purpose and content of measures

Considering both first and second cycle reporting, more than half of the MSFD-specific measures aim at reducing the input of pressures, of which about half addresses the pressures directly (ES, FR, SI), and half do so indirectly (ES, FR, SI). Only one MS (ES) provides a few measures to assess the impact/effectiveness of measures or restoring of an ecosystem. Half of the measures aim at improving the knowledge base, for example by conducting research (ES, FR, IT, SI). Regarding the content of measures, there is great variety between the second cycle MSFD-specific measures reported by the Member States (ES, FR, IT, SI; CY did not report). While ES and FR measures focus on sediment management, ES reports measures to improve the knowledge base on coastal and marine ecosystems, while FR measures are linked to salinity changes. The measures of other Member States are not related to D7 content-wise (IT, SI).

No Member State applied for an exception

The cost of the second MSFD programmes of measures, as reported by Member States

Estonia reported a cost of EUR 46.3 million to implement their programmes of measures over the 2022 to 2027 period. These costs cover one-off and recurring costs.

Finland reported a cost of EUR 299 million for their programmes of measures over the period 2022 to 2027, with EUR 223 million for investments, EUR 59 million for direct costs, and EUR 9 million to cover the workload of authorities.

Lithuania reported a one-off cost of EUR 5.5 million plus EUR 0.5 million of recurring costs for their programmes of measures.

Latvia reported that the total direct financial cost of the measures is between EUR 2.473-2.533 million for the 2022 to 2027 programming period, or EUR 0.412-0.422 million on average per year.

Poland reported a total cost of PLN 2.9 billion for their second programmes of measures. They stated that this amount does not include running costs of some continuous measures.

Sweden estimated that in the period 2022 to 2040, the measures included in their second programmes of measures cost between SEK 0.18-0.87 billion, with a mid-point estimate of SEK 0.53 billion.

Slovenia reported a total cost of EUR 18.23 million for their second programmes of measures over the period 2022 to 2027.

Quantifying the benefits from the marine environment: examples from three Member States

Finland reported benefits of achieving GES for selected descriptors in the Finnish waters of the Baltic Sea. They estimated, via benefits transfer from a willingness to pay study ( 293 ), that the present value benefits is EUR 2,351 million by 2040. These estimates are reliant on the assumption that GES is achieved for Descriptors 1, 3 and 6 by 2040, but not for Descriptor 5.

Latvia reported benefits valued at EUR 16.2 million per year for improvements in the marine environment and the provision of ecosystem services. These improvements are associated with improvements in biodiversity and with the reduction of eutrophication, of hazardous pollutants, of the introduction and impacts of invasive non-native species, and of marine litter.

Sweden reported present value benefits from additional ecosystem services of between SEK 0.96 – 12.50 (approximately EUR 0.08-1.09) billion over the period 2022 to 2040. These benefits are assumed to result from the reduction of pressures from the marine environment and were estimated via a willingness to pay study.

Consideration of social and human well-being in the second programmes of measures

Finland examined the well-being improvement that may result from the implementation of the programmes of measures, represented by indirect effects on human health, living conditions and comfort. For example, they described how measures on eutrophication will reduce toxic algal blooms and improve the cleanliness of beaches, which are expected to benefit human health and coastal aesthetics.

Estonia included a category of human well-being and health in their cost-effectiveness analysis, where this category also covers local community, traditions, cultural heritage and employment. They indicated if each individual new measure is expected to have a positive, negative or no impact on this category. For some measures, they also provided qualitative descriptions of expected improvements in this category of human well-being and health. For example, Estonia stated that a reduction in marine litter is expected to have significant impacts on human well-being and health.

The use of EU funds for the implementation of the MSFD

The Netherlands reported that EUR 5 million is available from EMFAF for specific MSFD measures and research, although they did not elaborate on what types of measures or for which descriptors this funding will target.

Lithuania provided estimates of funds they foresee to be made available from the Cohesion fund and ERDF, EAFRD, EMFAF, Horizon Europe and the LIFE programme. They also provided estimates on the amount they will mobilise from the fund to support MSFD measures, and examples are below.

-Cohesion Fund and ERDF: EUR 440 million for measures affecting the water sector.

-EARDF: almost EUR 787 million for measures to contribute to the improvement of the environmental status of surface waters.

-EMFAF: EUR 5.4 million for more sustainable fishing practices; EUR 2.45 million income support in case of loss of income due to permanent or temporary cessation of fishing activities; EUR 4.5 million for the protection and restoration of aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems; EUR 730.000 for the fisheries management to protect birds and compensation for damage caused by protected marine mammals.

Score

High

Medium-High

Medium

Medium-Low

Low

Total

Member States

9

4

2

1

1

17 MS