Issues on implementation |
Suggestion |
Potential actions/actors |
Low integration with WFD and BD, relatively higher with HD. |
Better exploitation of methods, data and features derived from other legislations. |
MS |
Low/Moderate integration between MSFD and RSC. |
Active involvement of the RSC or the MS on regional level in the establishment of coherent and comparable with WFD and RSC' indicators, methods and thresholds. |
Links between MSFD-WFD-RSC / MS & RSC |
Reporting on biodiversity (from species to ecosystems) considering a minimum list of state characteristics common for neighbour MS. |
Adaptation of methodologies, indicators, state characteristics on regional level. |
RSC could supervise the adaptation / RSC & MS |
Heterogeneity in definition of GES and targets both at European level and at RSC level. |
Links between definition of GES and targets, through predefined methods. |
RSC / MS |
HELCOM could be considered as a good practice of MSFD-RSC integration. |
HELCOM approach to be adopted or to inspire other RSC, if applicable. |
RSC |
Gaps in biodiversity knowledge |
Encourage bilateral and regional cooperation to set a more comprehensive background on biodiversity taking into account the environmental similarities. |
Scientific and pilot project at regional and sub-regional level / MS and RSC and the Commission |
Issues on methods |
Suggestion |
Potential actions/actors |
High heterogeneity in the number and type of methodological approaches, thresholds and limits in MS reports. |
Common agreed and comparable methodological standards on a regional or EU scale. |
Starting for the frequently used methods / MS & RSC |
Inconsistency on indicators reported per criterion. |
Core set of biodiversity indicators to ensure the minimum level of coherence, without degrading the value of MSFD. |
JRC led network of experts / COM Decision revision |
High heterogeneity in the indicator definition: generic indicators (e.g. 1.2.1) to methodological-like description (e.g. 1.6.3). |
Improve the interpretation of indicators by linking them with specific methods on a pan-European or regional level, if possible. |
JRC led network of experts / COM Decision revision |
Definition of GES and targets are based on state or impact indicators. Lack of pressure-based indicators for biodiversity. |
Define pressure indicators for biodiversity based on MS initial assessment. |
JRC led network of experts / COM Decision revision |
Issues on reporting |
Suggestion |
Potential actions/actors |
Differences between paper reports and electronic sheets; missing or not adequately reported information; similar information is reported under different fields; Different level of detail in the reported information. |
Electronic reports should reflect paper reports to facilitate the assessment of Art 8, 9 and 10 implementation and not to be presented as a second report that completes or covers the first one. The required information in the electronic reports could be significantly reduced and the process could be automated by using drop-down boxes with specific option. |
Updated guidance on reporting with reduced and more specific fields/ ENV |
Inconsistency in reports regarding Article 8, 9 & 10 implementation, the use of pressures and impacts in them and their link with criteria and indicators. |
Clear links between pressures and impacts (Annex III, Table 2 of MSFD) and criteria and indicators (COM DEC 2010/477/EU) and thereafter between Art. 8, 9 and 10, taking into account the connection with Table 1 in Annex III of MSFD. |
JRC led network of experts / COM Decision revision |
Improving the efficiency and homogeneity of reporting sheets; improve data access and data management for the MS evaluation of MSFD implementation (Art. 12). |
Coherence in reporting to allow for accurate and meaningful IDA. |
Improve electronic forms, data & metadata availability / MS & ENV |