Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
Common Implementation Strategy
Fourteenth Meeting of the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG)
10th November 2014 10.00 – 18:00
11th November 2014 09.00 – 13.00
European Commission, Conference Centre Albert Borchette, Rue Froissart 36, 1040 Brussels
Agenda Item:
5
Document:
MSCG -14_2014-05
Title:
Updated Recommendation on Programmes of measures
Prepared by:
DG Environment
Date prepared:
27/10/2014
Background:
At the Marine Directors in Heraklion, Greece, in June 2014, Marine Directors agreed
on the POMs recommendation document. They also noted that further work on the
document should be restricted to 4 specific issues. These are now presented to the
MSCG for adoption and consist of the following elements:
a.
WG DIKE developed and finalized the reporting on POMs in a
more structured way, in close collaboration with WG ESA. The
resulting draft Concept paper for reporting of programme of
measures and exceptions (Art. 13 and 14 reporting) will be
annexed the POM recommendation as annex 3 (see MSCG_142014-16)
b.
WG ESA agreed on a best practice document prepared by
Arcadis (see document, MSCG 2014_14-06 for separate adoption)
and as a result agreed minor textual changes to the POM
recommendation to align it with the new best practice document
(see track changes in Chapter VII on Economic Analysis, below )
c.
Following the financing opportunity workshop (13 May), Annex II
to the POMs recommendation, dealing with Art 22
implementation (the "co-financing guidance", was developed
and agreed by WG ESA (see Annex 2).
Article 22 of the MSFD stipulates that the implementation of the
Directive shall be supported by existing Community financial
instruments in accordance with applicable rules and conditions. In
view of this Article, the European Commission contracted
ARCADIS /EUCC to develop a guidance to support Member States
to compile and finance a set of measures suited for their own
implementation of the MSFD. The guidance consists of a high
level inventory of potential funding mechanisms for the financing
of measures and supportive activities (e.g. concerning data
collection, monitoring and compliance) by Member States, geared
at the implementation of MSFD, complementary to the proper
funding by MS themselves. Next to this inventory the guidance
focuses on the following EU-funding mechanisms:
-European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)
-EU Regional Funds:
− European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
− Cohesion Fund (CF)
-EU Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)
-EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon
2020)
Consultation was done through the EC Directorates ENV, MARE
and REGIO as well as WG ESA, whose comments have now been
integrated.
d.
Further work on Exceptions (Art 14) was done both in Chapter IV
of the POMs recommendation by WG ESA and an informal
working group on exceptions, and as part of the work on
reporting on POM (see MSCG_14-2014-16).
The whole chapter IV on exception below has been added to the
version of the POM recommendation agreed by Marine Directors
and the track changes indicate how the comments from the WG
ESA and the informal drafting group on exceptions have been
taken into account in the first draft discussed in ESA and in the
informal drafting group on exceptions.
The MSCG is invited to discuss and adopt (in accordance with article 6 RoP) the updated
parts of the POM recommendation paper which consist of :
a. Minor textual adaptation suggested to refer to new document MSCG 142014-06
b. Annex II: co-financing guidance (Art.22)
c. Updated Chapter IV (exceptions article 14)
d. Annex III Concept paper for reporting of programme of measures and
exceptions (Art. 13 and 14 reporting - see MSCG_14-2014-16)
Programmes of measures under MSFD
Recommendations for establishment / implementation
and related reporting
Foreword
The Marine Directors of the European Union (EU), Acceding Countries, Candidate Countries and EFTA
Countries have jointly developed a common strategy for supporting the implementation of the Directive
2008/56/EC, “the Marine Strategy Framework Directive” (MSFD). The main aim of this strategy is to
allow a coherent and harmonious implementation of the Directive. Focus is on methodological
questions related to a common understanding of the technical and scientific implications of the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive. In particular, one of the objectives of the strategy is the development of
non-legally binding and practical documents, such as this recommendation, on various technical issues
of the Directive. These documents are targeted to those experts who are directly or indirectly
implementing the MSFD in the marine regions.
The document has been prepared by a workshop of experts and following consultation of the Working
Group on Good Environmental Status. It has been [agreed] by the Marine Strategy Coordination Group
(in accordance with Article 6 of its Rules of Procedures).
This part of the foreword will be discussed and agreed at the Marine Directors’ meeting: [The Marine
Directors of the European Union and associated countries to this process have also endorsed this
Document during their informal meeting under the Greek Presidency in Heraklion (5 June 2014) and
reached the following [draft] conclusions:
“We would like to thank the experts who have prepared this high quality document. We strongly believe
that this and other documents developed under the Common Implementation Strategy will play a key
role in the process of implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This document is a living
document that will need continuous input and improvements as application and experience build up in
all countries of the European Union and beyond. We agree, however, that this document will be made
publicly available in its current form in order to present it to a wider public as a basis for carrying forward
on-going implementation work.”]
The Marine Strategy Coordination Group will assess and decide upon the necessity for reviewing this
document in the light of scientific and technical progress and experiences gained in implementing the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/f088529c-41a7-4b2e-b92a-e8838a6b3396
Disclaimer:
This document has been developed through a collaborative programme involving the European
Commission, all EU Member States, the Accession Countries, and Norway, international organisations,
including the Regional Sea Conventions and other stakeholders and Non-Governmental Organisations.
The document should be regarded as presenting an informal consensus position on best practice agreed
by all partners. However, the document does not necessarily represent the official, formal position of any
of the partners. Hence, the views expressed in the document do not necessarily represent the views of
the European Commission.
Table of Contents
Foreword ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
I.
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9
II.
Requirements of the Directive ............................................................................................................ 10
1)
Requirements for the development of measures ........................................................................... 11
a.
Aim of the PoM ........................................................................................................................... 11
b.
Content / Structure of the PoMs................................................................................................. 12

Existing measures ........................................................................................................................ 12

New measures ............................................................................................................................. 13
c.
Financing issue ............................................................................................................................ 14
2)
Requirements for regional cooperation.......................................................................................... 15
3)
Requirements in relation to other policy frameworks .................................................................... 16
4)
Exceptions ....................................................................................................................................... 17
5)
Timeline and reporting .................................................................................................................... 27
6)
Public consultation and information ............................................................................................... 28
III.
‘Measures’ and ‘programmes of measures’ – definitions .............................................................. 28
IV.
Logic of the directive and streamlined procedures for the development of programmes
of measures ................................................................................................................................................. 30
1)
Technical specification of environmental targets as a basis for measures ..................................... 33
2)
Gap analysis..................................................................................................................................... 33
3)
Identification and description of possible new measures .............................................................. 34
4)
Selection of new measures ............................................................................................................. 35
5)
Content of the PoM ......................................................................................................................... 36
6)
Implementation planning ............................................................................................................... 37
7) Public consultation .............................................................................................................................. 37
V.
Interlinkages to other policy frameworks (including other EU directives) ......................................... 38
1)
Measures under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) ............................................................... 38
2)
Spatial protection measures ........................................................................................................... 39
3)
VI.
2.1
Improving Marine Protected Area (MPA) networks ............................................................... 39
2.2
Other spatial protection measures ......................................................................................... 42
Other relevant regulations .............................................................................................................. 43
Coordination within marine regions ............................................................................................... 43
VII.
Costs & benefits of the programmes of measures ......................................................................... 44
VIII.
Reporting ......................................................................................................................................... 50
Annex 1: Indicative list of relevant EU legislation that contribute to achieving MSFD GES ....................... 52
Annex 2: Co-financing opportunities .......................................................................................................... 53
Annex 3: Reporting on programmes of measures under MSFD ................................................................. 84
1)
General set of questions (PoM level) .............................................................................................. 84
2)
Set of specific questions for each measure..................................................................................... 84
3)
Further guidance for WG DIKE for drafting the Art 13 reporting sheet .......................................... 84
I.
Introduction
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC) enters an important phase of
implementation. The next milestone, of major importance in the implementation is the
establishment of programmes of measures (PoMs) by 2015 and their entry into operation by
2016.
This draft document aims to help Member States by providing:

basic principles for the establishment of programmes of measures under the MSFD,

guidance for their implementation,

main elements to be considered in the reporting of PoM to the Commission.
This document has been drafted following a discussion within the MSFD Common
Implementation Strategy.
Although this document is not legally binding, Member States are recommended to use this
document as guidance as much as possible, so as to increase international coherence and
comparability at both the level of the EU and the Regional Seas1.
The present document takes into account existing Member States guidance on impact
assessment (when available), as well as the following relevant existing documents2:
-
Commission Impact Assessment guidelines
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelin
es_en.htm
-
Arcadis study Feb 2012: "Economic assessment of policy measures for the
implementation of the MSFD"
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/studies.htm#4;
-
Draft RSC contribution to the EU-MSFD Common Implementation Strategy work
programme for 2014 and beyond;
-
Marine litter socio economic assessment in NL; and
-
Various WFD / MSFD / HBD and other CIS Guidance documents (expl: Monitoring
recommendation, Common understanding from GES, Wateco guidance…) and various
on-going CIS discussions (MEG discussion);
-
The document based on the workshop of 1st of April 2014 on Cost Effectiveness of
measures.
1
A Foreword similar to the one used for the Recommendation on Monitoring will be added in line with
MSCG internal rules of procedures
2
The list of relevant documents will be updated at the end of the exercise.
Structure of the document
The document is structured as follows:
- Chapter II screens and identifies the relevant requirements from the Directive in a structured
manner, aiming to clarify the legal basis;
- Chapter III provides definitions of key terms used;
- Chapter IV provides step by step practical guidance for MS on how to develop their PoM;
- Chapter V focuses on the interlinkages with other policies;
- Chapter VI covers Regional coordination;
- Chapter VII provides guidance on how to address analyses, including cost effectiveness and
costs benefits analysis, of the PoM;
- Chapter VIII sets out a framework for reporting;
- Chapter IX includes information on knowledge exchange and gaps; and
- Chapter X is a conclusion.
II.
Requirements of the Directive
The document intends to guide Member States on how PoMs should be established and tries
to point out the requirements which would benefit from a common understanding or
exchange of best practices. The requirements have been grouped into themes to better
understand how they relate to each other.
The MSFD recitals includes some of the basic principles that Member States should take into
account in order to achieve or maintain GES and are therefore relevant to the establishment
and implementation of programmes of measures (Article 13). These are:
-
recognition of the diverse conditions, problems and needs of marine regions and the
need to take this into account (recital 10);
-
marine strategies should culminate in the execution of programmes of measures
designed to achieve or maintain GES, However, Member States are not required to
take specific steps in cases defined under Article 14 on exceptions (recital 11);
-
the possibility to receive supportive action by the Commission because of enhanced
efforts to improve the marine environment in those areas where the status of the sea
is so critical that urgent actions are needed (recital 14)
-
the need to base programmes of measures on sound knowledge of the state of the
marine environment (recital 23);
-
the design of the first steps in the preparation of programmes of measures (i.e. the
requirements for the initial assessment, including analysis of characteristics,
predominant pressures and impacts, and an economic and social analysis of their use
and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment) (recital 24);
-
the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle and the ecosystem approach in
line with Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme (recital
27 and 44);
-
the adaptativeness of the PoMs and scientific and technological developments to be
taken into account (recital 34);
-
should be recognized the exceptions which don’t allow to achieve or maintain GES in
all marine waters by 2020 (recital 29);
-
the need to identify instances clearly in its programme of measures where the
environmental targets or good environmental status cannot be achieved (recital 31).
The ecosystem approach was developed in 1995 at COP 2 of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) in Jakarta and further specified by the so-called ‘Malawi’-principles. In 2003 a
joint declaration of the Helsinki and the OSPAR Commissions established a transformation of
these principles to European marine waters. Similarly, in 2007 the Contracting Parties of the
Barcelona Convention adopted the “Ecosystem Approach process” (ECAP) for achieving good
environmental status in the Mediterranean. Article 1(3) MSFD incorporates the ecosystem
approach into the MSFD and the definition of GES under Article 3 (5) helps to make it
operational. According to Article 16 the Commission has to assess whether in the case of each
Member State the Programme of Measures notified constitutes an appropriate framework to
meet these and other principles of the Directive.
1) Requirements for the development of measures
a. Aim of the PoM
Art 13.1
Member States shall, in respect of each marine region or subregion concerned, identify the measures
which need to be taken in order to achieve or maintain good environmental status, as determined
pursuant to Article 9(1), in their marine waters.
Those measures shall be devised on the basis of the initial assessment made pursuant to Article 8(1) and
by reference to the environmental targets established pursuant to Article 10(1), and taking into
consideration the types of measures listed in Annex VI.
This Article provides the overall framework for the PoM.
First, MS are required to identify measures that contribute to the achievement or maintenance
of GES set out in their Marine Strategies (ref to Art 9.1) and that will address the predominant
pressures and impacts identified in the initial assessment of their marine waters (ref to initial
assessment). There should be a direct link between the proposed measures and the
established national targets. Where relevant it is possible that measures may address several
descriptors / targets / pressures / economic sectors / activities.
Lastly this Article states that measures should be classified in an indicative typology, which
might be helpful, especially for regional cooperation and reporting. Annex VI of the MSFD
provides a potential starting point to be considered but is neither a definitive nor an
exhaustive way in which measures may be presented, this should be further reflected in the
context of the reporting.
b. Content / Structure of the PoMs
Art 13.7
Member States shall indicate in their programmes of measures how the measures are to be implemented
and how they will contribute to the achievement of the environmental targets established pursuant to
Article 10(1).
Based on the initial assessment and determination of good environmental status, each
Member State established environmental targets to guide progress towards achieving GES in
the marine environment. To reach GES and related environmental targets, measures have to
be identified in order to address human activities that have an impact on the marine
environment and to enhance or maintain the status of the marine environment. Such
measures can be existing under EU regime or new measures under MSFD. To do this, MS need
to analyse the contribution that existing measures make to the achievement of each target
and - if necessary – supplement this with new measures.
 Existing measures
Art 13.2
Member States shall integrate the measures devised pursuant to paragraph 1 into a programme of measures, taking
into account relevant measures required under Community legislation, in particular Directive 2000/60/EC, Council
Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1) and Directive 2006/7/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality
(2), as well as forthcoming legislation on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, or
international agreements.
This article makes clear that the PoM shall take into account relevant measures required under
EU legislation together with ones resulting from international agreements, including those
made under the relevant RSCs.
Prior to the adoption of MSFD, sectoral and environmental legislation at European or
international levels led to the establishment of measures protecting the marine environment.
When developing the MSFD PoM, it is necessary to take into account their contribution to
reaching the MSFD environmental targets.
Since these measures were not designed specifically to support the implementation of the
MSFD, it is possible that they are not sufficient. In addition, certain emerging issues addressed
in the MSFD are not covered by measures required under existing Community legislation and
those resulting from international agreements.
Identifying these gaps will help clarify where new measures might be needed. To help identify
and develop possible new measures the following ideas could be used: consultation with
stakeholders, information from scientific reports, exchanges between Member States, input
from Regional Sea Convention’s, existing measures might also provide some examples or ideas
for new measures for example by expanding reinforcing existing measures, expanding their
scope of application.
 New measures
Art 13.3
When drawing up the programme of measures pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall give due
consideration to sustainable development and, in particular, to the social and economic impacts of the
measures envisaged. To assist the competent authority or authorities referred to in Article 7 to pursue
their objectives in an integrated manner, Member States may identify or establish administrative
frameworks in order to benefit from such interaction.
Member States shall ensure that measures are cost-effective and technically feasible, and shall carry out
impact assessments, including cost-benefit analyses, prior to the introduction of any new measure.
This is a crucial requirement of the Directive for new measures, where a common
understanding and exchange of best practice is needed to better perform impact assessments
of measures, including Cost-effectiveness analysis CEA and, for new measures, Cost-benefit
analysis (CBA).
Art 13.4
Programmes of measures established pursuant to this Article shall include spatial protection measures,
contributing to coherent and representative networks of marine protected areas, adequately covering
the diversity of the constituent ecosystems, such as special areas of conservation pursuant to the
Habitats Directive, special protection areas pursuant to the Birds Directive, and marine protected areas
as agreed by the Community or Member States concerned in the framework of international or regional
agreements to which they are parties.
A spatial protection measure is any spatial restriction or management of all or certain human
activities in order to:
1. Protect biodiversity, e.g. marine reserves. Such areas could support MPA networks in
terms of coherence and representativeness (Article 13.4) and the overall achievement
of MSFD GES.
2. Support certain industrial or leisure activities, e.g. banning of fisheries or gravel
extraction within a shipping lane or offshore wind-farm, which may have synergistic
effects on biodiversity protection/conservation.
Spatial protection measures contributing to coherent and representative networks of marine
protected areas (MPAs) are the only type of measures explicitly mentioned in the Directive.
There is a need for a Common understanding of the different levels of protection of these
measures in close cooperation with the Marine Expert Group (MEG) under the Habitats and
Birds Directives, taking into account actions in regional sea conventions. This is in order to
better understand the difference between MPA networks put in place to protect biodiversity
and the additional potential benefits from other spatial protection measures for biodiversity
(point 2 above) (in this context, see section V.2 below).
Art 13.6
By 2013 at the latest, Member States shall make publicly available, in respect of each marine region or
subregion, relevant information on the areas referred to in paragraphs 4 [and 5].
The Commission has launched a contract study: "Develop and test methodology and criteria
for assessing coherence, adequacy and representativity of EU networks of marine protected
areas", which should provide an extensive analysis on the methodology(ies) to be applied on
the current network. The study will run during 2014 and will produce a final report by the end
of the year for the adoption of MSCG. The Marine Experts Group will also be consulted during
an ad hoc workshop on May 6th.
c. Financing issue
Article 22 Community financing
1. Given the priority inherently attached to the establishment of marine strategies, the implementation
of this Directive shall be supported by existing Community financial instruments in accordance with
applicable rules and conditions.
2. The programmes drawn up by the Member States shall be co-financed by the EU in accordance with
existing financial instruments.
The new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) has introduced a number of co-financing
possibilities which are summarised in Annex 2.
2) Requirements for regional cooperation
Art 5.2
Member States sharing a marine region or subregion shall cooperate to ensure that, within each marine
region or subregion, the measures required to achieve the objectives of this Directive, in particular the
different elements of the marine strategies referred to in points (a) and (b), are coherent and
coordinated across the marine region or subregion concerned, in accordance with the following plan of
action for which Member States concerned endeavour to follow a common approach:
(b) programme of measures:
(i) development, by 2015 at the latest, of a programme of measures designed to achieve or maintain
good environmental status, in accordance with Article 13(1), (2) and (3);
(ii) entry into operation of the programme provided for in point (i), by 2016 at the latest, in accordance
with Article 13(10).
This requirement highlights the need for PoMs to be coherent and coordinated across the
relevant marine region. This is the main rationale for the elaboration of the recommendations
and common understanding set out in this paper. In addition, Regional Seas Conventions will
play an important role in this respect, and their experience should be used and good examples
highlighted. It also stress the added value of joint PoMs.
Art 13.8
Member States shall consider the implications of their programmes of measures on waters beyond their
marine waters in order to minimise the risk of damage to, and if possible have a positive impact on,
those waters.
The implications of a PoM on other MS’s waters and in areas beyond national jurisdiction have
to be considered when establishing the PoM by checking if there are any significant positive or
negative effects, which might change the prioritization of measures to be taken. Regional Seas
Conventions will have an important role to play with respect to identifying these opportunities
and/or risks. Subject to provision of SEA Directive, if carried out, this could help in this context.
3) Requirements in relation to other policy frameworks
Art 13.5
Where Member States consider that the management of a human activity at Community or international
level is likely to have a significant impact on the marine environment, particularly in the areas addressed
in paragraph 4, they shall, individually or jointly, address the competent authority or international
organisation concerned with a view to the consideration and possible adoption of measures that may be
necessary in order to achieve the objectives of this Directive, so as to enable the integrity, structure and
functioning of ecosystems to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored.
Some of the descriptors, pressures and impacts according to Annex I and III of the MSFD
definitely require action at a EU level, particularly where fishing (CFP) and shipping (IMO) are
concerned (but also hazardous substances (REACH), market regulation related to plant
protection products, etc.).
The joint implementation of Marine Litter Regional Plans, such as the one already agreed by
the Barcelona Convention, could be considered as a good example of this requirement.
Art 15 Recommendations for Community action
Where a Member State identifies an issue which has an impact on the environmental status of its marine
waters and which cannot be tackled by measures adopted at national level, or which is linked to another
Community policy or international agreement, it shall inform the Commission accordingly and provide a
justification to substantiate its view.
The Commission shall respond within a period of six months.
Where action by Community institutions is needed, Member States shall make appropriate
recommendations to the Commission and the Council for measures regarding the issues referred to in
paragraph 1. Unless otherwise specified in relevant Community legislation, the Commission shall respond
to any such recommendation within a period of six months and, as appropriate, reflect the
recommendations when presenting related proposals to the European Parliament and to the Council.
For the time being, the Commission has not been informed of any such issues. Consideration
for MSCG should be given to the need to identify and agree on a list of potential issues where
EU action would be useful or necessary. Whilst such an issue can be identified and
communicated to COM by an individual MS, it is more meaningful that Regional coordination,
e.g. through the RSC, is taking place before submitting any such recommendation.
4) Exceptions
a) Basic principles
Provisions on exceptions are contained in Article 14 of the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (MSFD). A number of MSFD recitals provide clarifications on the flexibility
embedded in the MSFD, and assist in the interpretation of Article 14.
Recital 11
Each Member State should therefore develop a marine strategy for its marine waters
which, while being specific to its own waters, reflects the overall perspective of the
marine region or subregion concerned. Marine strategies should culminate in the
execution of programmes of measures designed to achieve or maintain good
environmental status. However, Member States should not be required to take specific
steps where there is no significant risk to the marine environment, or where the costs
would be disproportionate taking account of the risks to the marine environment,
provided that any decision not to take action is properly justified.
Recital 11 covers the case mentioned in Article 14(4). Other exceptions (Article 14(1),
points (a) to (e)) are further specified in Recitals 29 to 33.
Recital 29
Member States should take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain good
environmental status in the marine environment. However, it should be recognised that
achieving or maintaining good environmental status in every aspect may not be possible
in all marine waters by 2020. Therefore, for reasons of fairness and feasibility, it is
appropriate to make provision for cases where it would be impossible for a Member
State to achieve the level of ambition of the environmental targets set or to achieve or
maintain good environmental status.
Recital 29 states that exceptions are possible in cases when achieving good
environmental status (GES) “in every aspect” is not possible by 2020. It further
mentions that exceptions are appropriate “for cases where it would be impossible for a
Member State to achieve the level of ambition of the environmental targets set or to
achieve or maintain good environmental status”, therefore clearly defining exceptions as
exceptions to reaching environmental targets or GES, as set by Member States. In cases
where the GES definitions of Member States, or the environmental targets set are
inadequate, it will therefore be difficult to substantiate and justify exceptions.
Recital 30
In that context provision should be made for two special cases. The first special case
refers to the situation where it is impossible for a Member State to meet its
environmental targets because of action or inaction for which the Member State
concerned is not responsible, or because of natural causes or force majeure, or because
of actions which that Member State has itself taken for reasons of overriding public
interest which outweigh the negative impact on the environment, or because natural
conditions do not allow timely improvement in the status of marine waters. The
Member State concerned should substantiate why it considers that such a special case
has arisen and identify the area concerned, and should take appropriate ad-hoc measures
with the aim of continuing to pursue the environmental targets, preventing further
deterioration in the status of the marine waters affected and mitigating the adverse
impact within the marine region or subregion concerned.
Recital 30 covers the cases mentioned in Article 14(1), points (a) to (e) and describes
three concepts:
-
exceptions are limited to specific instances (defined in Article 14(1) and 14(4))
-
an exception must be substantiated by the Member State claiming it (identifying
the area concerned and the reasons for claiming the exception)
-
even in cases covered by an exception, the Member State concerned has a
responsibility to take ad-hoc measures for instances mentioned under Article
14(1). Such ad-hoc measures aim to progress towards the objective set by the
environmental target (even if not fully meeting the target), but also to prevent
further deterioration in the area affected, and to mitigate any adverse impacts
within the marine (sub)region concerned.
Recital 32
However, the flexibility introduced for special cases should be subject to control at
Community level. As regards the first special case, it is therefore appropriate that due
consideration be given to the efficacy of any ad-hoc measures taken. Moreover, in cases
where the Member State refers to action taken for overriding reasons of public interest,
the Commission should assess whether any modifications or alterations made to the
marine environment as a consequence do not permanently preclude or compromise the
achievement of good environmental status in the marine region or subregion concerned
or across marine waters of other Member States. The Commission should provide
guidance on possible necessary modifications if it considers that the measures envisaged
are not sufficient or suitable to ensure coherence of action across the marine region.
Recital 32 further details the Community level control, which applies to the directive’s
provisions for flexibility:
-
For exceptions under Article 14(1), points (a) to (e), this control should in
particular assess whether ad-hoc measures taken are effective (to progress
towards reaching the environmental targets or GES): the Commission is invited
to provide guidance on possible modifications to the ad-hoc measures, if it
considers these are not sufficient or suitable (permanently preclude or
compromise achieving GES in the subregion or in other Member States),
keeping in mind the coherence of actions across the region (Article 16).
-
In the case of exceptions due to overriding public interest (Article 14(1)(d)), the
Commission is invited to assess whether the modifications or alterations made to
the environment do not permanently preclude or compromise achieving GES in
the subregion or in other Member States (Article 14(2) and Article 16, 3rd
paragraph).
Recital 31
The second special case refers to the situation where a Member State identifies an issue
which has an impact on the environmental status of its marine waters, perhaps even of
the entire marine region or subregion concerned, but which cannot be tackled by
measures taken at national level or which is linked to another Community policy or to
an international agreement. In such a case, arrangements should be made to inform the
Commission of this within the framework of notification of programmes of measures
and, where Community action is needed, to make appropriate recommendations to the
Commission and the Council.
Recital 33
As regards the second special case, the Commission should consider the issue and
respond within a period of six months. The Commission should reflect, as appropriate,
the recommendations of the Member State concerned when presenting related proposals
to the European Parliament and the Council.
Recitals 31 and 33 cover the case mentioned in Article 15 which can be linked to the
ground for exception set out in Article 14(1)(a).
b) The different exceptions or obligations under Article 14
Article 14 creates two broad categories of exceptions, under Article 14(1) and 14(4),
with different obligations attached.
1) Article 14(1)
1. A Member State may identify instances within its marine waters where, for any of the
reasons listed under points (a) to (d), the environmental targets or good environmental
status cannot be achieved in every aspect through measures taken by that Member State,
or, for reasons referred to under point (e), they cannot be achieved within the time
schedule concerned:
(a) action or inaction for which the Member State concerned is not responsible;
(b) natural causes;
(c) force majeure;
(d) modifications or alterations to the physical characteristics of marine waters brought
about by actions taken for reasons of overriding public interest which outweigh the
negative impact on the environment, including any transboundary impact;
(e) natural conditions which do not allow timely improvement in the status of the
marine waters concerned.
Article 14(1) covers exceptions to reaching GES or environmental targets fully, or for
point (e), on time, which can fall within distinct sub- categories:
a) action or inaction for which the Member State concerned is not
responsible
This sub-category covers cases where GES and targets cannot be reached as a
consequence of actions for which the Member State is not responsible, for instance as a
result of environmental damage caused by a third party, or where GES can only be
achieved through action at international or Community level. In cases where the issue
cannot be tackled by national measures or where it is linked to another community
policy or international agreement, the Member State shall inform the Commission
accordingly and make appropriate recommendations for actions at international or
Community level (Article 15 MSFD).
Examples: Noise from international shipping affects GES in a marine region, but can
only be reduced through an International Maritime Organization decision, measures to
protect biodiversity in an area must be agreed under the Common Fisheries Policy
and/or through a decision by a regional fisheries management organisation.
b) natural causes
'Natural causes' refer to uncontrolled, random natural events such as floods, hurricanes,
typhoons which, despite due diligence (prevention and disaster risk reduction measures)
prevent reaching environmental targets and good environmental status in all its aspects.
c) force majeure
Force majeure refers to circumstances which are exceptional or which could not
reasonably be foreseen such as an armed conflict, an unforeseeable accident or a
terrorist attack, and beyond the control of the party claiming force majeure, whose
consequence could not have been avoided despite the exercise of due diligence. The
effects of the situation of force majeure are limited in time, namely the time which is
needed for an administration exercising a normal degree of diligence to put an end to
the crisis.
d) modifications or alterations to the physical characteristics of
marine waters brought about by actions taken for reasons of
overriding public interest which outweigh the negative impact on
the environment, including any transboundary impact
Several elements must be met in order for an exception to fall within this sub-category:
1) The negative impact on the environment of action taken for reasons
of overriding public interest must concern the physical characteristics
of marine waters
2) Public interest must be “overriding”
The issue of overriding public interest is used regularly in EU environmental law, and
has also been further defined by the Court of Justice of the European Union3. Some
guidance has already been provided by the Commission on this concept in the context
of:
-
the Habitats Directive4, as the elements retained to assess imperative
reasons of overriding public interest in that directive relevant to marine
protected areas may also be of relevance to the MSFD, and
-
the Water Framework Directive.5
While every situation will have to be judged on its facts in the context of the particular
Directive’s scope and aims, there are elements from these guidance documents that may
be of use when assessing an overriding public interest in the context of the MSFD::
-
situations where plans or projects envisaged prove to be indispensable and
clearly outweigh the negative impacts on the environment, including across
borders, and aim at, inter alia:
o protecting values fundamental for the citizens' life (health, safety,
environment);
o carrying out policies fundamental for the State and the society; or
o carrying out activities of an economic or social nature, fulfilling
specific obligations of public service.
-
3
the public interest is likely to be overriding only if it is a long-term one;
short-term interests are unlikely to outweigh the negative impact on
environment; not every kind of public interest of a social or economic nature
is sufficient to be overriding, in particular when seen against the particular
weight of the interests protected by the Directive.
Cf for instance Case C-304/05 Commission v Italy, or Case C-182/10 Solvay and Others
Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, cf also
the guidance document on Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive accessible at
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/new_guidance_art6_4_
en.pdf
5
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the
Community action in the field of water policy, cf also guidance document available at:
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/2a3ec00a-d0e6-405f-bf6660e212555db1/Guidance_documentN%C2%B020_Mars09.pdf
4
e) natural conditions which do not allow timely improvement in the
status of the marine waters concerned
This category of exceptions covers cases where, because of natural conditions, such as
slow recovery of ecosystems for instance and high natural variability, measures taken
will only allow to meet environmental targets and reach GES after 2020. In this case,
Member States should specify by when they will reach GES. This exception is therefore
an exception to the deadline by which GES must be achieved and not to the full
achievement of GES at a future point in time.
Example: despite all relevant measures implemented to reduce eutrophication in a sea
basin, positive effects on the environmental status will be felt only after 2020.
2) Article 14(4)
4. Member States shall develop and implement all the elements of marine strategies
referred to in Article 5(2), but shall not be required, except in respect of the initial
assessment described in Article 8, to take specific steps where there is no significant
risk to the marine environment, or where the costs would be disproportionate taking
account of the risks to the marine environment, and provided that there is no further
deterioration.
Where, for either of these reasons, a Member State does not take any steps, it shall
provide the Commission with the necessary justification to substantiate its decision,
while avoiding that the achievement of good environmental status be permanently
compromised.
Article 14(4) considers two additional categories of exceptions – "significant risk" and
"disproportionate costs", and mentions conditions under which Member States are
exempted from taking "specific steps".
a) significant risk
-
The concept of significant risk must be understood in the context of the
MSFD and in light of the precautionary principle. As the overall objective of
the MSFD is to achieve or maintain GES by 2020, it could be considered
that there is no significant risk only:
o
when Member States, following their initial assessment, have
assessed their marine environment as being in GES, and
o provided that there is no further deterioration of the marine
environment. The fact that there is "no further deterioration of the
marine environment" must be justified regularly and in particular rely
on recent data, coming from the monitoring programmes under
Article 11.
-
Member States which, following their initial assessment, have assessed that
their marine environment is not in GES, face a significant risk to their
marine environment in light of the MSFD's objectives.
-
Any exception to the application of the MSFD should in any case be
interpreted and assessed in a restrictive manner, in line with EU case-law, to
avoid depriving the Directive of its "effet utile" ("useful effect").
-
Currently, there are very few areas where Member States have assessed their
marine environment as being in GES and few instances where environmental
targets set have been fully achieved already. It is therefore expected that the
use of this category of exceptions will be limited.
b) disproportionate costs
-
When assessing whether costs of a measure would be disproportionate, the
following elements should be taken into account:
o The risks to the marine environment; i.e. the risk to permanently
jeopardise the achievement of GES or environmental targets set by
Member States; and
o There should be no further deterioration, i.e. no further degradation
of GES, in case it is attained already, or no growing gap between the
current status and the status described in environmental targets.
-
For an exception to apply in this case it will be essential to demonstrate the
exception due to disproportionate costs will not permanently compromise
GES. In this case, the assessment of disproportionate costs must also be
balanced with the risk to the environment.
-
Other environmental legislation and case law offer some clarity on whether
costs are disproportionate, in particular, the following considerations of the
Water Framework Directive6 are also relevant to the MSFD7:
o Disproportionality should not begin at the point where measured
costs simply exceed quantifiable benefits;
o The assessment of costs and benefits will have to include qualitative
costs and benefits as well as quantitative;
o The margin by which costs exceed benefits should be appreciable and
have a high level of confidence;
o In the context of disproportionality the decision-maker may also want
to take into consideration the ability to pay off those affected by the
measures and some information on this may be required.
c) Member States' obligations under Article 14
1. […]
The Member State concerned shall identify such instances clearly in its programme of
measures and shall substantiate its view to the Commission. In identifying instances a
Member State shall consider the consequences for Member States in the marine region
or subregion concerned.
However, the Member State concerned shall take appropriate ad-hoc measures aiming
to continue pursuing the environmental targets, to prevent further deterioration in the
status of the marine waters affected for reasons identified under points (b), (c) or (d) and
to mitigate the adverse impact at the level of the marine region or subregion concerned
or in the marine waters of other Member States.
2. In the situation covered by paragraph 1(d), Member States shall ensure that the
modifications or alterations do not permanently preclude or compromise the
achievement of good environmental status at the level of the marine region or subregion
6
Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance
Document No. 20, Guidance Document on Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives.
7
Exemptions for environmental objectives under Article 4 of the Water Framework Directive are
considered at the level of water bodies. Exceptions under Article 14, MSFD, are considered at the level
of marine waters for which GES is determined at the level of the marine region or subregion as referred
to in Article 4, MSFD.
concerned or in the marine waters of other Member States.
3. The ad-hoc measures referred to in the third subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall be
integrated as far as practicable into the programmes of measures.
The table below provides an overview of Member States' obligations under Article 14.
Obligations of Member States
applying Article 14(1) to (3)
when Obligations of Member
applying Article 14(4)
States
when

Identify exceptions in the programme
of measures,

Avoid that the achievement of GES
be permanently compromised.

Consider the consequences for
Member States in the marine region
or subregion concerned,

Identify
exceptions
programme of measures.

Provide the Commission with the
necessary justification to substantiate
their decision

Take appropriate ad-hoc measures
aiming to continue pursuing the
targets,

Take appropriate ad-hoc measures
aiming
to
prevent
further
deterioration (applicable only to
points (b), (c) and (d) of Article
14(1)),

Take appropriate ad-hoc measures
aiming to mitigate the adverse impact
in the marine waters of other Member
States,

Integrate, as far as practicable, ad-hoc
measures into the programme of
measures,

Ensure that the use of exceptions
under Article 14(1), point (d), does
not
permanently
preclude
or
compromise the achievement of GES
in
their
in the marine waters concerned or in
the marine waters of other Member
States.
As ad-hoc measures, in the context of exceptions, and exceptions, are an integral part of
the programme of measures, they must be submitted to public consultation (Article 19),
and notified to the Commission jointly with the programme of measures.
If Member States have identified exceptions under Article 14(4) during the elaboration
phase, these exceptions should be submitted to public consultation and notified to the
Commission jointly with the programme of measures.
NB: This chapter document does not affect any obligation stemming from the Espoo
Convention8 or any other international agreement to which Member States or the
European Union is party.
5) Timeline and reporting
Art 13.9
Member States shall notify the Commission and any other Member State concerned of their programmes
of measures, within three months of their establishment.
Art 13.10
Subject to Article 16, Member States shall ensure that the programmes are made operational within one
year of their establishment.
Art 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.
8
http://www.unece.org/env/eia/about/eia_text.html
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.
PoMs shall be notified to the Commission by 31 March 2016. The methodology of the
assessment will be similar to, but taking into account lessons learnt from the approach used
for the Article 12 assessment, and will be further defined under the CIS.
Art 18 Interim reports
Member States shall, within three years of the publication of each programme of measures or update
thereof in accordance with Article 19(2), submit to the Commission a brief interim report describing
progress in the implementation of that programme.
6) Public consultation and information
Article 19.2
Member States shall publish, and make available to the public for comment, summaries of the
following elements of their marine strategies, or the related updates, as follows:
[…]
(d) the programmes of measures established pursuant to Article 13(2).
An important notion is the need for MS to undertake a public consultation on their proposed
PoM (see art 19.2.d). So, before sending PoM to the Commission, Member States have to
reserve some time to be able to not only consult the public, but also to take account of the
reactions from the public and on the one hand give feed back to the public on how their
reactions have been taken on board (and maybe altered the PoM), and on the other hand send
the adjusted PoM to National Parliaments, if required, for final approval.
III.
‘Measures’ and ‘programmes of measures’ – definitions
“Measure" in the MSFD should be considered as any action on a national, European or
international level with a view to achieving or maintaining GES and with reference to the
environmental targets.
While MSFD measures will primarily focus on changing the intensities of predominant
pressures, activities to improve environmental status directly, such as restoration of habitats
and reintroductions of species, can also be defined as measures under the MSFD.
It is not proposed here to further classify measures by typology, however it is recognised that
they may have different modes of action, including:

‘technical’: an actual action that one can see (and measure) in the field. In principle a
wide range of measures have a primarily technical mode of action.

‘legislative’: Adapting or supplementing national environmental law and other national
legislation influencing the marine environment to implement environmental targets
and to achieve/maintain GES.

‘economic’, such as economic incentives that provide financial motives to stimulate a
desired behaviour or discouraging an unwanted behaviour. Financial instruments are
often aimed at the uptake of technical measures. For example, a subsidy for beach
resorts of 20 Euros for each additional garbage bin they place.

‘policy driven’: Policy instruments can be economic incentives, but also other
instruments, such as voluntary agreements with stakeholders communication
strategies, awareness raising, and education. For example, the government launches
an information campaign to make the beach resorts aware of the new subsidy they
can get for placing more garbage bins, or beach resorts informing their customers
where the litter bins are located, or teachers telling children it is fun to collect waste
and put it in a litter bin and gives you a clean beach as well.
Research activities/ research references could be submitted as a supplementary list to the
PoM but do not need to be aligned to specific environmental targets. Therefore, for such
activities there is no need to carry out cost-benefits and/or cost-effectiveness assessment
Activities to fill gaps for other parts of the Directive (eg Art 8, 9, 10, 11) are by definition not
measures.
A Programme of Measures (PoM) is a set of measures that the MS is responsible for
implementing, put into context with each other, referring to the environmental targets they
address. The Programme of Measures includes existing and new measures.
Existing measures (Art 13.1 & 13.2) are:
-
Category 1.a: Measures relevant for the maintenance and achievement of GES under
the MSFD, that have been adopted under other policies and implemented;
-
Category 1.b: Measures relevant for the maintenance and achievement of GES under
the MSFD that have been adopted under other policies but that have not yet been
implemented or fully implemented;
New measures (Art 13.3) are:
-
Category 2.a: Additional measures to maintain and achieve GES which build on existing
implementation processes regarding other EU legislation and international agreements
but go beyond what is already required under these;
-
Category 2.b: Additional measures to maintain and achieve GES which do not build on
existing EU legislation or international agreements.
IV.
Logic of the directive and streamlined procedures for the
development of programmes of measures
The objective of the MSFD is that ‘… Member States shall take the necessary measures to
achieve or maintain good environmental status in the marine environment…’. Good
environmental status and environmental targets, supported by monitoring programmes, as
reference points are pivotal in order to allow for the establishment and implementation of
programmes of measures.
The 2012 initial assessment (Art. 8 MSFD) was intended to provide the baseline for assessing if
GES (Art. 9 MSFD) is being achieved or maintained. To achieve and maintain GES,
environmental targets (Art. 10 MSFD) were developed to guide progress from the present
state to GES. Environmental targets form the main basis for devising national, regional and EU
measures that are required under Article 13 MSFD to achieve or maintain GES.
Monitoring programmes under Art. 11 MSFD relate to relevant GES criteria, targets, indicators
and measures to support regular assessments under Article 8 MSFD of environmental status,
progress towards GES and the effectiveness of measures.
It follows from the logic of the Directive that the starting point for programmes of measures
are the environmental targets provided they are set in an adequate and coherent way (see Art
12 report) and an appraisal of relevant existing measures in order to identify the need for new
measures to achieve or maintain GES. Art. 13 MSFD spells out some requirements for
identifying and selecting individual measures and for establishing programmes of measures.
The logical context of Article 13 with the various other MSFD elements can be visualized in the
following diagram (please note that this chart does not imply any documentation needs under
Art. 13 and that it may need to be revised in accordance to the developing Common
Understanding document):
Process
What we need to do?
Description of current environmental status and
predominant pressures and underlying activities (economic
sectors)
Description of existing measures
Description of future changes in pressures and impacts and
expected environmental state according to existing
measures and existing policies -> Ref to baseline scenario
What is the objective? Art 9
Do you meet your environmental
target? Art 10
What measures would be
possible to bridge the gap?
Describe GES
Initial Assessment, Determination of GES and
Establishment of Environmental Targets
What is the situation? Art 8
Target setting: review GES against expected environmental
status to determine whether there is a gap between GES
and expected environmental status. Answer: Y / N / M / U
Description of possible new measures, if the gap not
closed by existing measures
Check if measures are technically feasible
Prioritize/Assess new measures based on costeffectiveness analysis and an Impact Assessment
including cost-benefit analysis
Exceptions (eg Disproportionate cost?)
INTEGRATING POLICIES:
Preferably, include them
in the implementation
process of other policies.
Public consultation of the PoMs
and subsequent redrafting
MSFD:
Include them in
MSFD PoM
Implementation and reporting of
the PoM
Monitoring of the effect of
measures and adaptive approach
PoMs development (including regional coordination)
Compose a technically feasible,
cost-effective and sustainable
programme of measures, in
which specifically environmental,
social and economic impacts of
new measure are addressed
The requirements for the development of measures and programmes of measures are
addressed in the following step-wise approach, which should assist in linking the development
of the programme of measures to the other steps to be taken as part of the MSFD
implementation (Initial Assessment, GES and establishment of environmental targets,
exceptions) and includes the different steps for finally obtaining a cost-effective programme of
measures.
1) Technical specification of environmental targets as a
basis for measures
According to MSFD Article 10, Member States set environmental targets to guide progress
towards achieving good environmental status, i.e. to bridge the gap between baseline scenario
and the desired status of the marine environment (GES) provided they are set in an adequate
and coherent way (see Art 12 report). These targets are to be achieved through the
development and implementation of measures. For the development of a specific set of
measures the underlying environmental targets should wherever possible be clearly specified
and/or quantified.
Where it is not possible to develop quantified environmental targets, a set of pragmatic
solutions can be applied e.g.:



Politically determined;
Agreement through technical conventions; and
Expert judgment (e.g. interim targets or trends).
Additional to the specification of environmental targets, the development of measures can be
substantiated on the basis of the following principles mentioned in Chap I.
2) Gap analysis
The first step should consist of identifying measures already in place (existing measures) that
contribute to addressing predominant pressures and reaching MSFD environmental targets.
Annex I of this document provides, for each GES descriptor, an indicative list of relevant EU
legislation.
The next step consists of conducting a gap analysis: assessing how far existing measures, not
necessarily specifically designed with MSFD in mind, are sufficient to reach MSFD
environmental targets. It is important to distinguish between measures which are adopted and
already implemented, and measures adopted but not yet implemented to ensure the
robustness of this analysis. Both of these measures will be part of the baseline scenario and
not subjected to additional analysis.
A summary of the existing measures including their relevance for the MSFD should be in the
PoM and subject to public participation.
3) Identification and description of possible new measures
If gaps are identified, the next step consists of identifying possible new measures to meet the
MSFD environmental targets. To verify that these measures are feasible (for example that
existing measures adopted at a small scale or in the context of a pilot project could be applied
at a larger scale or generalized), expert judgement, inputs from RSCs or consultation with
stakeholders can provide useful information.
For the new measures which are technically feasible, the next step would consist of identifying
how to develop and adopt them:
-
-
if action is needed at community or international level, a recommendation could be
developed either individually or by several Member States (cf. art 15 of the directive),
if the identified measure is related to the implementation of a sectoral or
environmental policy and in line with the “integrative” approach of MSFD, it would
need to be addressed and assessed in the context of the specific policy concerned. To
provide a clear picture of all measures contributing to achieve GES, it would be useful
to provide a short summary of these measures (cat 2.a) and identify in the MSFD PoM
where further information on them can be found.
If this is not possible (no existing policy or no window of opportunity to consider and
adopt the possible measure), full details of the measure (cat 2 b) would be included in
the MSFD PoM.
New measures (Category 2.b) to be implemented as part of the MSFD programme will be
subject to an impact assessment including a cost-benefit analysis. This is further explained as
part of Chapter 7.
Concerning Category 2.a measures, MS should determine on a case by case basis, the methods
and responsibility to perform the impact assessment in order to avoid using different methods.
If private companies are implementing measures by themselves, paid for by themselves,
because they think it is a good thing to do, and those measures can be enforced, the impacts
of those measures should be assessed and these measures can be included as new measures,
but since they are paid for by the sectors themselves, no economic analysis needs to be
performed for this type of measures.
Possible set of new measures can be described taking into account the following indicative list
of useful information:

Link to descriptor

Link to GES and environmental targets (local and (sub)regional)

Link to pressure

Geographic scale of application (e.g. local, national, (sub)regional)

Expected effects

Implementation (e.g. by legal, policy, or financial instrument) including
responsibilities, timing and financing

Coordination with the implementation of other EU legislation

Costs and benefits

Regional coordination
4) Selection of new measures
Selecting cost-effective measures that are technically feasible and applying an impact
assessment (including cost-benefit analysis) for new measures is required under Article 13.3.
Further on, the PoM has to give due consideration to sustainable development (Article 13.3)
and Member States should consider the implications of their PoMs on water beyond their
marine waters (Article 13.8). These requirements should be fulfilled by the Member States
when composing their PoMs, and some guidance is given below on how this can be done.
New measures can be ranked in accordance with their contribution to goal attainment and
costs, starting with measures that bring the largest contribution at least cost. By combining
cost-effective measures, the least cost PoMs is found that will bridge the gap. For any new
measures, an impact assessment (including a cost-benefit analysis) is required. These tools can
have different functionalities in the PoM development process and further information on the
tools and their use is given in Chapter VII.
MS also have to give due consideration to sustainable development in particular, to the social
and economic impacts of the measures envisaged. Sustainability can be assessed at a national
level through existing legislation (e.g. through a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA))
where considered necessary. Further on, the Impact Assessment should evaluate the
environmental, social and economic impact of any new measures introduced. By considering
both the Impact Assessment and the Strategic Environmental Assessment results, the overall
impacts on the wider environment and cumulative impacts of measures are assessed and
should be taken into consideration when composing a PoM.
Member States shall consider the implications of their programmes of measures on waters
beyond their marine waters in order to minimise the risk of damage to, and if possible have a
positive impact on, those waters. Transboundary impacts of measures are also included in the
scope of an SEA assessment. Further on, certain funding sources (eg EMFF) also require an SEA
to be done as part of the ex-ante evaluation. The SEA applies on its own merits, as confirmed
by the Court of Justice, provided that its conditions are met, in particular if the plan or
programme in question sets the framework for future development of projects. Depending on
their content, relevant parts of marine strategies may have to be made subject to an SEA
which may have to be combined with other processes.
In summary, considering sustainable development means performing an Impact Assessment
including CBA and where necessary SEA for the MSFD PoMs.
As measures in the MSFD PoMs may either affect the wider environment, or either needs to be
taken outside the marine environment / marine policy area, interlinkage with other policy
areas is key to assessing the full range of impacts of measures and ensuring the success of
implementation of these measures. This may be done by establishing specific administrative
frameworks in order to ensure the benefits of the PoMs in its wider context (Article 13.3).
Depending on the Member States decision-making process, each Member State can consider
additional criteria for prioritization of measures and determining overall sustainability of the
programme such as for example the proven concept of measures, the availability of funding,
the existence of institutional framework, regional cooperation, stakeholders views ….
5) Content of the PoM
The Programme of Measures shall contain:
1 – An overview of the existing measures with reference to their original publication;
2 – A short analysis of the contribution of existing measures towards GES (baseline)
and the gap that needs to be addressed (gap analysis);
3 – A List of new measures including a summary :
o
Category 2.a: if described elsewhere, brief details with reference to document
containing exhaustive description (eg WFD PoM…) , if not full description (ref
chap IV.3)
o
Category 2.b: full description (ref chap IV.3)
4 – justification for exceptions where no measures will be taken .
The summary for the new measures shall contain:

Method for selecting measures,

Implementation (e.g. by legal, policy, socio-economic and financial instrument),
including overview of co-financed measures (art 22) where relevant,

Identification of spatial protection measures and the purpose for which they are put in
place (e.g. contributing to coherent and representative networks of marine protected
areas art 13.4),

Cost-effectiveness and/or cost benefits of the measures (how it has been taken into
account?) and sustainability (art 13.3),

Overall coordination or input to other EU legislation and policies (including
international agreements),

Overall regional coordination including possible impacts on the waters of other
countries (art 13.8),

Public consultation information.
6) Implementation planning
The planning of the implementation of the national programme of measures will depend on
each member state’s internal organizational structure and processes. It will include an
organization and timing of work plans, assignments to national (and subnational)
responsibilities and integration into existing national policy and jurisdictional processes.
7) Public consultation
When implementing MSFD requirements, MS should apply the requirements of the Aarhus
convention, the Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information, the
Directive 2003/35/EC providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain
plans and programmes relating to the environment and if applicable the SEA Directive.
Further discussion need to take place.
V.
Interlinkages to other policy frameworks (including other
EU directives)
1) Measures under the Water Framework Directive (WFD)
WFD and MSFD have a common objective of reaching the good status of the waters to which
they apply. These waters are partially overlapping. The MSFD’s good environmental status is
defined by taking into account some characteristics of the WFD which are partially identical in
both directives.
Both directives foresee an update every six years: the first cycle of the MSFD is implemented
simultaneously with the second implementation cycle of the WFD. Programmes of measures
will have to be adopted and implemented for both directives in Dec 2015: the existing WFD
PoM will be updated while MSFD PoM will be developed for the first time.
In its 2012 Communication “A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources”, the
Commission stated that “As a land-based pressure also influences to a large extent the status
of the marine environment, the Blueprint will contribute to achieving good environmental
status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, provided that there is adequate
coordination with programmes of measures under the Marine Strategies due by 2015”.
In order to adequately coordinate the implementation of the two directives, Member States
may wish to clarify who does what: i.e. which measures will be developed in which PoM. One
way of clarifying this might be to identify for each measure related to a pressure:
-
where the pressure applies (land-based or upstream from coastal waters, to coastal
waters, to marine waters) ?
-
which water is impacted by the pressure.
To facilitate the coordination between the two PoM, the governance bodies could be adapted
for example by designating in the WFD governance bodies “marine” members and in the MSFD
governance bodies stakeholders which are involved or aware of the WFD governance.
Technically, it would be useful to ensure that the methodologies used to assess at least the
environmental impacts of measures are coordinated, for example, by ensuring that the impact
of WFD PoM on marine waters is taken into account. In addition, exchange of experiences
might be very relevant in order to learn lessons from WFD implementation for MSFD and vice
versa.
The consultation processes for the two PoM could also be streamlined. For the sake of clarity,
simultaneous public consultations could be conducted on the MSFD and WFD PoM.
Stakeholders, when consulted about one PoM, could systematically be provided with
summarized information about the other PoM. Ideally, it is possible to join up the PoM which
could be the aim in the long term.
Finally reporting processes could be streamlined so that data is reported once and used for
several policies.
2) Spatial protection measures
A spatial protection measure is any spatial restriction or management of all or certain human
activities in order to:
1. Protect biodiversity, e.g. marine reserves. Such areas could support MPA networks in
terms of coherence and representativity (Article 13.4) and the overall achievement of
MSFD GES
2. Support certain industrial or leisure activities, e.g. banning of fisheries or gravel
extraction within a shipping lane or offshore wind-farm, which may have synergistic
effects on biodiversity protection/conservation
2.1
Improving Marine Protected Area (MPA) networks
One of the tools that can be used to ensure the sustainable protection and conservation of
marine biological diversity and its ecosystems is the designation and management of marine
protected areas. The MSFD PoM, in accordance with Article 13.4, shall include new spatial
protection measures, contributing to coherent and representative networks of marine
protected areas, adequately covering the diversity of the constituent ecosystems.
The existing network of Marine Protected Areas is constituted by:
1. the Natura 2000 network consisting of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated
to implement the Habitat Directive and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated to
implement the Bird Directive,
2. Marine Protected Areas (MPA) designated to implement international or regional
agreements to which Member States are Parties:
o the network of MPAs designated under the Regional Sea Conventions
including MPAs in High Seas: the Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPA) for
HELCOM, OSPAR MPA, the List of Specially Protected Areas for Mediterranean
Importance (SPAs and SPAMI) in the Barcelona Convention framework,
Projects launched by the Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea
against Pollution on Specially Protected Areas and MPAs,
o other networks such as, in the Mediterranean Region, the Emerald Network,
Ramsar sites, Man and the Biosphere Reserves, the Agreement on the
Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and
Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS) and Agreement on the Conservation of
Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (, ASCOBANS)
3. Additional nationally designated MPAs.
a
Identifying the existing MPA network:
The identification of the existing network had to be conducted in 2013 and information had to
make publicly available by Member States in respect of each marine region or subregion.
In relation to the Natura 2000 network, Member States can use:



Their article 17 report on evaluation of impacts of measures on conservation status
and main surveillance results;
The Common Database on Designated Areas (CDDA)9,
Biogeographic seminars which took place in the context of the Habitats and Birds
directives.
If they exist, national strategies or plans related either specifically to Marine Protected Areas
or to the strategic planning of their marine waters including the protection of the environment
through MPA should be used. These strategies usually are based on an assessment of the
existing network. Based on this assessment, they usually identify the need to create new MPAs
or establish priorities in the management of existing MPAs. They therefore provide for an
important input in the development of the spatial protection measures of the MSFD
programmes of measures.
Based on all the above information, the Commission is required by the MSFD to publish a
report by 2014. This EEA report will deal with the baseline on the establishment of MPAs,
having regard to existing obligations under applicable EU law and international commitments
of the EU and the Member States.
b
Assessing the coherence and representativeness of the existing
MPA network and identifying possible gaps
Different sources of information can be mobilized to assess the coherence and the
representativeness of the existing network.
A specific study will be undertaken in 2014 by the COM and discussed in the context of the
Marine Expert Group in order to assess the coherence and representativeness of the existing
network based on information provided by Member States in 2013..
Some Regional Sea Conventions such as HELCOM, OSPAR10 and Barcelona Convention have or
are going to publish assessments of representativeness and coherence of MPA networks. The
9
http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/32/overview
main findings of these assessments as well as references can be found in the EEA’s report
“Protected areas in Europe - an overview”11. Regarding the issue of coherence, some key
findings of this report are that:
-
-
inshore coastal waters have a better coverage of MPAs than further offshore,
distributional gaps are found in certain sub-regions (e.g. Areas Beyond National
Jurisdictions; Arctic; Iberian peninsula) and bathymetric zones (e.g. depths greater
than 75 m)
habitats and species which are not recognised in annex I and II of the Habitat Directive
are significantly less well-protected than other habitats.
As for other measures, it is important to assess how far the existing spatial protection
measures solely or in combination with other non-spatial measures applicable inside and
outside of MPAs and targeting, for example, certain pressures, are sufficient to meet the MSFD
environmental targets.
Identifying possible measures to improve MPA network:
C
On the basis of the analysis undertaken above, different types of spatial protection measures
to contribute to the coherence and representativeness of MPA networks (as well to
adequately cover the diversity of the constituent ecosystems) are possible:
-
-
Designating new MPAs:
o On, e.g., the basis of national or regional lists of habitats and species (stressing
that this is a separate process from the completion of the marine Natura2000
network under the Birds and Habitats directives)
o Including the MSFD predominant habitat types and species not covered by
other protection schemes.
In existing MPAs:
o Updating/revising existing management measures to:
 Streamline them with the MSFD environmental targets (policy
integration),
 Establish zoning schemes with stricter levels of protection (“reserves”
or “no-take”) granted to an existing MPA,
o Adopting new management measures to meet the MSFD environmental
targets. These measures could, for example, target species and habitats not
covered by the Habitats and Birds directives but that are important to reach
10
http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00619/p00619_ecological_coherence_report.p
df
11
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/protected-areas-in-europe-2012
GES of the marine waters by 2020 (i.e. the MSFD predominant habitat types).
The adopted list of endangered species by the OSPAR convention and the
associated programme of measures for their conservation including
Recommendation 2010/5 on the assessment of environmental impacts on
threatened and/or declining species could for example be used in this respect.
As for other measures, it is important to assess how far the existing spatial protection
measures solely or in combination with other non-spatial measures applicable inside and
outside of MPAs and targeting, for example, certain pressures, are sufficient to meet the MSFD
Article 13.4 requirements.
2.2
Other spatial protection measures
Spatial protection measures to manage industrial or leisure activities in the marine
environment can, through their synergistic effects, support marine biodiversity
conservation/protection even if they are not specifically designed to do so. These include:

 The protection of essential fish habitats or stock recovery areas (spawning aggregation
area);
 Real time closure areas if by-catch rates are above certain threshold;
 Requirement of fishing impacts assessments in new fishing grounds with special fishing
licenses in sensible/vulnerable areas;
 Banning of gravel extraction or fisheries inside a wind farm or shipping lane;
 Regulation of recreational fisheries within MPAs; etc.
It follows that these measures could support meeting the MSFD environmental targets
generally, including adequately covering the diversity of the constituent ecosystems of MPA
networks (a requirement of Article 13.4). However, in order to maximise their synergistic
effects towards that goal, they should be developed in conjunction with:
-
either spatial measures targeting certain pressures at a larger scale than individual
MPAs,
non-spatial measures targeting certain pressures impacting biodiversity.
There is no European database for these spatial protection measures available yet.
3) Other relevant regulations
There is also a need to have a more descriptive list of other relevant legislation or international
agreements which elaborated in Annex I.
Moreover, maritime spatial planning is an instrument to influence where and when an activity
is allowed to occur and therefore can support the achievement of Good Environmental Status.
Member States will consider land/sea interactions as part of their Programmes of Measures,
thus enabling an integrated approach between policies, and across sectors, to the use and the
protection of Europe's marine resources.
VI.
Coordination within marine regions
Measures should be coordinated with marine regions and/or subregions (Art 5.2 and Annex
VI.4)). The Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs) can and should play a key role in this process
taking into account their specificity.
The potential contribution of RSCs to the development of coordinated Programmes of
Measures has been suggested according to the request by the EU COM in the ‘RSC CIS
contribution documents. Three principal roles of RSCs in coordinating for the implementation
of Article 13 have been identified:
1) the exchange of information and coordination of measures that are primarily of
national concern and responsibility;
2) the development of measures at regional level (e.g. through decisions or
recommendations) with a focus on transboundary issues;
3)
the development of joint proposals for measures that are required to achieve GES but
are in the competence of the EU or international authorities (such as river basins
and/or shipping) and agreement of concerted actions of CPs to approach those
bodies/authorities through RSC.
A focus of cooperation should be on measures of a transboundary nature, targeting
ecosystems and/or pressures that transcend the national scale (e.g. management of MPAs;
gas/oil exploitation in open seas; chemical contamination and nutrient enrichment, in
particular through long-distance transport; seafloor protection, litter, underwater noise).
VII.
Costs & benefits of the programmes of measures
In Article 13.3 and as referred to in the step-wise approach of chapter 4, it is indicated that
Member States shall ensure that measures are cost-effective, and shall carry out impact
assessments, including cost-benefit analyses, prior to the introduction of any new measure. In
this chapter, we first go through the definition of impact assessment (ImA), cost-effectiveness
analysis (CEA), and cost-benefit analysis (CBA), and will then illustrate the relevance of CEA, IA
and CBA to the MSFD. More information on these concepts can be found in the Background
Document summarising experiences with respect to economic analysis to support member
states with the development of their programme of measures for the MSFD
Definitions
Impact Assessment (ImA): Before a decision-maker proposes a new initiative, it can evaluate
the potential economic, social and environmental consequences. An ImA gives decisionmakers evidence regarding the advantages and disadvantages of a policy choice. It explains
why action should be taken and why the proposed response is appropriate. It may also find
that no action should be taken as part of a specific programme of measures. The Commission
has published an Impact Assessment Guidelines12 on how to perform an ImA. An ImA
compares all the relevant positive and negative impacts of the various options (including the
‘no action’ option) alongside each other, regardless of whether they are expressed in
qualitative, quantitative or monetary terms. The three most relevant tools for comparing
options that can be used in this respect are cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis
and multi-criteria analysis.
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is used to establish the “cheapest solution” for solving a
specific issue at hand. A CEA is an analysis of the costs of alternative (groups or programmes
of) measures designed to meet a single objective. The programme which costs least will be the
most cost effective.13 It can be used to identify the highest level of a physical benefit given
available resources (e.g. delivering the maximum reduction in risk exposure subject to a
budget constraint), as well as the least-cost method of reaching a prescribed target (e.g. a
given concentration level of nitrogen in coastal waters).
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a method for comparing policy measures against the baseline
situation in terms of their advantages and disadvantages. It is designed to show whether the
12
13
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm
Based on
http://www.waterframeworkdirective.wdd.moa.gov.cy/docs/GuidanceDocuments/Guidancedoc1WATE
CO.pdf
total advantages (benefits) of a project, a programme or policy intervention – e.g. reducing
nitrogen emissions to coastal waters – exceed the disadvantages (costs) – e.g. the costs to
agriculture of reduced fertiliser use. This essentially involves estimating all of the negative
impacts and positive impacts, including items for which the market does not provide an
observable measure of value, accruing to all affected parties. To best support policy making,
the presentation of those negative impacts and positive impacts can, but does not necessarily
have to be in quantitative or monetary terms. According to the EC Impact Assessment
Guidelines14, a CBA can be done at various levels: it can be either a full CBA, in cases where the
most significant part of both costs and benefits can be quantified and monetized, or a partial
CBA in cases where only a part of the costs and benefits can be quantified and monetised. A
CBA can also cover a specific type of costs and benefits, e.g. a financial CBA will be limited to
financial costs and benefits without considering other economic or intangible costs and
benefits.
The added value of CBA is not limited to the result of the analysis. The process also allows
trade-offs to be considered and to facilitate the understanding of the impacts (benefits and
costs) of (sets of) new measures. In this way, CBA provides valuable information to help inform
potential policy choices.
In case more information is needed on the definitions of the economic tools included, one
could refer to the CIS WATECO guidance.15
Relevance to the MSFD
When drawing up the programme of measures, Member States need to give due
consideration to sustainable development and, in particular, to the social and economic
impacts of the measures envisaged. In doing so, Member States shall ensure that measures are
cost-effective and technically feasible (Art 13.3). Carrying out CEA will be facilitated by clear
environmental targets and a good knowledge of the functional relationships between
measure-pressure-descriptor-environmental targets. Close cooperation with WG GES to help
defining these relationships will be essential. Questions that are relevant in the
implementation of a CEA are the following:
 Have functional relationships between measures-pressures-descriptors
been described? Are all descriptors equally important?
14
15
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf
Guidance document 1: Economics and the environment - The implementation challenge of the Water
Framework Directive
 To what extent MS need to review the effectiveness of existing
measures in meeting MSFD targets?
 Is this feasible based on the available information of the Initial
Assessment?
 What are the gaps in information and what actions are needed to fill
the gap?
CEA can help to prioritise measures, and can also be supported by an Impact Assessment,
including a cost-benefit analysis. In a CEA, the cost considered does not consider the full socioeconomic and environmental impacts. The effectiveness assessment is based on the
contribution of a measure to a specific target, not including the full range of benefits. Other
limitations that apply in a CEA are the effectiveness of combinations of measures and how we
deal with co-benefits. This reflects the more “narrow” scope of a CEA in contrast to an impact
assessment including a cost-benefit analysis as is required for the introduction of any new
measure.
Impact Assessment including CBA
Article 13.3 further obliges that the introduction of new policy measures requires “impact
assessments, including cost-benefit analyses”. Given the spirit of the Article 13.3 which
requires that consideration should be given to sustainable development, the term ‘impact
assessment’ refers to the analysis of positive and negative social, economic and environmental
impacts policy measures may incur.
If not all costs and benefits are presented in monetary terms, the resulting net benefits should
be confronted with the qualitative assessment of the other costs and benefits.
Besides CBA, multi-criteria analysis (MCA) can also be of high relevance for the economic
analysis in the framework of Art 13.3 implementation. The term MCA covers a wide range of
techniques that share the goal of combining positive and negative impacts into a single
framework to allow easier comparison. Essentially, MCA applies cost-benefit thinking to cases
where there is a need to present impacts that are a mixture of qualitative, quantitative and
monetary data, and where there are varying degrees of certainty. This mixture of units in
which impacts are expressed is a typical feature in an MSFD context.
Specifically in relation to the MSFD, the impact assessment would consider the scenario with
new measures implemented versus the baseline (as defined in the Initial Assessment including
future scenario’s as determined by ongoing policy and implemented measures – see WG ESA
guidelines16 ).
16
Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS FOR THE
INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE: A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
When looking into the impacts of a measure in a societal context, it may become clear that it is
beneficial for society as a whole but has positive and negative impacts that are spread
unevenly across society (and over time). The assessor needs to identify who is affected by the
impacts (and when): who implements the measures/who bears the costs/who incurs the
burdens/who benefits?
Attributing the costs and benefits to these sectors may help structuring the stakeholder
consultation process (e.g. negotiations on future implementation of measures) and identifying
the need for introducing economic instruments such as financing to address e.g. affordability
issues.
Some considerations,17:
Due to limited knowledge of the functioning of the marine environment, the inability, in some
cases, to set quantified targets, and the difficulty of quantifying the potential effects of
measures and their impacts on the marine environment it may not always be possible to
properly estimate potential benefits/effectiveness. However, a CBA does not necessarily have
to be (fully) monetised and both CEA and CBA are possible even when no quantified target is
set. In relation to improving knowledge and quantification of the effectiveness of measures, in
time, monitoring will enable Member States to evaluate the “extent of success” of (sets of)
measures. This also supports very much the idea of adaptive management.
Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis can have different functions in the PoM
development process, and this also depends on each individual Member State decision-making
process. Both CEA and CBA can be part of the prioritisation of measures process, in
collaboration with stakeholders at various stages. Further on, the impact assessment including
cost-benefit analysis ensures that all economic, social and environmental impacts of a measure
are looked at in advance of taking a decision on implementing a measures, ensuring that the
PoM is overall sustainable. It should be clear from the stepwise approach (see Section IV), that,
next to the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit considerations for PoM development, also
other criteria are of importance such as technical feasibility, stakeholder support, the
precautionary approach, availability of funding, etc.
In order to fulfil the requirement of Art 13.3 on obtaining cost-effective measures and applying
an impact assessment (including cost-benefit analysis), a pragmatic approach is proposed. First
of all, CEA and Impact Assessment (including CBA) need to have a well-considered role in the
decision-making process as described above. Secondly, for existing measures, adopted or
planned under other policies, no specific need for a CEA or CBA is defined under the MSFD
A NON-LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT, 21 December 2010
17
From MSFD PoMs workshop on CEA/CBA, 1 April 2014.
specifically (see Table below). For new measures, both CEA and Impact Assessment including
CBA are required under the MSFD. When relevant, Impact Assessment, including CBA, could
also be conducted at regional or subregional level.
In the Background Document, more information can be found on experiences from Member
States with respect to economic analysis.
Measures
Measure category
CEA
CBA
Article 13.1 & 13.2
EXISTING
No
No
Measures relevant for the maintenance and
achievement of GES under the MSFD that have been
adopted under other policies and implemented
1.a
Article 13.1 & 13.2
EXISTING
No
No
Measures relevant for the maintenance and
achievement of GES under the MSFD that have been
adopted under other policies but that have not yet
been implemented or fully implemented
1.b
Art 13.3
NEW
Yes*
Yes*
Additional measures to achieve GES which build on
existing Community legislation and international
agreements but go beyond what is already required
under these;
2.a
Case
by
case
Case
by
case
Art 13.3
NEW
Yes
Yes
Additional measures to achieve GES which do not
build on existing Community legislation or
international agreements
2.b
"No" means that the assessment doesn't need to be done under MSFD
The "Yes*" under category 2.a means that, depending on the existing legislation in question
and if necessary, the scope of CEA / CBA is focused mainly on the additional contribution to
the marine environment.
Further work
Exchange of experiences regarding the application of Impact Assessment, CEA/CBA
methodologies as part of the MSFD PoMs development should take place, aiming at a
strong/stronger coordination of these assessments for the second implementation cycle and at
the RCS/international level. Starting from this work, the Background Document summarising
experiences with respect to economic analysis to support member states with the development
of their programme of measures for the MSFD is now available.
VIII.
Reporting
Article 13 (9) provides that Member States shall notify the Commission and other relevant
Member States of their programmes of measures within 3 months of their establishment (i.e.
by 31 March 2016)
The reporting will give the opportunity to the Commission under Article 16 to assess whether
the PoMs constitute an appropriate framework to meet the requirements of the MSFD.
Reporting is meant for compliance checking (need to have) and is not meant to deliver detailed
information.
The Directive assumes that Member States base their programme of measures on the
measures needed to be taken to achieve or maintain good environmental status as
determined in their Marine Strategies. If Member States update their Marine Strategies and
accordingly their Programme of Measures, an update needs to be reported to the Commission.
It is important to recall the main purpose of reporting and the joint objectives and interest that
the European Commission and the Member States, together with the Regional Sea
Conventions (RSC) and the European Environment Agency (EEA), should have in making
reporting a success and an important exercise which is worthwhile investing in. The uses and
benefits of reporting at national, regional, European and global levels are outlined in Approach
to reporting for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2012)18.
The requirement in EU legislation to report is a result of the legal system of the EU and the
special role of the European Commission in this system, namely its role as "Guardian of the
Treaty". However, this role has to be seen increasingly in the wider context of accountability
and good governance of EU action and the responsibility for the European Commission and the
Member States together to demonstrate that:

EU legislation achieves its results in an effective and efficient manner;

The level of ambition, efforts and level playing field for the internal market are
comparable, if not harmonised, between the Member States;

Member States respect the letter and the spirit of the law;

Effective policy implementation leads to the envisaged policy objective, which in this
case is the improvement of the state of the marine environment leading to GES.
For these purposes, comparable reporting information is a prerequisite. Any flexibility that is
introduced in the reporting system (e.g. text fields, options) needs to be carefully considered
18
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/publications/index_en.htm
and included only where it adds value and understanding. The reporting system needs to
acknowledge that Member States should have flexibility in developing their programmes of
measures and that programmes may need to be further improved and refined in the future.
However to assess programmes of measures, the information needs to be made available in a
consistent, comparable format.
In summary, when setting up the PoMs, it is important that the Member States consult the
public and demonstrate to the Commission the extent to which they have set up their MSFD
programmes of measures in a way which is "complete, adequate, consistent, coherent and
coordinated".
Annex III is the result of the work in DIKE and the drafting group for a concept on reporting on
POMs and exceptions (will be finalised by MSCG see document MSCG 14-2014-16).
Annex 1: Indicative list of relevant EU legislation that contribute to
achieving MSFD GES
The Annex 1 aims to identify per Descriptor where measures under other legislation contribute
to the delivery of MSFD objectives.
Descr
Topic
No
Indicative list of related EU legislation
D1
Biological
diversity
Habitat Directive (directive 92/42/EEC) and Bird Directive (directive 2009/147/EC)
D2
Non-indigenous
species
Regulation 708/2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture
Commission proposal for EU legislation to address invasive alien species and protect biodiversity
COM/2013/0620 final (1rst reading agreement foreseen in 2014)
D3
Commercial fish & CFP (Regulation (EU) 1380/2013) and its related legislations (e.g. Regulation 1967/2006, all
shellfish
technical measures, on fishing efforts)
D4
Food-webs
See D1
D5
Eutrophication
Water Framework Directive (directive 2000/60/EC), Urban Waste Water Directive (directive
91/27/EEC), Nitrate Directive , Nitrate Directive (91/676/EEC), National Emission Ceilings Directive
(2001/81/EC)
D6
Sea-floor integrity Water Framework Directive (directive 2000/60/EC), Habitat Directive (directive 92/42/EEC) and Bird
Directive (directive 2009/147/EC), SEA directive (2001/42/EC), EIA Directive (85/337/EEC)
? Renewable energy directive (85/337/EEC)
D7
Hydrography
Water Framework Directive (directive 2000/60/EC), SEA directive (2001/42/EC), EIA Directive
(85/337/EEC)
D8
Contaminants
Water Framework Directive (directive 2000/60/EC), Directive on Environmental Quality Standards
(directive 2008/105/EC) as amended by directive 2013/39/EU, Directive on industrial emissions (
(Directive 2010/75/EU), Chemical legislation including Reach Regulation (Regulation 1907/2006)
and biocides Regulation (528/2012), Directive on ship-source pollutions (directive 2009/123/EC),
sulphur directive 2012/33, Directive on alternative fuel infrastructure (adoption any day now)
D9
Contaminants
seafood
in Seafood legislation: Regulation 188/2006, Regulation 2073/2005, Regulation 178/2002, Regulation
852/2004, Regulation 854/2004, Regulation 853/2004
D10
Litter
D11
Energy,
incl. SEA directive (2001/42/EC), EIA Directive (85/337/EEC)
underwater noise
Waste Framework Directive (directive 2008/9/EC), Directive on Port Reception Facilities (diretive
2000/59/EC) , Urban Waste Water Directive (directive 91/27/EEC), Directive on ship-source
pollutions (directive 2009/123/EC), Bathing directive (DIRECTIVE 2006/7/EC)
Annex 2: Co-financing opportunities
The Annex provides guidance on the way to implement Article 22 about Community financing.
MSFD EU FUNDING MECHANISMS
CO-FINANCING GUIDANCE
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG ENVIRONMENT
20 October 2014
Error! Unknown document property name.
Contents
Quick reference guide ................................................................................................................... 5
1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 7
2
MSFD types of measures and activities................................................................................. 9
3
Overview of potential MSFD funding options ..................................................................... 11
4
Most relevant MSFD funding options ................................................................................. 19
4.1 European Maritime and fisheries Fund (EMFF) .............................................................................. 21
4.1.1
Fund structure .............................................................................................. 21
4.1.2
Key elements relating to MSFD .................................................................... 23
4.1.3
Available budget and funding criteria .......................................................... 27
4.1.4
How to apply for funding ............................................................................. 29
4.2 Regional Funds: ERDF and Cohesion Fund ...................................................................................... 34
4.2.1
Fund structure .............................................................................................. 34
4.2.2
Key elements relating to MSFD .................................................................... 36
4.2.3
Available budget and funding criteria .......................................................... 39
4.2.4
How to apply for funding ............................................................................. 40
4.3 LIFE .................................................................................................................................................. 43
4.3.1
Programme Structure ................................................................................... 43
4.3.2
Key elements relating to MSFD .................................................................... 44
4.3.3
Available budget and funding criteria .......................................................... 49
4.3.4
How to apply for funding ............................................................................. 51
4.4 HORIZON 2020 ................................................................................................................................ 53
5
4.4.1
Programme structure ................................................................................... 53
4.4.2
Key elements relating to MSFD .................................................................... 54
4.4.3
Available budget and funding criteria .......................................................... 54
4.4.4
How to apply for funding ............................................................................. 56
Funding MSFD measures and activities: examples ............................................................. 60
Annex I
References .................................................................................................... 71
Annex II
measures)
Classification of MSFD-measures according to Annex VI (Programmes of
73
Annex III
ETC Programmes .......................................................................................... 77
Error! Unknown document
Error! Unknown document property name.:Error! Unknown document property name.Error! Unknown document property name.
property name.
1
Error! Unknown document property name.
Error! Unknown document
Error! Unknown document property name.:Error! Unknown document property name.Error! Unknown document property name.
property name.
2
Preface
The Marine Directors of the European Union (EU), Acceding Countries, Candidate Countries and EFTA
Countries have jointly developed a common strategy for supporting the implementation of the Directive
2008/56/EC, “the Marine Strategy Framework Directive” (MSFD). The main aim of this strategy is to
allow a coherent and harmonious implementation of the Directive. Focus is on methodological
questions related to a common understanding of the technical and scientific implications of the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive. In particular, one of the objectives of the strategy is the development of
non-legally binding and practical documents, such as this guidance on co-financing of MSFD measures.
This document is targeted to experts and officials in Member States implementing the MSFD in the
marine regions and seeking co-financing of MSFD measures.
The document has been prepared by experts of ARCADIS and EUCC and following consultation of the
Directorates ENV, MARE and REGIO and Working Group ESA. It has been agreed by the Marine Strategy
Coordination Group (in accordance with Article 6 of its Rules of Procedures).
This part of the foreword will be discussed and agreed at the Marine Directors’ meeting: The Marine
Directors of the European Union and associated countries to this process have also endorsed this
Document during their informal meeting under the Italian Presidency in November 2014 and reached the
following conclusions:
“We would like to thank the experts who have prepared this high quality document. We strongly believe
that this and other documents developed under the Common Implementation Strategy will play a key
role in the process of implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This document is a living
document that will need continuous input and improvements as application and experience build up in
all countries of the European Union and beyond. We agree, however, that this document will be made
publicly available in its current form in order to present it to a wider public as a basis for carrying forward
on-going implementation work.”
The Marine Strategy Coordination Group will assess and decide upon the necessity for reviewing this
document in the light of scientific and technical progress and experiences gained in implementing the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
3
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/@@
Disclaimer:
This document has been developed through a collaborative programme involving the European
Commission, all EU Member States, the Accession Countries, and Norway, international organisations,
including the Regional Sea Conventions and other stakeholders and Non-Governmental Organisations.
The document should be regarded as presenting an informal consensus position on best practice agreed
by all partners. However, the document does not necessarily represent the official, formal position of any
of the partners. Hence, the views expressed in the document do not necessarily represent the views of
the European Commission.
4
Quick reference guide
The purpose of this quick reference guide is to provide a concise overview of opportunities for MSFD
financing in view of the available (EU) funding options in 2014-2020.
MSFD
Type of measure
Research
Measures related to
achieving and maintaining a
Good Ecological Status (GES):










Biological diversity
Non-indigenous species
Commercially exploited (shell)fish
Marine food webs
Eutrophication
Sea-floor integrity
Hydrographic conditions
Contaminants
Marine litter
Underwater noise
Other activities:
 Data collection
 Monitoring
 Control/compliance
Pilot / demonstration
Best practice analysis
and dissemination
Set up and maintenance
of (protection) schemes
Co-funding through
Horizon 2020 /
Blue Growth
Section 4.4
LIFE
Section 4.3
ERDF/Interreg
Section 4.2
Investment and
operations (assets)
Awareness raising
Interregional /
transnational
cooperation
ERDF/CF
Section 4.2
EMFF
Section 4.1
Section 5 / Appendix 2
Section 5 / Appendix 2
In the left hand column MSFD is pictured, divided in

measures to be included in a Programme of Measures (PoM) geared at achieving and/or maintaining a Good
Ecological Status, related to one or more MSFD descriptors/pressures and

other activities related to the implementation of MSFD, like data collection, monitoring and control.
Concerning the MSFD measures, different types of measures are identified in the centre column, ranging
from research to hardware investments and awareness raising.
5
For these types of MSFD measures as well as the other MSFD activities, in the right hand column the
major relevant EU co-funding options are indicated. Depending on the (phase in the) life cycle of a
proposed MSFD project, different types of measures and other activities can be at issue, involving one or
more co-funding options.
More information on MSFD, measures and funding mechanisms can be found in the sections as
indicated in the scheme.
6
1
Introduction
The aim of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) is to protect more effectively the marine
environment across Europe. Member States - cooperating with other Member States and non-EU
countries within a marine region - are required to develop strategies for their marine waters.
These marine strategies must contain a detailed assessment of the state of the environment, a definition of
"good environmental status" at regional level and the establishment of clear environmental targets and
monitoring programs. When the marine environment in a Member State does not reach the set
environmental targets, specific measures tailored to the particular context of the area and situation will
need to be elaborated.
Article 22 of the MSFD stipulates that the implementation of the Directive shall be supported by existing
Community financial instruments in accordance with applicable rules and conditions. In view of this
Article, the European Commission contracted ARCADIS /EUCC to develop a guidance to support
Member States to compile and finance a set of measures suited for their own implementation of the
MSFD.
This guidance consists of an inventory of potential funding mechanisms for the financing of measures
and supportive activities (e.g. concerning data collection, monitoring and compliance) by Member States,
geared at the implementation of MSFD, complementary to the proper funding by MS themselves. The
guidance should support Member States to compile and finance a set of measures suited for their own
implementation of the MSFD.
Structure of the guidance
In section 2 types of measures are presented according to descriptors of MSFD, geared at achieving the
Good Ecological Status. In section 3 a high level inventory of funding mechanisms related to MSFD is
presented. In this way the broader picture of potential financing instruments is established. Section 4
focuses in more detail on the content, conditions and application procedure of the following EU-funding
mechanisms, considered to be the ones most relevant to apply for by Member States concerning MSFD
measures:

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)

EU Regional Funds:
− European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
− Cohesion Fund (CF)

EU Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)
7

EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020)
Section 5 provides a number of ‘live examples’ in which MSFD measures are linked to specific funding
options, as discussed in this guidance. In the Annex useful sources and web links are listed, including
references to other (complementary) co-funding guidances.
8
2
MSFD types of measures and activities
According to the MSFD, Member States are required to identify measures that contribute to the
achievement or maintenance of the Good Ecological Status (GES) set out in their Marine Strategies and
that will address the predominant pressures and impacts identified in the initial assessment of their
marine waters (initial assessment). There should be a direct link between the proposed measures and
the established national targets.
Where relevant it is possible that measures may address several descriptors, relating to different
targets / pressures, economic sectors and activities. There is no definitive nor an exhaustive way in
which measures may be presented. In the following section the classification according to Annex I
(descriptors) of MSFD is used.19
Classification according to Annex I (descriptors) of MSFD
By using this typology a link can be established between measures and achieving the Good Ecological
Status. These descriptors encompass the final objectives that can be targeted with the (set of) measures.
The Table below gives an overview of MSFD descriptors/pressures and example type of measures.
Descriptor / pressure
Existing (types of) measures
Potential new (types of) measures
1. Biological diversity is
Designation and protection of marine habitats (MPA's,
Gear restrictions/modifications to prevent
maintained
Natura 2000 for example).
bycatch of birds
Regulation of underwater tourism (in MPAs)
2. Non-indigenous species
3. Populations of all
Ban on the discharge of untreated sewage water from
Installation of migration barriers for invasive
ships.
species.
Discard ban on the most commercially important species,
Installation of breakwaters for fish
19
In Annex II of this guidance an alternative classification of measures is available, according to Annex VI
(Programmes of Measures).
9
commercially exploited fish
ban on high grading
reproduction and growth
4. All elements of the marine
Pollution control of rivers, supported by monitoring system
Region wide response programme to the
food webs
for water quality
threat of oil spills
5. Human-induced
Limits to application of fertilizers in agriculture, limits on P
Ditch dams and ditch filters to reduce
eutrophication is minimized
per ha (existing for N)
phosphorous leakage from arable land
and shellfish
(technical measure)
6. Sea-floor integrity
Application of an environmental friendly sand extraction
Electric pulse fishing
methodology or other mitigating measures for aggregate
extraction
(Marine) Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund
(MALSF)
7. Permanent alteration of
Environmental management: establish and maintain an
Managed realignment in coastal areas (when
hydrographic conditions
environmental control and monitoring programme
not taken care of in WFD measures)
throughout the execution of large coastal development
projects
8. Concentrations of
Additional harbour taxes for "polluting" ships
‘No-special-fee’ system in sea ports
9. Contaminants in fish and
Establishing additional waste water treatment plants
Grants for disposal of oil waste from ships
other seafood for human
(compulsory), Implementing National Programme for
consumption
Priority Construction of Urban Wastewater Treatment
contaminants
Plants
10. Properties and quantities
Fishing for litter programme; Incentives to fishermen for
Deposit-refund programmes on plastic and
of marine litter
reporting on and the removal of debris.
glass bottles
11. Introduction of energy,
Installation of noise reduction techniques in ships
Seasonal restrictions on specific noise
including underwater noise
producing activities (e.g. piling) during
construction wind farms
In section 5 a more detailed specification of example measures is provided.
Next to specific measures, also other types of activities can be deployed in order to achieve GES. For
instance concerning monitoring and control. Refer to e.g. Monitoring for the MFSD: requirements and
options.
Part of the financing of these MSFD measures and activities can be derived from EU funding
mechanisms. In the following sections such funding mechanisms are described in more detail.
10
3
Overview of potential MSFD funding options
A high level inventory has been made of a number of potential MSFD funding options, including EUfunding as well as – associated – funding by IFIs and Regional Conventions. For all funding opportunities
taken into account, the following issues have been identified:

Funding priorities

Relevance for MSFD implementation in general and per type of measure

Financing criteria

Relevant regions and target groups

Available budget

Time schemes
The following table summarizes the main results of this inventory, focusing on the relevance of specific
funding options for MSFD in view of content (funding priorities) and available budget.
Funding options ranking a medium or higher score for content and available budget concerning MSFD
will be explored in more detail in the next section.
Funding
Relevant priority areas for MSFD
mechanism
implementation
Overall available amount of funding
Relevance for
MSFD measures
(content / budget)
Barcelona
Convention
Abating and preventing pollution caused by
Some project financing led by the World Bank
(Investment Fund/Sustainable MED).
High / low
dumping from ships and aircrafts, pollution
from ships, pollution resulting from
exploration and exploitation of the continent
shelf and the seabed and its subsoil.
11
Black Sea
Convention
The control of land-based sources of
Some financial resources at the Regional
Activity Centres
High / low
pollution, dumping of waste and joint action
in case of accidents.
12
Cohesion Fund
Investing in the waste and water sectors to
€ 63 billion.
Medium / medium
meet the requirements of the Union's
(specific countries
environmental acquis and to address needs,
only)
identified by the Member States, for
investment that goes beyond those
requirements. Protecting and restoring
biodiversity and soil and promoting
ecosystem services, including through
Natura 2000, and green infrastructure.
Developing and improving environmentallyfriendly (including low-noise) and lowcarbon transport systems, including maritime
transport and ports, in order to promote
sustainable regional and local mobility.
Enhancing institutional capacity of public
authorities and stakeholders and efficient
public administration through actions to
strengthen the institutional capacity and the
efficiency of public administrations and
public services related to the implementation
of the Cohesion Fund.
European
Agricultural
Fund for Rural
Development
Priorities set by the EAFRD are limited to the
EAFRD, or pillar II of the CAP, has €101.2
development of rural areas. However, some
billion available to finance the rural
measures implemented in rural areas can
development programmes 2014-2020.
Low / high
indirectly benefit the GES of marine
environments. For example measures abating
nutrient leaking, new farming practices, may
13
have positive effects on coastal waters too.
EAFRD (cfr art 44, LEADER) also provides
bottom-up opportunities, based on local
action strategies, aimed specifically at
mobilising and involving local communities
and organisations.
The EMFF provides several opportunities to fund
measures related to the MSFD during the 20142020 period. Most important Union priority
related to the MSFD is defined in article 6 (1):
“Promoting a sustainable and resource efficient
fisheries and aquaculture, focussing on:
Budgetary resources under shared
High / high
management, the resources available shall
be about EUR 5.749 million.
Budgetary resources under direct
management are set at roughly EUR 647
European
Maritime and
Fisheries Fund
European
Regional
Development
Fund
(a) reduction of the impact of fisheries on the
marine environment;
million.
(b) protection and restoration of aquatic
biodiversity and ecosystems;
The decision of the Commission approving
the operational programme shall set the
(c) enhancement of ecosystems related to
aquaculture and promotion of resource efficient
aquaculture;
maximum EMFF contribution to that
(d) promotion of aquaculture with high level of
environmental protection and of animal health
and welfare and of public health and safety.
eligible public expenditure, the minimum
programme. In most cases, the maximum
EMFF contribution rate shall be 75% of the
shall be 20%.
In general, the Regulation stipulates that an
appropriate approach towards the GES should be
integrated into the EMFF OPs (Article 18 (a)).
There are several measures under shared and
direct management that can contribute to
realising the PoMs within the MSFD.
Supporting Research and Innovation:
€ 183 billion
Medium/high
technological and applied research (applied
to fishery/maritime sector). Addressing the
significant needs for investment in the waste
and water sectors to meet the requirements of
the environmental acquis; protecting
biodiversity, soil protection and promoting
14
ecosystem services including NATURA 2000
and green infrastructures.
European Social
Fund
The ESF is Europe’s main instrument for
€ 84 billion
Low/high
Environmental policy making for the Baltic
The main sources of funding are state
High (only
Sea Area by developing common
budgets and EU's structural funds
specific countries)
environmental objectives & actions,
including the Cohesion Fund.
/ low
Horizon 2020 is the largest EU Research and
Blue Growth indicative budget: €100
High / High
Innovation programme, follow-up of FP7.
million from the 2014 budget, and €45
The sustainable exploitation of the diversity
million from the 2015 budget. In total,
of marine life will put emphasis in 2014 on
Horizon 2020 is worth nearly €80 billion
valuing and mining marine biodiversity
over seven years.
supporting jobs, helping people get better
jobs and ensuring fairer job opportunities for
all EU citizens. Only one article was
identified in the context of MSFD: Article 3.2
(a): support in shift towards a low-carbon,
climate-resilient, resource-efficient and
environmentally sustainable economy,
HELCOM
including: prevention and abatement of
dumping and pollution from ships and
preservation of marine biodiversity.
Horizon
2020
while 2015 will focus on the preservation and
sustainable exploitation of marine
ecosystems and climate change effects on
marine living resources. The new offshore
challenges will be tackled in 2014 through a
support action (CSA) preparing potential
further large –scale offshore initiatives and
one initiative focused on sub-sea
technologies while in 2015 a large scale
15
initiative is planned on response to oil spill
and maritime pollution. Also a large-scale
initiative on improving ocean observation
systems/technologies including novel
monitoring systems for in-situ observations
will be supported in 2014 as well as one
activity on acoustic and imaging
technologies..
International
Financial
Institutions
EBRD:
Concerning the MedPartnership
– Fleet modernisation and retrofitting of
Investment Fund, The GEF grant funding
vessels.
received by Sustainable MED is expected
– Introduction of best practices (port
environment and vessel operators) and
compliance with IMO regulations
Medium / low
to co-finance larger investments estimated
at around US$ 737 million provided by
beneficiary countries, through World Bank
loans, from bilateral and regional banks,
technical assistance grants and other
EIB/EIF:
sources. This applies however mainly to
- Fleet modernisation.
non-EU MS.
WB:
- Finance port investments / renovation.
- Natural resources management: (i)
integrated coastal zone management; (ii)
protection of marine resources; (iii)
vulnerable ecosystems and biodiversity; (iv)
16
water resource management.
- Pollution prevention and abatement: (i)
water treatment; (ii) solid and hazardous
waste management; (iii) industrial pollution
abatement; (iv) sea transportation, (v)
maritime safety."
Instrument for
Pre-accession
Assistance II
Transition Assistance and Institution
IPA II funding will amount to some €14.1
Low (specific
Building , Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC)
billion over 2014-2020.
countries only) /
and Regional Development – for investment
medium
in transport, environment and economic
cohesion, and associated technical assistance.
As far as can be applied to MSFD.
LIFE:
Programme for
the Environment
and Climate
Action
Thematic priorities for Water, including the
marine environment: activities for the
implementation of the specific objectives for
water set out in the Roadmap for a ResourceEfficient Europe and the 7th Environment Action
Programme, in particular activities for the
implementation of the programme of measures
of Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD) with a view to
achieving good environmental status of marine
waters.
Thematic priorities for Waste: activities for the
implementation of the specific objectives for
waste set out in the Roadmap for a ResourceEfficient Europe and the 7th Environment Action
Programme, in particular activities for the
implementation and development of Union
waste legislation, with particular emphasis on the
first steps of the Union waste hierarchy
(prevention, re-use and recycling).
Thematic priorities for Nature: activities for the
implementation of Directives 92/43/EEC and
2009/147/EC, in particular activities aimed at
improving the conservation status of habitats and
species, including marine habitats and species,
and bird species, of Union interest.
Subprogramme Environment € 2.600
High / High
million.
At least 55 % dedicated to projects
supporting the conservation of nature and
biodiversity.
A maximum of 30 % may be allocated to
integrated projects. These integrated
projects, while focusing on the themes
identified, should be multi-purpose
delivery mechanisms (e.g. aiming at
environmental benefits and capacitybuilding) that make it possible to achieve
results in other policy areas, in particular
the marine environment in accordance
with the objectives of Directive 2008/56/EC
(MSFD).
"(a) Information, communication and awareness
raising campaigns in line with the priorities of the
7th Environment Action Programme;
(b) Activities in support of effective control
process as well as measures to promote
compliance in relation to Union environmental
legislation, and in support of information systems
and information tools on the implementation of
17
Union environmental legislation."
OSPAR
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Strategy,
OSPAR works primarily through the
Eutrophication Strategy, Hazardous
resources of the Contracting Parties.
High / low
Substances Strategy, Strategy for Joint
Assessment and Monitoring. The MSFD aims
to achieve good environmental status for the
EU Member States’ marine waters by 2020.
OSPAR is the main platform for coordination
for the marine area concerned (North East
Atlantic)
18
4
Most relevant MSFD funding options
In view of the outcome of the high level inventory of potential funding mechanisms in section 3 as well
as the background of Article 22 of the MSFD20, the focus in this co-financing guidance is on the following
EU-funding mechanisms for MSFD implementation:

EU Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds):
− European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)
− EU Regional Funds:
• European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
• Cohesion Fund (CF)

EU Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)

EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020)
In this section we clarify the general structure and procedures of these funds or programmes as well as
the more specific linkage to MSFD.
Shared management funds
EMFF and the Regional funds are part of the so-called EU Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). These funds are allocated to
Member States, based on national allocations (% share). Furthermore specific procedures apply concerning the shared
management of the funds between EC and MS, involving the requirement of incorporating MSFD-needs or measures in
Partnership Agreements and subsequent Operational Programmes for any specific MSFD funding application by MS or regions
later on.
In the following scheme the ‘building blocks’ are identified, leading to the operational programmes of the EMFF, ERDF and CF
funding mechanisms. Based on the Common Strategic Framework21, Partnership Agreements are signed between the EU and the
MS. In the Partnership Agreements, the MS outlines its needs and objectives, relating to the Common Strategic Framework, and
building on the Commission’s individual recommendations, as laid out in the ‘Position Paper’ adopted for each Member State in
20
This article implies that the implementation of the Directive shall be supported by existing Community financial
instruments in accordance with applicable rules and conditions.
21
The Common Strategic Framework (CSF) translates the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy in a multi-annual
financial framework, determining rules for the cohesion policy and for an integrated use of the 5 principal funds:
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), Cohesion Fund (CF), European Maritime
and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
19
2012. Based on the needs and objectives as laid down in the Partnership Agreements, more detailed activities / investment plans
are drawn up in the individual Operating Programmes (OPs) for the specific funding mechanisms, at MS or regional level. In
general, the OP structure is based on matching an EU pre-defined set of thematic objectives, investment priorities and indicators
and the specific MS needs and objectives as stated in the Partnership Agreements. The (combined) OPs for ERDF and CF are
usually drawn up on a regional level, the EMFF OP is made on a national (MS) level.
The ‘Union priorities’ and “thematic objectives” constitute the basis for the Common Strategic Framework, which shall outline key
actions for each thematic objective. Every action financed must be linked to a particular thematic objective. In view of MSFD,
Union priorities 1 (Promoting environmentally sustainable, resource efficient, innovative, competitive and knowledge based
fisheries), 2 (Fostering environmentally sustainable, resource efficient, innovative, competitive and knowledge based aquaculture),
3 (Fostering the implementation of the CFP) and 6 (Fostering the implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy) are most
relevant for potential co-funding of MSFD measures and activities by both EMFF and the Regional Funds (ERDF and CF). The
same holds for thematic objective 6 (Protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency) and – to a lesser extent –
thematic objective 3 (Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, the agricultural sector (for the
EAFRD) and the fisheries and aquaculture sector (for the EMFF)).
Direct Funds
LIFE and Horizon 2020 are so called direct EU Funds. General characteristics of these types of funds are:
- Calls for Proposals are made, usually annual calls. These calls may have different priorities and criteria.
- The funds are largely independent, applying different criteria.
- The bidding process is competitive, merit based, meeting pre-defined criteria.
- A strong transnational requirement exists, requiring partners from other Member States.
- Co-financing generally ranges between 45% - 85%, to ensure partner buy-in.
- Most Funds have National Contact Points to assist/advise.
20
European Maritime and fisheries Fund (EMFF)
4.1
The EMFF provides several opportunities to finance the Common Fisheries Policy and the Integrated Maritime
Policy. Specifically, dedicated support is provided for the management, restoration and monitoring of coastal and
marine Natura 2000 sites. In addition, support is also made available for the management, restoration and
monitoring of other marine protected areas (MPAs) to support the implementation of MSFD. Also the improvement
of the knowledge on the state of the marine environment (establishing monitoring programmes) and the PoMs
foreseen in the MSFD in line with the obligations established in the Directive, are eligible to funding by EMFF. More
information on EMFF can be found on the EMFF section of the DG MARE website.
Fund structure
4.1.1
EMFF is structured in two parts:

The largest part of EMFF (90%) is based on shared management by EC and Member States, ruled by operational
programmes;

A minor part (10%) of EMFF is based on direct management by EC.
Shared management: operational programme
The shared management part of EMFF is implemented by Member States through national OPs, allocating budget to
measures/actions, addressing specific objectives. Once the Commission has approved the OP, it is up to the MS to
decide which projects will be funded. The MS and the Commission will be jointly responsible for the implementation
of the programme. For MS to be able to apply for EMFF funding of MSFD measures, the EMFF OPs must contain
specific MSFD needs and associated measures to address them. Hence it is necessary that MS integrate MSFD
objectives and measures into their EMFF OP before proceeding to apply to EMFF for funding of MSFD-measures.
This concerns specifically the following items.
Item
Operational
Programme
section
Title
Concerns
1
2.1
SWOT / identification
of needs
MSFD related needs addressed and relation with GES
 Is the SWOT analysis consistent with the progress to achieve GES
through the development and implementation of MSFD?
 In this respect, have any MSFD descriptors/pressures or other needs (e.g.
2
3.1
Description of OP
strategy
relating to capacity building) been included?
Integrating the MSFD into the EMFF OP strategy
 Have relevant objectives been set, with an adequate explanation/link with
3
3.3
Measures and output
indicators
achievement of GES under the MSFD?
Ensuring selection of MSFD-relevant measures and indicators
 Have MSFD-relevant measures been identified (see Annex 4)
 Have one or more of the following output indicators been included?:
− UP1.4: Conservation measures, reduction of the fishing impact on the
environment and fishing adaptation to the protection of species
− UP1.6: Protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems
− UP 2.14: Limiting the impact of aquaculture on the environment (ecomanagement, audit schemes, organic aquaculture environmental
services)
21
− UP 3.18: Implementing the Union’s control, inspections and
enforcement system
− UP 3.19: Supporting the collection, management and use of data;
− UP 6.28: Protection and improvement of knowledge on marine
4
3.4
Complementarity with
other ESI funds
environment
Possibilities of multiple ESI funding
What other ESI funding will be attracted to co-finance measures? And how is
this managed?
5
3.5
Sea basin strategies
In case a sea basin strategy is relevant for MS, how has this been taken
into account?
 Is the MS/region covered by a Macro-Regional Strategy (e.g. Baltic Sea,
6
4.1
Specific needs of
N2000 areas
Adriatic/Ionian, Danube)?
 If yes, are the (marine) priorities/actions of these strategies adequately
supported under the OP in question?
Marine N2000 needs
 Have the specific needs of marine N2000 areas been addressed in the
proposed measures?
 Is there a clear link between this OP section and the measures chosen in
7
4.7
Technical Assistance
OP Section 3.3 (e.g. measures under Art 40.1.d and 40.1.e, and 44.6.a
can all contribute to designation/management of N2000 sites)
Is technical assistance required for MSFD implementation?
If so, this should be specified in this section of the OP, specifically mentioning
Article 78 of the EMFF (refer to section 4.1.2 of this guidance document). For
some MS this is a crucial element in order to be able to implement MSFD.
8
8.2
EMFF contribution
and co-financing
Costs of measures and amount of national co-financing
 Rough estimate of proposed MSFD measures should be available.
 How much can be co-funded by the MS themselves, taking into account
9
13
Data collection
EMFF-co funding rates and other (ESI) sources of funding.
Data collection activities
 What MSFD related data is necessary, based on the needs identified in
item 2.
 There should be a clear link between the data collection outlined here,
10
14
Financial instruments
and the reporting requirements under the MSFD, especially in relation to
biodiversity and fisheries Descriptors.
MSFD measures entailing use of financial instrument
This may be the case e.g. in 'economic incentive' type of measure.22 If so,
measures and amounts should be specified.
22
This type of measures include e.g. the use of taxes, charges, fees and other kind of financial instruments.
22
4.1.2
Key elements relating to MSFD
Shared management
Concerning the shared management of EMFF, as laid out in the Operational Programmes, a so-called
Intervention Logic has been constructed by the Commission, in which Union Priorities, Thematic
Objectives and EMFF Specific Objectives are linked to specific EMFF articles.
The EMFF Intervention Logic and the most relevant EMFF articles for MSFD (highlighted) are presented
in the following Table.
Union priorities
Specific
objectives
Measures
Thematic
objective
1. Promoting
environmentally
sustainable,
resource efficient,
innovative,
competitive and
knowledge based
fisheries
1. Reduction of
the impact of
fisheries on the
marine
environment,
including the
avoidance and
reduction, as far
as possible, of
unwanted
catches;
Article 37 Support for the design and implementation of
conservation measures and regional cooperation
TO 6
Article 38 Limiting the impact of fishing on the marine environment
and adapting fishing to the protection of species
TO 6
Article 39 Innovation linked to the conservation of marine biological
resources
TO 6
Article 40.1.a Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity –
collection of lost fishing gear and marine litter
TO 6
Article 43.2 Fishing ports, landing sites, auction halls and shelters –
investments to facilitate compliance with the obligation to land all
catches
TO 6
2. Protection and
restoration of
aquatic
biodiversity and
ecosystems
Article 40.1.b-g, i Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity –
contribution to a better management or conservation, construction,
installation or modernisation of static or movable facilities,
preparation of protection and management plans related to
NATURA2000 sites and spatial protected areas, management,
restoration and monitoring marine protected areas, including
NATURA 2000 sites, environmental awareness, participation in
other actions aimed at maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and
ecosystem services.
TO 6
3. Ensuring a
balance between
fishing capacity
and available
fishing
opportunities
Article 34 Permanent cessation of fishing activities
TO 6
Article 36 Support to systems of allocation of fishing opportunities
TO 6
4. Enhancement
of the
competitiveness
and viability of
fisheries
enterprises,
including of small
Article 27 Advisory services
TO 3
Article 30 Diversification and new forms of income
TO 3
Article 31 Start-up support for young fishermen
TO 3
Article 32 Health and safety
TO 3
23
scale coastal fleet,
and the
improvement of
safety or working
conditions
2. Fostering
environmentally
sustainable,
resource efficient,
innovative,
competitive and
knowledge based
aquaculture
Article 33 Temporary cessation of fishing activities
TO 3
Article 35 Mutual funds for adverse climatic events and
environmental incidents
TO 3
Article 40.1.h Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity –
schemes for the compensation of damage to catches caused by
mammals and birds
TO 3
Article 42 Added value, product quality and use of unwanted
catches
TO 3
Article 43.1 + 3 Fishing ports, landing sites, auction halls and shelters
- investments improving fishing port and auctions halls
infrastructure or landing sites and shelters; construction of shelters
to improve safety of fishermen
TO 3
5. Provision of
support to
strengthen
technological
development and
innovation,
including
increasing energy
efficiency, and
knowledge
transfer
Article 26 Innovation
TO 3
Article 28 Partnerships between fishermen and scientists
TO 3
Article 41.1.a, b, c Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate
change – on board investments; energy efficiency audits and
schemes; studies to assess the contribution of alternative
propulsion systems and hull designs
TO 4
Article 41.2 Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change Replacement or modernisation of main or ancillary engines
TO 4
6. Development
of professional
training, new
professional skills
and lifelong
learning
Article 29.1 + 29.2 Promoting human capital and social dialogue training, networking, social dialogue; support to spouses and life
partners
TO 8
Article 29.3 Promoting human capital and social dialogue – trainees
on board of SSCF vessels / social dialogue
TO 8
1. Provision of
support to
strengthen
technological
development,
innovation and
knowledge
transfer
Article 47 Innovation
TO 3
Article 49 Management, relief and advisory services for aquaculture
farms
TO 3
2. Enhancement
of the
competitiveness
and viability of
aquaculture
enterprises,
including
improvement of
safety or working
conditions, in
Article 48.1.a-d, f-h Productive investments in aquaculture
TO 3
Article 52 Encouraging new sustainable aquaculture farmers
practising sustainable aquaculture
TO 3
24
particular of SMEs
3. Fostering the
implementation of
the CFP
3. Protection and
restoration of
aquatic
biodiversity and
enhancement of
ecosystems
related to
aquaculture and
promotion of
resource-efficient
aquaculture
Article 48.1.k Productive investments in aquaculture - increasing
energy efficiency, renewable energy
TO 4
Article 48.1.e, i, j Productive investments in aquaculture - resource
efficiency, reducing usage of water and chemicals, recirculation
systems minimising water use
TO 6
Article 51 Increasing the potential of aquaculture sites
TO 6
Article 53 Conversion to eco-management and audit schemes and
organic aquaculture
TO 6
4. Promotion of
aquaculture
having a high level
of environmental
protection, and
the promotion of
animal health and
welfare and of
public health and
safety
Article 54 Aquaculture providing environmental services
TO 6
Article 55 Public health measures
TO 3
Article 56 Animal health and welfare measures
TO 3
Article 57 Aquaculture stock insurance
TO 3
5. Development
of professional
training, new
professional skills
and lifelong
learning
Article 50 Promoting human capital and networking
TO 8
1. Improvement
and supply of
scientific
knowledge and
collection and
management of
data
Article 77 Data collection
TO 6
2. Provision of
support to
monitoring,
control and
enforcement,
enhancing
institutional
capacity and the
efficiency of
public
administration,
without
increasing the
administrative
Article 76 Control and enforcement
TO 6
25
burden
4. Increasing
employment and
territorial cohesion
5. Fostering
marketing and
processing
6. Fostering the
implementation of
the Integrated
Maritime Policy
Technical
Assistance
Promotion of
economic growth,
social inclusion
and job creation,
and providing
support to
employability and
labour mobility in
coastal and inland
communities
which depend on
fishing and
aquaculture,
including the
diversification of
activities within
fisheries and into
other sectors of
maritime
economy
Article 62.1.a Preparatory support
TO 8
Article 63 Implementation of local development strategies (incl.
running costs and animation)
TO 8
Article 64 Cooperation activities
TO 8
1. Improvement
of market
organisation for
fishery and
aquaculture
products
Article 66 Production and marketing plans
TO 3
Article 67 Storage aid
TO 3
Article 68 Marketing measures
TO 3
Article 70 Compensation regime
TO 3
2. Encouragement
of investment in
the processing
and marketing
sectors
Article 69 Processing of fisheries and aquaculture products
TO 3
Development and
implementation
of the Integrated
Maritime Policy
Article 80.1.a Integrating Maritime Surveillance
TO 6
Article 80.1.b Promotion of the protection of marine environment,
and the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources
TO 6
Article 80.1.c Improving the knowledge on the state of the marine
environment
TO 6
Article 78 Technical assistance at the initiative of the Member States
26
Example MSFD measures that may be co-financed by EMFF are included in section 5.
Direct management
A minor part of EMFF is directly managed by the Commission, geared at the implementation of the new
common fisheries policy and integrated maritime policy. Some of the appropriate articles are also
relevant in view of MSFD and specifically address issues like monitoring, scientific advice, control and
enforcement and more general technical assistance concerning MSFD. These articles are listed in the
following Table.
Relevant Title and
chapter in EMFF
Article + Short description
TITLE VI: MEASURES FINANCED UNDER DIRECT MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER I: Integrated
Maritime Policy
Article 81:
Foster the development and implementation of integrated governance of maritime and coastal affairs at local,
regional, national, sea basin, EU and international level.
Contribute to the development of cross sector initiatives that are mutually beneficial to different maritime sectors
and/or sector policies, taking into account and building upon existing tools and initiatives, such as integrated
maritime surveillance, maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal zone management, development of a high
quality marine knowledge base, promoting the protection of the marine environment, in particular its biodiversity
and marine protected areas such as Natura 2000 sites, and the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources in
particular in the framework of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
CHAPTER II
Accompanying
measures for the
Common Fisheries
Policy and the
Integrated Maritime
Policy
Articles 84-90: Measures under this Chapter shall facilitate the implementation of the CFP and IMP. Specifically
relevant concerning MSFD are the following:
(a) scientific advice under CFP (article 85)
(b) specific control and enforcement measures under CFP ( article 86);
(f) Common Fisheries Policy and Integrated Maritime Policy communication activities (article 90)
CHAPTER III: Technical
assistance
Article 91: Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission, specifically
(c) the setting up of a European network of FLAGs aiming at capacity building, disseminating information,
exchanging experience and best practice and supporting cooperation between the local partnerships. This network
shall cooperate with the networking and technical support bodies for local development set up by the ERDF, the
ESF and the EAFRD as regards their local development activities and transnational co-operation.
4.1.3
Available budget and funding criteria
Shared management
Article 13 of the EMFF Regulation provides the budgetary resources under shared management for the 2014-2020
period. In total, EUR 5.749 million is available for commitments of EMFF, to be allocated as follows:

EUR 4.341 million for sustainable development of fisheries, aquaculture and fisheries areas.
27

EUR 580 million for control and enforcement measures referred to in Article 78.

EUR 520 million for measures on data collection referred to in Article 79.

EUR 71 million for measures on integrated maritime policy.
All EU Member States except for Luxemburg are eligible for EMFF funding. The allocation of total EMFF
funding per MS is based on the size of its fishing industry. The overall amount of funding per MS can be
checked here.
Concerning the shared management, each country will draw up an operational programme, as detailed
in section 4.1.1. The decision of the Commission approving the operational programme shall set the
maximum EMFF contribution to that programme. In that respect also the allocation of the EMFF shared
management funds per Member State applies, setting the available EMFF funding per MS.
Once the Commission approves the operational programme, it is up to the national authorities to decide
which projects will be funded. The national authorities and the Commission will be jointly responsible
for the implementation of the programme.
The maximum EMFF contribution rate is 75% of the eligible public expenditure, the minimum is 20%.
Derogations are described in EMFF article 94 (3) and (4).
Some articles are linked to a set of general criteria and/or financial criteria, these are described in the
Table below regarding the articles relevant to MSFD as listed in section 4.1.2.
Article
General criteria
Financial criteria
CHAPTER II: Sustainable development of aquaculture
Article 53
Support shall only be granted to beneficiaries
who commit themselves for a minimum of 3
years to participate in the EMAS or for a
minimum of 5 years to comply with the
requirements of organic production.
Compensation is only for a maximum of three years
during the period of the conversion of the enterprise
to organic production or during the preparation for
participation in the EMAS scheme.
The compensation is calculated on the basis of:
-the loss of revenue or additional costs incurred
during the period of transition from conventional
into organic production, paragraph 1(a);
28
Article
General criteria
Financial criteria
-the additional costs resulting from the application
and preparation to the participation in EMAS,
paragraph 1(b).
Article 54
Funding of 1 (c) only possible for a
commitment of minimum of five years;
Support shall take the form of annual compensation
for the additional costs incurred and/or income
foregone.
CHAPTER VII: Technical assistance at the initiative of the Member States
Article 79 (a)
Maximum 6 % of the total amount of the operational
programme for technical assistance and the
establishment of national networks.
Direct management
Article 14 provides the budgetary resources under direct management. An amount of EUR 647 million is available for
such measures and activities. This amount includes technical assistance under Article 91.
4.1.4
How to apply for funding
Shared management
In the following scheme the structure of the shared management part of EMFF, relating to MSFD is
pictured. This is explained underneath.
29
Approval of Operational Programme
For measures financed under shared management, each Member State shall first draw up a single
Operational Programme to implement the Union priorities referred to in Article 6. Refer to section 4.1.1.
Concerning the requirements on the content of MSFD objectives and measures as part of the OP, we refer to section 4.1.1, where
these have been explained.
For the purpose of data collection as imposed by the OP, Member States shall submit to the Commission
an annual work plan before 31 October each year. Annual work plans shall contain a description of the
procedures and methods to be used in collecting and analysing data and in estimating their accuracy
and precision. The Commission shall approve, by means of implementing act, the annual work plan for
each year by 31 December of each year. The implementing act will contain provisions recognizing that
no annual work plans will be required for the period 2014-2016 for the 23 coastal Member States for
whom National Programmes for the years 2014-2016 have already been adopted. The implementing act
will also confirm that land-locked Member States do not need to submit annual work plans until the
amended Data Collection Framework (DCF) Regulation enters into force.
After the submission of the OP by the Member State, the Commission shall make observations within three months
of the date of submission of the OP (article 29.3 CPR). The Commission then has to approve each OP no later than six
months following its submission by the Member State. The Commission shall approve the OP by means of
implementing act.
Next, the Commission shall approve the amendment of an OP by means of implementing acts. The Commission is
able to adopt a decision every two years, detailing any changes in the priorities of the Union in the enforcement and
control policy and the corresponding eligible operations to be prioritised. Member States may submit an amendment
to their OP, taking into account the new priorities.
Regular procedure
Member States have to duly justify requests for amendments of OPs which they submit to the
Commission. Requests for OP amendments need to be accompanied by the revised OP. The Commission
may make observations within one month of the submission of the amendment. The Commission has to
approve requests for amendment as soon as possible but no later than three months after their
submission by the Member State provided that any observations made by the Commission have been
adequately taken into account. The CPR includes a specific procedure for amendments of OPs which
result from the allocation of the performance reserve. Under this specific procedure, the Commission
has less time to approve the request for amendment than under the regular procedure: It has to
approve the request no later than two months after the submission of the request by the Member
State.
30
Simplified procedure
Under this procedure, the Commission will approve a request for amendment no later than two months
after the submission by the Member State. In any case, a Commission implementing decision will follow
to formally approve the request for amendment. This procedure takes account of the fact that data
collection and control and enforcement measures have become part of shared management under the
EMFF. For the parts of the OPs covering these elements more regular revisions will be required in line
with changes in EU priorities in these fields. The objective of the simplified procedure is to facilitate
these updates of the OPs. The simplified procedure has also been extended to other OP amendments
such as transfers of funds between Union priorities (within certain limits), the introduction or
withdrawal of measures or types of relevant operations (within certain limits) and changes in the
description of measures, including changes of eligibility conditions.
The simplified procedure applies to OP amendments concerning the following 4 topics:

A transfer of funds between Union priorities (not exceeding 10% of the amount allocated to the Union priority);

Introduction or withdrawal of measures or types of relevant operations and related information and indicators;

Changes in the description of measures, including changes of eligibility conditions;

Amendments referred to in Article 22(2) as well as further amendments of the programme of the section referred
to in Article 20(1)(n).
Any amendments, including amendments related to the four topics listed above, which concern the
changes listed below always have to be adopted by regular procedure:

a change in the programme strategy through a change of more than 50% in any result indicator (refer to this list)
linked to a Union priority;

a change in the EMFF contribution rate of one or more Union priority/(ies) or measure(s);

a change of the entire Union contribution or its annual distribution at programme level;

any change related to the measures of temporary cessation (articles 33a).
Direct management
For measures financed under direct management, the Commission shall, by means of implementing
acts, adopt annual work programmes. The annual work programme shall set out a description of the
activities to be financed and the objectives pursued for each activity. It shall also contain an indication of
the amount allocated to each activity, an indicative implementation timetable, as well as information on
their implementation.
Combining EMFF with other funding options
Combining EMFF with other ESI Funds (e.g. ERDF and CF) or with other EU (typically directly managed)
financing instruments may enhance overall impact by a) bringing together financial resources from
31
different EU funds in the same project, b) through successive projects that build on each other or c)
through parallel projects that complement each other.
Combination with other ESI Funds
As stated in the ‘checklist’ in section 4.1, in their EMFF OP, the Member States should consider projects
that can be funded under different EU programmes.

Community-led local development (CLLD): Since 2007, the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) has provided support
for the sustainable development of fisheries areas. Actions undertaken by the Fisheries Local Action Groups
(FLAGs) can be financed by the different ESI Funds.

Integrated territorial investment (ITI): ITI is a new tool to implement territorial strategies in an integrated way
(planned with a top-down approach). ITI allows Member States to implement Operational Programmes in a
cross-cutting way and to draw on funding from different sources to ensure the implementation of an integrated
strategy for a specific territory. Within the Integrated Maritime Policy, some Member States and regions might
propose the use of ITIs to implement maritime strategies through the combination of several ESI Funds.

European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) and its transnational strand in particular, allows for the implementation
of cross-sectoral initiatives at territorial level, for example a sea-basin. An example is the network of centres of
excellence for maritime training within the Baltic Sea Region. More details on this transnational ETC-strand can
be found in section 4.2 (Regional Funds).
Example of type of project funded through different ESI funds:
Implementation of a local development programme around a port, including investments in infrastructure linked to landing all
catches, traceability and safe working conditions (EMFF), tourism (ERDF and EMFF) investments to ensure access to public
services (health, education) in the area and vocational training, including for fishermen (ESF)
Combination with other EU Funds
Combining EMFF with other EU financial instruments is also a possibility. This holds for the two non-ESI
funds discussed in more detail in this guidance: LIFE and Horizon 2020. LIFE helps coordinate various
sources of funding for environment and climate action, and fills gaps by addressing environmental
issues, focusing on providing and disseminating solutions and best practices to achieve environmental
and climate goals, and by promoting innovative environmental and climate change technologies.
Horizon 2020 includes maritime research priorities and covers the launch of blue growth calls as from
2014.
The European Commission (required by Article 13 of the Common Provisions Regulation) has prepared a
guidance on how to effectively access and use the ESI Funds, and on how to exploit complementarities
with other instruments of relevant Union policies. This guidance provides, for each thematic objective,
an overview of the available relevant instruments at Union level with detailed sources of information,
examples of good practices for combining available funding instruments within and across policy areas,
32
a description of relevant authorities and bodies involved in the management of each instrument, a
checklist for potential beneficiaries to help them to identify the most appropriate funding sources.
33
4.2
Regional Funds: ERDF and Cohesion Fund
The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund are both instruments of the EU Cohesion
Policy. General information on the Cohesion Policy is available at INFOREGIO.
European Regional Development Fund
The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) aims to strengthen economic and social cohesion in
the European Union by correcting imbalances between its regions. The ERDF supports regional and local
development by co-financing investments in R&D and innovation, climate change and environment,
business support to SMEs, services of common economic interest, telecommunication, energy and
transport infrastructures, health, education and social infrastructures and sustainable urban
development. Concerning the issue of environment and resource efficiency, opportunities exist for
Member States for co-financing MSFD-measures.
Cohesion Fund
The Cohesion Fund is one of the EU (financial) instruments of the overall EU Cohesion Policy. The
Cohesion Fund (CF) provides a financial contribution to projects in the fields of environment and transEuropean networks in the area of transport infrastructure. Following the environment focus, also here
possibilities exist for specific Member States to co-fund MSFD measures.
4.2.1
Fund structure
The ERDF (99%) and CF (85%) are for the largest part subject to shared management.
Shared management: operational programme
ERDF and CF are implemented by Member States through regional Operational Programmes. Concerning MSFD,
investments priorities under Thematic Objective (TO) 6 (Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting
resource efficiency) are most important. Following the Common Provisions for ERDF/CF the following investment
priorities within the thematic objectives will be supported23:

Investing in the water sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis and to address needs,
identified by the Member States for investment that goes beyond those requirements.

Investing in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis and to address needs,
identified by the Member States, for investment that goes beyond those requirements.
23
REGULATION (EU) No 1303/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 December 2013
laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the
Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries
Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund,
the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No
1083/2006.
34
In the proposed Specific Provisions for ERDF/CF further details are listed concerning the TO 6 investment
priorities24 of which the following are relevant for MSFD:

addressing the significant needs for investment in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the environmental
acquis;

addressing the significant needs for investment in the water sector to meet the requirements of the environmental
acquis;

protecting biodiversity, soil protection and promoting ecosystem services including NATURA 2000 25 and green
infrastructures.
Furthermore, in the Regional Funds OPs, priority axes (PA) are defined. The allocation of funding of the
individual OPs is managed on the basis of these axes. Thematic Objectives (TOs) and Investment
Priorities (IPs) are EU pre-defined. Priority axes (PAs) should be defined by the MS or regions
themselves, based on a combination of one or more IPs per TO, as shown in the following graph.
Once the Commission has approved the OP, it is up to the regions to decide which projects will be funded. The
regions and the Commission will be jointly responsible for the implementation of the programme. For the MS /
regions to be able to apply for ERDF / CF funding of MSFD measures, the appropriate OPs must contain specific
MSFD needs and associated measures to address them. It is necessary that MSFD-objectives/measures are integrated
into the appropriate OPs before regions proceed to apply for funding of MSFD-measures. This concerns specifically
the following items.
Item
Operational
Programme
Title
Concerns
section
24
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on specific provisions
concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing
Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006.
25
Set up as a coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation pursuant to Article 3(1) of
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ
L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
35
1
1.1.2
Thematic
objectives /
investment
priorities
MSFD-related Thematic Objectives (TOs) and associated Investment Priorities
(IPs) should be included in one or more Priority Axes.

Are TO 6 (Environment & Resource Efficiency) and the associated Investment
Priorities present?

2
2
Description of
priority axes
For some MSFD pressures/measures, TOs 1 (Research/Innovation) and 5 (Climate
change adaptation) also provide ‘hooks’ to facilitate co-funding of such measures.
Relevant MSFD related priority axes should be included and detailed

Do any of the priority axes address something of potential relevance to the marine
environment/MSFD?

Within the identified priority axes, are specific MSFD-relevant investment priorities
mentioned?
Is any specific technical assistance required for implementing the MSFD, e.g.
concerning monitoring, compliance etc.? This should then be addressed.26
3
2
Technical
assistance
4
3.2
Total financial
appropriation
by fund and
national cofunding
Costs of measures and amount of national co-funding
Sea basin
strategies
In case a sea basin strategy is relevant for MS, how has this been taken into
account?
5
4.5
Reality check on cost estimates of proposed MSFD measures, allocation of costs by
union support (ERDF and/or CF co-funding) and co-funding by MS.
Has a relevant sea basin strategy (e.g. Baltic Sea) been taken into account in the
definition of objectives and types of actions?
6
8
Coordination
between funds
How is coordination established between use of multiple funds?
This concerns coordination between ERDF/CF, LIFE, Horizon 2020 and national cofunding, e.g. have relevant links been made between non-ESIF projects and the vision
set out in the OP?
4.2.2
Key elements relating to MSFD
Shared management
Concerning the shared management Article 5 of the ERDF and Article 4 of the CF relate to the
investment priorities in both funds, as specified in the Operational Programmes.
For MSFD investments priorities under TO 6 (Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting
resource efficiency) are most important. Following the Common Provisions for ERDF/CF the following
investment priorities within the thematic objectives will be supported:

Investing in the water sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis and to address needs,
identified by the Member States for investment that goes beyond those requirements.
26
In the OP, a distinction is made between specific technical assistance in connection with a particular priority axe,
e.g. specific actions to increase the administrative capacity of the bodies implementing the priority axis (section
2A) and more general forms of technical assistance (section 2B). The latter applies to public procurement,
environmental compliance, state aid compliance and statistical requirements. It is also for supporting actions to
reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries, for actions to reinforce the capacity of beneficiaries to use the
ESI Funds, as well as for actions to reinforce the capacity of relevant partners.
36

Investing in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis and to address needs,
identified by the Member States, for investment that goes beyond those requirements.
In the proposed Specific Provisions for ERDF/CF further details are provided concerning the TO 6
investment priorities:

addressing the significant needs for investment in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the environmental
acquis;

addressing the significant needs for investment in the water sector to meet the requirements of the environmental
acquis;

protecting biodiversity, soil protection and promoting ecosystem services including NATURA 2000 27 and green
infrastructures.
Typical ERDF/CF co-financed projects in the field of environment are investments in waste water
treatment facilities. Depending on the location of such facilities, also MSFD objectives come into the
picture.
The clean-up of the Santander Bay
"When completed, the new Santander Bay sewage system will remove residues from wastewater and restore damaged habitats",
says Jesús Bedoya, the Head of the Department for the Management of Community Funds and Planning at the Government of
Cantabria. Implementation of the project began in 1997, when sewer collectors were installed along the whole of the Bay. "The
collectors cover some 250 000 inhabitants, or around half of the population of Cantabria", explains Jesús Bedoya. The second
phase involves installing pumps to carry water to the treatment plant and constructing an underwater outfall. This pipe, 2 500 m
long, will allow the treated water to be discharged into the open sea. "Up until now, waste has been discharged into Santander
Bay, causing serious damage to the marine environment, although the tides have helped reduce the effects", explains Jesús
Bedoya. In a third phase, a new treatment plant has been built in Santa Cruz de Bezana to replace the existing plant.
Total Investment:

first phase: € 27.9 million

second phase: € 28.5 million

third phase: € 27.9 million
EU contribution: first phase (ERDF): EUR 19.5 million (1994-99 Programme)
On the DG REGIO web link more executed ERDF/CF example projects can be checked.
27
Set up as a coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation pursuant to Article 3(1) of
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ
L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
37
European Territorial Integration: INTERREG
A specific strand within the cohesion policy funding, and potentially relevant for MSFD, are the
INTERREG programmes under the European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) goal. These programmes
generally are of the character of enabling exchange of experience, knowledge and good practices among
relevant stakeholders from different MS and/or regions.
The Operational Programmes under ETC involve more than one MS and can include also non – EU MSs.
They can be cross-border (along internal EU borders), transnational (cover larger areas of co-operation
such as the Baltic Sea, North Sea or Mediterranean Sea), and interregional at EU-28 level (between
regional and local bodies in different countries belonging also to different regions). They are co-financed
by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), also in combination with the Instrument for Pre –
Accession Assistance (IPA) and the European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument (ENPI – future ENI)
Funds when candidates/potential candidates or neighbouring countries are also part of the
Programmes.
Both 'cross-border cooperation' (INTERREG VA) and 'transnational cooperation' (INTERREG VB) are
considered within the cohesion policy fund MS allocations, while 'interregional cooperation' (INTERREG
VC) is on the top of national allocations.
In Annex II the list of the planned ETC Programmes 2014 – 2020 and their geographical scope is
included. For MSFD the programmes for MS / regions with bordering seas are considered relevant.
INTERREG projects typically focus on cooperation between regions and Member States.
Removing the threat to Baltic waters
Like many marine zones, the Baltic Sea has a very sensitive marine environment. Apart from the natural factors at work, the area
also experiences large volumes of shipping traffic which remain a constant threat. Despite this, many coastal regions have few or
no contingency plans in place. The Baltic Master II project is now beginning to address this gap by focusing on two key areas:
improving the on-land response capacity to oil spills and enhancing the prevention of pollution from maritime transport.
The current project picks up where the previous Baltic Master project left off, and will ensure that coastal zone management
includes a suitable response system in line with the traffic volume, which is currently not the case. Four work packages will be
used to ensure safety for both the environment and the well-being of coastal communities, given the Baltic Sea’s classification as a
particularly sensitive sea area.
38
The project brings together local, regional and national authorities, research institutes, universities and pan-Baltic organisations,
ensuring a combination of hands-on knowledge and strategic work. The project is divided into four work packages: project
management and administration; communication and information; improved on-land response capacity to oil spills at sea; and
enhanced prevention of pollution, including treating ship-generated waste. The project will also contribute to practical solutions and
suggestions for strategic investments in maritime protection.
Given the diversity of partners involved in the project, updated information and communication is important and will be achieved
through a communication strategy, joint action plan on dissemination, website with intranet, partner meetings and training courses.
Press and media activities will also be arranged to ensure wide-scale awareness of the project. A final document called ‘Vision of
the Baltic Sea’ will be produced and outline expectations of the Baltic Sea of tomorrow.
Oil contingency plans will be developed, updated and tested in a scenario exercise. An ‘Environmental
Atlas’ produced will also be a relevant coastal management tool, while guidelines will be drafted and cover
how to integrate contingency planning in coastal management. The final work package will examine the
existing legal framework regulating maritime pollution and see where this can be improved. Given the key
role of ports in pollution prevention, Baltic Master II will investigate common solutions for waste
management at ports and on board vessels.
EU contribution: € 3,100,000
More executed ETC/INTERREG projects can be found at the DG REGIO web link.
Example MSFD measures that may be co-financed by Regional funds are included in section 5.
Direct management
About 20% of the Cohesion Fund is transferred to the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)28 and less than
1% of the ERDF is reserved for ‘urban innovative actions’. These funds are under direct management of
the Commission and are not considered relevant for MSFD.
4.2.3
Available budget and funding criteria
Shared management
The available total ERDF funding (regional convergence) for 2014-2020 is € 183 billion. For the Cohesion Fund this
amount is € 63 billion for the 2014-2020 period.
In principle all EU Member States are eligible for ERDF funding. Provided the overall convergence goal,
within ERDF the focus is on regions with severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps and
outermost regions. Concerning the Cohesion Fund, only specific Member States with a Gross National
Income (GNI) < 90% of EU28 are eligible for funding. Eligibility and overall amount of funding per MS can
be checked here.
28
The CEF finances projects which fill the missing links in Europe's energy, transport and digital backbone.
39
Concerning the shared management, each country will draw up an operational programme, as detailed
in section 4.2.1. The decision of the Commission approving the operational programme shall set the
maximum contribution to that programme. Once the Commission approves the operational programme,
it is up to the relevant MS authorities to decide which projects will be funded. The MS authorities and
the Commission will be jointly responsible for the implementation of the programme.
European Territorial Integration: INTERREG
Both 'cross-border cooperation' (INTERREG VA) and 'transnational cooperation' (INTERREG VB) are
considered within the cohesion policy fund MS allocations, while 'interregional cooperation' (INTERREG
VC) is on the top of national allocations. It is listed as a separate entry in the following Table, outside
national allocations. For the period 2014 – 2020, there are 79 ETC Programmes with a total ERDF budget
of some € 10 billion:

60 Cross - Border Programmes: € 7.5 billion

15 Transnational Programmes: € 2.1 billion

4 Interregional Cooperation Programmes: € 0.6 billion
Direct management
€ 11.2 billion of the Cohesion Fund is transferred to the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and € 370
million of the ERDF is reserved for ‘urban innovative actions’.
4.2.4
How to apply for funding
Shared management
In the following scheme the structure of the shared management part of ERDF/CF, relating to MSFD is
pictured. This is explained underneath.
40
Approval of Operational Programme
The cohesion policy operational programmes present the priorities of the country and/or regions or the
cooperation area concerned. In accordance with the principles of shared management, Member States
and the Commission should be responsible for the management and control of operational
programmes. Member States should have the primary responsibility, through their management and
control systems, for the implementation and control of the operations in programmes. In practice
programmes are implemented by the Member States and their regions by selecting, monitoring and
evaluating of a great many projects. This work is organised by 'managing authorities' in each country
and/or region.
For the MS / regions to be able to apply for ERDF / CF funding of MSFD measures, the appropriate OPs must contain specific
MSFD needs and associated measures to address them. It is necessary that MSFD-objectives/measures are integrated into the
appropriate OPs before regions proceed to apply for funding of MSFD-measures. Refer to section 4.2.1.
More specific information, of key relevance for prospective beneficiaries, is available at the websites of
national 'managing authorities', accessible via INFOREGIO.
Direct management
For measures financed under direct management, the Commission shall, by means of implementing
acts, adopt annual work programmes. The annual work programme shall set out a description of the
41
activities to be financed and the objectives pursued for each activity. It shall also contain an indication of
the amount allocated to each activity, an indicative implementation timetable, as well as information on
their implementation. For MSFD however, the direct management funds relating to ERDF and CF are not
considered relevant.
Combining ERDF/CF with other funding options
There is no formal procedure for combining EU funding options. Annex 1 (Common Strategic
Framework) of the Common Provisions Regulation addresses the issue of complementarity between ESI
funds (including ERDF and CF) and also including coordination with EMFF, LIFE and Horizon 2020
programme. Essentially ERDF and CF could complement solutions, methods and approaches
investigated in Horizon 2020, tested in LIFE (integrated projects) and/or EMFF by subsequent
investments in green/blue infrastructure.
The European Commission (required by Article 13 of the Common Provisions Regulation) has prepared
guidance (available per September 2014, click here) on how to effectively access and use the ESI Funds,
and on how to exploit complementarities with other instruments of relevant Union policies. This
guidance provides, for each thematic objective, an overview of the available relevant instruments at
Union level with detailed sources of information, examples of good practices for combining available
funding instruments within and across policy areas, a description of relevant authorities and bodies
involved in the management of each instrument, a checklist for potential beneficiaries to help them to
identify the most appropriate funding sources.
42
4.3
LIFE
The main objective of the LIFE Programme is to improve the implementation of EU environment and
climate policy and legislation. Though in principle supported through all major EU funding programmes,
these do not address all environmental and climate needs. LIFE helps coordinate various sources of
funding for environment and climate action, and fills gaps by addressing environmental issues that are
not dealt with by other EU Funds, focusing on providing and disseminating solutions and best practices
to achieve environmental and climate goals, and by promoting innovative environmental and climate
change technologies.
4.3.1
Programme Structure
LIFE 2014-2020 identifies the following types of projects:
Traditional projects
Project types of LIFE 2014-2020 that are the same as in the previous LIFE+ programme are referred to as
‘traditional projects’. Relating to the specified priority areas this implies:

Priority area Environment: focus on innovation (pilots) and demonstration

Priority area Nature and Biodiversity: focus on best practice projects

Priority area Environmental Governance and Information: focus on dissemination and information.
Preparatory projects
Projects identified by the Commission to support specific needs for the implementation and
development of EU environmental or climate policy and legislation.
Capacity building projects
Financial support to the activities required to build the capacity of Member States with a view to
enabling their more effective participation in LIFE.
Integrated projects
Integrated Projects are a new type of project that aim to improve the implementation of environment
and climate policy by focusing on the implementation of environmental or climate plans and strategies
on a larger territorial scale (e.g. regional, multi-regional, national). Examples are new or existing sector
programmes such as regional Natura 2000 networks, river basin management plans, waste management
plans or cross-border flood prevention strategies. These projects should improve the integration of
environment and climate aspects into other EU policies. To do this they will need to be inclusive, so they
require stakeholders to be involved. They are intended to coordinate the mobilisation of other EU,
national and private funds for environmental and climate objectives, encouraging applicants to develop
a strategic approach towards certain environmental and climate challenges by using various funds and
programmes.
43
For the LIFE sub programme Environment, Integrated Projects will focus on plans and programmes related to the Birds and
Habitats Directives, the Water Framework Directive, and Waste and Air quality legislation. These integrated projects, while
focusing on the themes identified, should be multi-purpose delivery mechanisms (e.g. aiming at environmental benefits and
capacity-building) that make it possible to achieve results in other policy areas, in particular the marine environment in accordance
with the objectives of Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD). This will require structured cooperation between LIFE and the other main EU
Funds within the Common Strategic Framework. The new LIFE programme may also fund technical assistance projects aimed at
supporting the preparation of Integrated Projects.
4.3.2
Key elements relating to MSFD
For the MSFD related projects the LIFE sub programme Environment is most relevant. This sub
programme covers three priority areas:

environment and resource efficiency;

nature and biodiversity (at least 55 % of the budgetary resources);

environmental governance and information.
Each priority area covers thematic priorities and project topics. The ones relevant to MSFD are
summarized below.
Previous LIFE funded projects related to MSFD
LIFE projects can contribute to all stages of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) implementation schedule. Between
2005 and 2012 a total of 72 projects with a marine element were granted, representing around € 70 million (4.5% of the granted
LIFE projects during that period). Topics in which LIFE projects excel can be divided in seven categories:
- Means of Intervention
- Projects which address cross-cutting issues
- Good Environmental Status (GES)
- Projects which address marine eco system health
- Projects which address pressures on the marine environment
- Programmes of Measures (PoMs)
- Integrated Coastal Management
Granted projects are evenly split between the Nature (NAT) and Environment (ENV) strands of the LIFE programme. Monitoring is
one of the main elements of the Marine Strategy which requires Member States to establish a monitoring programme for ongoing
assessment and regular updating of targets by 15th July 2014. However, projects which have monitoring as their central theme
were not well represented in the LIFE portfolio even though most LIFE projects do monitor their own project actions
44
Priority area: Environment and Resource Efficiency (ENV)
This priority area will focus on the implementation of environment policy and exclude market
replication-oriented innovation. Requirements of importance for this priority area are innovation and
demonstration.
Thematic priorities

Thematic priorities for Water, including the marine environment: activities for the implementation of the specific
objectives for water set out in the Roadmap for a Resource-Efficient Europe and the 7th Environment Action
Programme, in particular activities for the implementation of the programme of measures of Directive 2008/56/EC
(MSFD) with a view to achieving good environmental status of marine waters.

Thematic priorities for Waste: activities for the implementation of the specific objectives for waste set out in the
Roadmap for a Resource-Efficient Europe and the 7th Environment Action Programme, in particular activities for
the implementation and development of Union waste legislation, with particular emphasis on the first steps of the
Union waste hierarchy (prevention, re-use and recycling).
Project topics

Projects developing tools, technologies and practices to ensure the sustainability of economic activities related to
the marine environment (reducing the pressure of economic activities on the marine environment; mainstream
marine resource sustainability into maritime economic sectors). Projects are expected to include the development
of related management plans.

Projects aiming at preventing and reducing marine litter or microbial contaminants (addressing also their
sources).

Projects promoting synergies between integrated coastal management and maritime spatial planning;
demonstrating the added value of coordinating them in new marine contexts; or connecting them with the
procedures for designating and managing Marine Protected Areas or Natura 2000 sites; supporting the concrete
implementation of sea basin strategies.
Priority area: Nature and Biodiversity (NAT/BIO)
This priority area will develop best practices for wider biodiversity challenges, while keeping its primary
focus on Natura 2000; especially via Integrated Projects, which are consistent with Prioritised Action
Frameworks developed by the Member States. It concerns thematic priorities for Nature: activities for
the implementation of Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC, in particular activities aimed at
improving the conservation status of habitats and species, including marine habitats and species, and
bird species, of Union interest. This priority area is different from environment in that it could be a best
practice (it does not need to be innovative, or demonstrative).
Thematic priorities

Thematic priorities for Nature: activities for the implementation of Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC.

Thematic priorities for Biodiversity: activities for the implementation of the Union Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.
45
Project topics
Projects addressing the marine component of the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives
and related provisions under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, in particular where such projects
focus on one or several of the following actions:

completing and finalising national inventories for setting up the offshore marine Natura 2000 network of sites;

restoration and management of marine Natura 2000 sites, including the preparation and implementation of site
management plans;

actions addressing species-, habitat- or site-related conflicts between marine conservation and fishermen or other
"marine users", as well as actions which combine conservation measures with a sustainable use of Natura 2000
sites;

demonstrative or innovative approaches to assess or monitor the impact of human activities on critical marine
habitats and species as a tool to guide active conservation measures
Priority area: Environmental Governance and Information (GIE).
This priority area will promote knowledge sharing, dissemination of best practices, better compliance,
and awareness raising campaigns.
Thematic priority

information, communication and awareness raising campaigns in line with the priorities of the 7th Environment
Action Programme;

activities in support of effective control process as well as measures to promote compliance in relation to Union
environmental legislation, and in support of information systems and information tools on the implementation of
Union environmental legislation.
Project topics

Projects aiming to initiate beach and sea clean-up schemes as a means to increase awareness of the impacts of
marine litter, and thereby increasing awareness on issues related to the protection of the marine environment that
are targeted by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Awareness-raising on MSFD obligations and opportunities (other than marine litter), targeting authorities and
other stakeholders, in particular from within the fisheries and maritime sectors who can contribute to identifying
cost effective solutions to be included in Marine Strategies and Programmes of Measures with a view to the
achievement of ‘good environmental status’ in line with the 11 Descriptors set out in Annex I to the MSFD.

Projects where stakeholders and authorities collaborate transnationally across borders of national jurisdictions on
implementing Sea Basin Strategies.
LIFE projects addressing cross-cutting issues - Stakeholder and public engagement
The MSFD prescribes early and effective engagement with stakeholders. One of the outcomes of the series of ‘Resource
Efficiency ‘ studies conducted by Astrale covering water, air & noise and waste has been that LIFE projects are particularly
effective in engaging with stakeholders. This applies to stakeholders on a range of different levels from the policy makers to the
local communities. Many LIFE projects deal with stakeholder engagement as an integral part of the project and conflict resolution
is often the key to project progress. This is particularly true when trying to balance conservation requirements (like establishing
46
MPAs) with perceived loss of economic resources (fishing); or trying to balance the needs of two different economic interests like
fishing and tourism.
Project: Pisces
For implementing the MSFD engaging with stakeholders to develop a coordinated marine strategy for a regional sea is difficult.
One of the key outputs of the recently completed LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943 PISCES, was identification of a range of ways in which
stakeholders can become actively involved and support implementation of the MSFD in the southern waters of the Celtic Seas
sub-region. This project also involved stakeholder engagement with Government and fisheries industry representatives from Spain
that operated in the Celtic Seas. The benefits of involving stakeholders are also likely to provide opportunities to reduce regulatory
burden, more certainty for investment, fairer and more affordable measures, and increased commercial opportunities. At a time
when public authorities are stretched resource-wise, it seems sensible to incorporate as much voluntary effort as possible by
utilising the skills and knowledge of stakeholders (or interested parties) as a contribution to the successful implementation of the
MSFD. Examples of ways in which stakeholders can participate in the implementation of the MSFD are the following:
- Supporting assessment and monitoring: stakeholders can contribute to the programme design; collecting, providing and
validating data; supporting data analysis and interpretation; and collaborating on joint-data collection.
- Implementing voluntary sector measures: stakeholders can help meet policy targets, encourage others to do so, and highlight
these efforts to government.
- Helping to identify, test and evaluate measures: stakeholders can improve the quality of marine strategies and help government
meet targets while minimising costs.
- Providing evidence to support overriding public interest and disproportionate cost arguments: stakeholders can actively help to
ensure that sustainable development requirements are met.
LIFE projects addressing marine ecosystem health
The MSFD supports the strong position taken by the Community in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity, on halting
biodiversity loss, ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity, and on the creation of a global network of
marine protected areas by 2012. The obligation for Member States to designate Natura 2000 sites under the Birds and Habitats
Directives can clearly make an important contribution to this process. Accordingly 30 projects have been funded by the LIFE
programme in the marine sector under the NAT funding strand between 2005 and 2012. All of these projects operate within the
existing Natura 2000 network, only a few projects aim to delineate and establish new Natura 2000 sites. Lack of scientific
knowledge has been the main gap for the implementation of the Natura 2000 network in the marine area, especially concerning
habitats and species offshore. Research in marine areas far from the coast is not only costly but few organizations or institutions
have the necessary means and capacities to undertake such work. Member States were committed to provide by mid-2008 a clear
identification of scientific information required to complete the marine Natura 2000 network at sea, or to provide a clear time frame
to achieve this. Understandably many of the LIFE projects focused on collecting data. Five projects on seagrass integrating LIFE,
Natura 2000 and Marine Protected Areas are summarized below.
Projects sea grass beds
A number of projects under the NAT funding stream deal with priority habitats as identified under the Habitat Directive and several
deal in some way with the conservation of Posidonia beds. Sea grass meadows around the Mediterranean sequester carbon and
produce large quantities of oxygen. They also protect the coast from erosion and act as nursery areas for many crustaceans,
molluscs and fish. There are at least five projects where the Posidonia beds were the main objective, although there were many
more where some action concerning the conservation of this habitat type were included in a wider set of project objectives. This
aspect of improving coastal waters was featured recently in the Life and Coastal Management publication 2012 (p. 82-83– minding
the meadows). All projects aim to control activities within the grass beds through a combination of concrete actions and
management approaches. The key stakeholders involved are representatives of the fishing industry who can cause significant
47
damage through the use of inappropriate fishing gear and the tourism / recreational sector through use of fast boats in shallow
water and anchoring in the grass beds. The concrete actions all involve installation of mooring buoys, to limit anchor damage, and
this measure has been found to be very successful in reducing damage. One project LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176 POSEIDONE is
attempting to halt the damage done by trawling by placing 500 anti-trawl devices (tetrapods) in strategic locations (fishing
hotspots) around the SCIs. The Italian project LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053 CILENTO IN RETE established an underwater trail to both
inform tourists as to the fragile nature of the habitat and to confine their activities in a controlled area. In some cases translocation
of sea grasses has been attempted in an effort to restore damaged areas. The Portuguese project LIFE06 NAT/P/000192
Biomares tried this approach by taking healthy Zostera material from elsewhere in an effort to restore ‘the lost sea grass meadow
at Portinho da Arrábida’. This aspect of the project ran into difficulties in that the success rate for translocation was low and not
cost effective. However, it could be that this was because the translocation events were undertaken on the exposed Atlantic
coastline and better success may be obtained in more sheltered areas.
Project INDEMARES
The Spanish project INDEMARES is a good example of identifying and designating a network of marine protected areas in a
national context. The project deals with the increasing pressure of human activities in the marine environment to protect the health
of the oceans and the natural resources that live in them. In the marine environment, the Natura 2000 Network is in a very early
stage. The high cost and complexity to undertake an inventory in offshore and deep sea areas makes obtaining the scientific
information about the habitats and species used to identify the areas to include in this Network difficult. In order to obtain this
information and begin the conservation and management actions, it is necessary to make a big effort to identify the marine
ecosystems. It is here where the project LIFE+ "Inventory and designation of marine Natura 2000 areas in the Spanish sea” was
born. The main objective of the LIFE+ INDEMARES project is to contribute to the protection and sustainable use of the biodiversity
in the Spanish seas through the identification of valuable areas for the Natura 2000 Network.
The project actions have been carried out from January 1st, 2009 to December 31st, 2013. The budget has been € 15.4 million
with LIFE-co financing of 50% of the project. Coordinated by the Biodiversity Foundation, the project has included different
institutions in management, research and conservation in marine environments: Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio
Ambiente, the Spanish Institute of Oceanography (IEO), the Spanish Council for Scientific Research, ALNITAK, the Coordinator
for the Study of Marine Mammals, OCEANA, the Society for the Study of Cetaceans in the Canary Archipelago, SEO/BirdLife and
WWF Spain.
Specific objectives
- To complete the identification of the marine Natura 2000 Network in Spain.
- To promote participation of all involved parties in marine research, conservation and sea management;
- To provide management and monitoring guidelines for each of the study areas;
- To raise awareness in the population about conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity;
- To contribute to the reinforcement of international sea agreements in force in Spain (OSPAR and Barcelona).
Other planned actions
- To implement scientific studies, through oceanographic campaigns, in the 10 proposed areas for marine habitats and species
(mainly cetaceans, reptiles and birds);
- Monitoring human activities and their tendencies;
- Evaluate the consequences of the CIS declaration and the impact of the SPAB proposals;
- Monitoring and evaluation of deliberate oil spills;
- Information, participation and awareness campaigns.
48
Source: Indemares
In section 5 further MSFD example measures are provided in which LIFE co-funding can be relevant.
4.3.3
Available budget and funding criteria
According to Article 4 of the LIFE Regulation, the overall budgetary envelope for the LIFE programme for
the period 2014-2020 is around EUR 3.457 million, 75 % of which is attributed to the sub-programme
Environment (EUR 2.592 million), and 25 % of which is attributed to the sub-programme Climate Action
(EUR 864 million).
At least 55 % of the budgetary resources allocated to projects supported by way of action grants under
the sub programme for Environment shall be dedicated to projects supporting the conservation of
nature and biodiversity.
The LIFE Regulation also fixes the minimum percentage of the total budget to be reserved for projects
(81 %, Article 17(4) of the LIFE Regulation) and the maximum percentage of the budgetary resources
allocated to projects supported by way of action grants that may be allocated to integrated projects (30
%).
Projects shall be funded by action grants or, where appropriate, by financial instruments (Article 17(4) of
the LIFE Regulation). The Multi Annual Work Programme (MAWP) shall specify the amounts to be
allocated per priority area and funding type.
Funding of ‘traditional’ LIFE projects will continue with selection based on merit. However, the aim is to stimulate
the development of Integrated Projects. The budget split between Integrated Projects and "traditional" LIFE projects
will be defined in the multi-annual work programmes to be prepared by the Commission, in consultation with the
Member States.
Eligible countries
Member States, candidate countries and the Western Balkan countries involved in the Stabilisation and
Association Process, as well as countries to which the European Neighbourhood Policy applies, should
be eligible to participate. This also applies to individuals from an overseas country or territory (OCT) and,
where applicable, the relevant public and/or private bodies and institutions in an OCT.
49
Target groups/beneficiaries
The LIFE Programme may fund public and private bodies, NGO's included.
Allocation of funding
The thematic allocation of LIFE funding 2014-2020 is as follows:

Traditional Nature and Biodiversity Projects: 60% co-financing, but 75% for projects targeting priority habitats &
species

Integrated projects, preparatory projects and technical assistance projects: 60% co-financing

Capacity building projects: 100% co-financing

All other projects, i.e., traditional projects under the sub-programme of Climate Action and traditional projects
under priorities Environment and Resources Efficiency and Environment Governance and information Projects in
the sub-programme for Environment:
− 60% co-financing during the first multiannual work programme (2014-2017)
− 55% co-financing during the second multiannual work programme(2018-2020)
The following criteria are used by the Commission for establishing indicative national allocations for
projects, other than integrated projects, submitted under the sub-programme for Environment:

Population
− total population of each Member State (50 % weighting); and
− population density of each Member State, up to a limit of twice the Union's average population density (5 %
weighting)

Nature and Biodiversity
− total area of Natura 2000 sites for each Member State expressed as a proportion of the total area of Natura 2000
(25 % weighting); and
− proportion of a Member State's territory covered by Natura 2000 sites (20 % weighting).
50
4.3.4
How to apply for funding
Time scheme
The figure below presents the indicative timetable for the (annual) LIFE calls. Grants for awarded
projects will be signed approximately one year after submission of the project. The first call for tender
for under the new LIFE programme (2014-2020) for Environment and Climate Action has been launched
18 June 2014.
Given the novelty of the integrated project approach, stakeholders should be supported, when needed,
by technical assistance. A two-stage application procedure should ease the application phase. In the first
stage, a financial plan should specify which other Union, national or private funding sources are to be
mobilised and to what extent. Only in the second stage should letters of intent from at least one other
funding source be required. The extent to which other Union funds are mobilised should be taken into
account during the award phase.
Further guidance on the procedure including reference to national contact points per MS can be found
on the LIFE call web page.
51
Combining LIFE with other EU funding
Environmental and climate requirements should be integrated into the Union's policies and activities.
The LIFE Programme should therefore in general be complementary to other Union funding
programmes, including ERDF/CF, EMFF and Horizon 2020.
The proposed LIFE 2014-2020 Regulation specifically includes provisions for financing of Integrated
Projects, which will address the implementation of plans or strategies required by EU environmental or
climate legislation, developed pursuant to other EU acts or developed by Member States’ authorities. It
is obligatory for Integrated Projects to ensure the mobilisation of other sources of financing, for
complementary actions related to the same target plan, programme or strategy. This complementary
finance may come from any source, however, the main European Structural and Investments (ESI)
Funds, including the cohesion/structural (ERDF and CF) and maritime (EMFF) funds, provide an
important potential source for such finance. The proposal for the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR),
which governs the ESI Funds, and specifically the Common Strategy Framework (Annex 1 of the CPR),
underlines the need for complementarity and coordination with LIFE, in particular with Integrated
Projects.
Both opportunities and requirements to combine LIFE Integrated Projects with ESI-funding are tentative.
In principle Member States can apply for multiple funding sources and are also encouraged by the
Commission to do so, but the schedules and requirements of these funding options differ, making it
difficult for the beneficiary to apply.
An example of combining multiple EU Funds including LIFE, is a project that aimed to help the five largest protected areas in
central Lapland so that ecotourism and recreational use can be organised on a sustainable basis. It combined LIFE (for planning),
ERDF for construction of the tourism infrastructure and national funds (for construction of barns on the hay meadows). The
combination of funds provided the opportunity to make environmental objectives more ambitious without significant additional
administrative costs and the confidence that the combination of funds will be used in the future.
52
HORIZON 2020
4.4
Horizon 2020 is the largest EU Research and Innovation programme ever with nearly €80 billion of
funding available over 7 years (2014 to 2020). Horizon 2020 will cover activities from research to market
with a new focus on innovation-related activities, such as piloting, demonstration, test-beds, and
support for public procurement and market uptake. It will include establishing links with the activities of
the European Innovation Partnerships (EIP).
Programme structure
4.4.1
The structure of the Horizon 2020 programme consists of three pillars:
1. Excellence in the science base, including the European Research Council (ERC), Marie Skłodowska Curie, Future
and Emerging Technologies (FET) and Research Infrastructures.
2. Industrial leadership, including “Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies” (LEIT) (ICT,
nanotechnologies, advanced materials and manufacturing processes, biotechnology, space), access to risk finance
and the SME-instrument.
3. Societal challenges, focusing on the following:
a. Health, demographic change and wellbeing;
b. Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research, and the
bio economy;
c. Secure, clean and efficient energy;
d. Smart, green and integrated transport;
e. Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials;
f. Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies;
g. Secure societies - protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens.
Compared to the previous EU research programme FP7, Horizon 2020 entails a change of focus and
approach:

A new structure consisting of 3 pillars with similar rules for the entire programme

Simplification of Rules for Participation, in particular regarding the funding model where all types of participants
receive similar funding rates in accordance with the activities to be undertaken

The use of 3 years Strategic Programmes to set the priorities in the Work Programmes

Biannual Work Programmes

A challenge-driven approach to the formulation of topics. Topic texts include the definition of a specific
challenge, a scope which defines the elements addressed by selected projects and the expected impact of selected
projects.

More emphasis on industry, innovation and linking research to deployment, market application and impact.

Horizon 2020 will combine all research and innovation funding previous provided through the Framework
Programmes for Research and Technological Development, the innovation related activities of the
Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and the European Institute of Innovation and
Technology (EIT).
53
4.4.2
Key elements relating to MSFD
The EU Blue Growth Strategy (2012) is the EU’s long term strategy to support sustainable growth in the
marine and maritime sectors. The Blue Growth Strategy recognises that the European seas and oceans
are central to the European economy with great potential for innovation, economic growth and job
creation. The Blue Growth Strategy is the Integrated Maritime Policy’s contribution to achieving the
goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, including addressing the
research gaps and needs in order to support the MSFD implementation.
The 2014 - 2015 Work Programme for Societal Challenge B is composed of three calls. Two highly crosscutting calls on 'Sustainable Food Security' and on 'Blue Growth' (to which other parts of Horizon 2020
contribute directly and indirectly) and a call aiming at fostering an 'Innovative, Sustainable and Inclusive
Bio economy'.
Blue Growth focus area aims to unlock the potential of the seas and ocean. This focus area addresses
the challenge through five cross-cutting priority domains supporting the Blue Growth Agenda: valorising
the diversity of marine life; sustainable harvesting of deep-sea resources; new offshore challenges;
ocean observation technologies; and the socioeconomic dimension.
The 2014 Blue Growth call will put emphasis on valuing and mining marine biodiversity while the 2015
call will focus on the preservation and sustainable exploitation of marine ecosystems and climate change
effects on marine living resources. The new offshore challenges will be tackled in 2014 through a
support action (CSA) preparing potential further large –scale offshore initiatives and one initiative
focused on sub-sea technologies while in 2015 a large scale initiative is planned on response to oil spill
and maritime pollution. Also a large-scale initiative on improving ocean observation
systems/technologies including novel monitoring systems for in-situ observations will be supported in
2014 as well as one activity on acoustic and imaging technologies. Finally, several horizontal activities
regarding socio-economic issues, valorising research outcomes or engaging with society as well as
projects targeting SMEs will be promoted in 2014.
In section 5 MSFD example measures are listed for some of which Horizon 2020 co-funding could be an
option.
4.4.3
Available budget and funding criteria
The indicative available budget for Blue Growth is €100 million from the 2014 budget, and €45 million
from the 2015 budget. In total, Horizon 2020 is worth nearly €80 billion over seven years.
54
The projects are co-financed by the EU and the participants. For research and development projects the
share of the EU contribution can be up to 100% of the total eligible costs. For innovation projects up to
70% of the costs, with the exception of non-profit legal entities which can also receive up to 100% in
these actions. In all cases indirect costs will be covered by a flat rate of 25% of the direct costs.
55
4.4.4
How to apply for funding
The current Work Programme: Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime
and inland water research and the Bioeconomy covers 2014 and 2015. Due to the launching phase of
Horizon 2020, parts of the Work Programme that relate to 2015 (topics, dates, budget) are provided at
this stage on an indicative basis only. Such Work Programme parts will be decided during 2014.
Funding opportunities for marine and maritime research relevant for the implementation of the MSFD
with in Horizon 2020 often have a cross-cutting nature across several Societal Challenges (Bio-economy
(SC2), Environment (SC5), Transport (SC4), Energy (SC3) and other priorities of EU Horizon 2020 such as
Blue Growth (BG) (Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies, Excellent Science).
All five Blue Growth focus areas are addressed by the first calls 2014-2015:
BLUE GROWTH (BG): UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL OF SEAS AND OCEANS

AREA 1: Sustainably exploiting the diversity of marine life
− BG 1 – 2015: Improving the preservation and sustainable exploitation of Atlantic marine ecosystems
− BG 2 – 2015: Forecasting and anticipating effects of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture
− BG 3 – 2014: Novel marine derived biomolecules and industrial biomaterials
− BG 4 – 2014: Enhancing the industrial exploitation potential of marine derived Enzymes

AREA 2: The new offshore challenge
− BG 5 – 2014: Preparing for the future innovative offshore economy
− BG 6 – 2014: Delivering the sub-sea technologies for new services at sea
− BG 7 – 2015: Response capacities to oil spills and marine pollutions

AREA 4: Ocean observations systems and technologies
− BG 8 – 2014: Developing in-situ Atlantic Ocean Observations for a better management and sustainable
exploitation of the maritime resources
− BG 9 – 2014: Acoustic and imaging technologies

AREA 5: Horizontal aspects
− BG 10 – 2014: Consolidating the economic sustainability and competitiveness of European fisheries and
aquaculture sectors to reap the potential of seafood markets
− BG 11 – 2014: Monitoring, dissemination and uptake of marine and maritime research
− BG 12 – 2014/2015: Supporting SMEs efforts for the development – deployment and market replication of
innovative solutions for Blue Growth
− BG 13 – 2014: Ocean literacy – Engaging with society – Social innovation
− BG 14 – 2014: Supporting international cooperation initiatives: Atlantic Ocean Cooperation Research Alliance
− BG 15 – 2014: European polar research cooperation
− BG 16 – 2015: Coordination action in support of the implementation of the Joint Programming Initiative on "Healthy and
Productive Seas and Oceans"
56
57
Key dates for the implementation of HORIZON 2020 – Blue Growth (2014/2015)
Calls are still open for:

BG 1 – 2015 Improving the preservation and sustainable exploitation of Atlantic marine ecosystems

BG 2 – 2015 Forecasting and anticipating effects of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture

BG 7 – 2015 Response capacities to oil spills and marine pollutions

BG 16 – 2015 Coordination action in support of the implementation of the Joint Programming Initiative on
"Healthy and Productive Seas and Oceans"
Further references to the Blue Growth Calls are inserted as web links in the Horizon 2020 part of the
Annex to this guidance.
Currently the Work Programme for the years 2016 -2017 is under preparation and will be published
during Summer 2014. As soon as this information becomes available, updated information will be
included in this guidance.
Combining Horizon 2020 with other EU funding
In combination with Horizon 2020 there are other funding opportunities at joint Member States and EU
level that can be used. For instance, funding for research and innovation at regional level as introduced
in section 4.2 in this guidance, can be combined with Horizon 2020 initiatives. For the moment however,
58
there are no examples yet of combined projects of Horizon 2020 with other EU funding as the call
process, revision of proposals of 2014 is currently ongoing.
Underneath follows a brief introduction of some other potential relevant funds.
ERA-NET actions
ERA-NET actions aim at coordinating national and regional research programmes by developing joint
activities or supporting joint calls for proposals. ERA-NET Cofund under Horizon 2020 supports publicpublic partnerships, including joint programming initiatives between Member States, establishment of
networking structures as well as Union topping-up of transnational calls for proposals. As a research
institute, enterprise or individual you can find funding opportunities in these transnational calls.
NETWATCH29 is the EC information platform that gives further information about ERA-NETs and
transnational R&I programme collaboration. Joint calls for proposals of the ERA-NETs are published on
the same platform. NETWATCH supports transnational R&D programme collaboration in Europe by:
mapping networks; providing information on Joint Calls; analysing the impact of programme
collaboration; describing the scope and results of individual networks; supporting mutual learning
among transnational programme networks.
Article 185 Initiatives
Article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) enables the EU to participate
in research programmes undertaken jointly by several Member States. One of the examples of this
regarding Blue Growth is the Baltic Sea Research Programme 30 (BONUS) that launches regularly calls for
proposals for the Baltic Sea Region.
COST – Funding for R&D
COST31 funds European networks of researchers across all science fields to coordinate nationally funded
research. COST does not fund research itself, but provides support for networking activities. There is a
continuous Open Call to submit proposals for COST Actions.
29
http://netwatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home
30
http://www.bonusportal.org/
31
http://www.cost.eu/
59
5
Funding MSFD measures and activities: examples
In the previous sections types of MSFD-measures and different co-funding mechanisms have been
discussed. In this section a number of example measures are described in more detail, addressing also
the potential funding option(s), depending on the type and operational phase of the measure (research,
testing, investing, good practice exchange etc.). All measures follow the same structure:

Title

Content of measure

Purpose / type of effect envisaged

MSFD descriptor

Applicant

Target group / stakeholders involved

Cost of measure

Potential co-funding
DESIGNATION AND PROTECTION OF MARINE HABITATS (E.G. MPAS, SPAS, SACS)
Content of measure
Closing off sites for specific or even all human activities to protect marine habitats or Natura 2000 (SACs and SPAs) sites is
applied at a number of locations. Localities can be coastal or entirely marine.
Purpose / type of effect envisaged
Recovery of populations of species and/or recovery of habitats
MSFD descriptor / pressure
1: Biological diversity is maintained
Applicant
MS National Governments
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Fisheries industry, recreation sector, sand extraction companies
Cost of measure
The costs of this measure differ extensively. As an example the “Voordelta Sea Reserve” off the coast in the Netherlands where a
part of the seafloor of the reserve is protected: with only a ban on beam trawlers the cost may amount to € 0,2 million/1000km2
annually. In addition to the already existing Sea Reserve another 1430 km2 would have similar restrictions. The costs may amount
to € 0,3 million Euro/ annually if no capacity related measures are needed. One should note that there are also large administrative
costs related to compliance monitoring. These were estimated at € 0,5 million for the Sea Reserve. Regarding the extension of the
remaining Natura 2000 areas, a similar intensity of monitoring will be needed. Overall the cost may be in the order of € 0,8-1
million/year. If the total areas banned becomes very large, some capacity may need to be tied up at substantial higher costs.
60
However, new, less destructive fishing techniques may develop and even be encouraged in Natura 2000 areas, offsetting losses
from banning conventional fishing.
Potential co-funding
Costs and opportunities for funding differ extensively and depend on the nature of the site e.g. entrance fees for diving. The costs
are initially taken by the sector. Some costs are transferred into higher consumer good prices. Some parties within the sector will
actually gain from the exclusive fishing rights within the Natura 2000 areas. Co-funding possible through:
- HORIZON 2020 BG 1–2015: Improving the preservation and sustainable exploitation of Atlantic marine ecosystems
- LIFE: Funding is possible under LIFE traditional projects under priority areas of the sub programme NAT/BIO. Funding may also
be possible under LIFE integrated projects, if the protection of marine habitats improves the integration of environment and climate
aspects into other EU policies such as N2000, the OSPAR agreement or the Water Framework Directive.
- EMFF article 40.1 b-g, i: Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – contribution to a better management or conservation,
construction, installation or modernisation of static or movable facilities, preparation of protection and management plans related to
NATURA2000 sites and spatial protected areas, management, restoration and monitoring marine protected areas, including
NATURA 2000 sites, environmental awareness, participation in other actions aimed at maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and
ecosystem services.
GEAR RESTRICTIONS/MODIFICATIONS TO PREVENT BY CATCH OF MAMMALS AND BIRDS
Content of measure
Action plan for conservation of marine mammals (e.g. harbour porpoises) and/or birds. Several actions are combined to conserve
the species:
- develop regional plans by working groups with representatives from different stakeholders
- modifying fishing gear and practices in accordance with existing criteria for environmental certification of fisheries
- systematic collections of ghost nets (discarded nets, still free-floating in the seas entrapping and drown animals)
- development of fish traps as alternatives to gill-nets
- arrangement of instruction for professional and recreational fishermen
- development of a camera system for data collection on by catches
- survey of by catches in recreational fisheries.
Purpose / type of effect envisaged
Baltic region: the population structure of harbour porpoises, the effects of environmental contaminants on the health status of
porpoises and the levels of anthropogenic, underwater noise will be investigated.
Romania, Black Sea: incidental catches of marine mammals decreased as a result of the actions taken: all of the proposed
objectives were fulfilled.
Several of the proposed actions are expected to improve the conservation status for species of seals, sea-birds and fish in addition
to harbour porpoises.
MSFD descriptor / pressure
1: Biological diversity is maintained
Applicant
Member State, scientific or technical body.
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Fishery sector
Cost of measure
- Sweden: The cost for the proposed actions is approximately 3.9 million euro during 2008-13.
- Romania, Black Sea: The total budget was €416,631.00 of which there was a LIFE contribution of €208,315.00. In total, around
50 people worked on the initiative on a voluntary basis.
Potential co-funding
61
- LIFE: Funding is possible under the LIFE traditional projects and the priority areas of the sub programme ENV. Developing tools,
technologies and practices to ensure the sustainability of economic activities is mentioned as a project topic. This sub programme
focuses on innovation and demonstration. If the project is not innovative, funding may still be possible under the priority areas of
the sub programme NAT/BIO where the protection of species and birds are highlighted.
- EMFF: Article 39: Innovation linked to the conservation of marine biological resources (supporting projects to improve fishing
techniques and gear selectivity). If an applicant is planning financing through Article 39 (EMFF), then the measure shall be carried
out by, or in collaboration with, a scientific or technical body recognised by the Member State which shall validate the results of
such operations.
REHABILITATION OF MIGRATION ROUTES FOR MIGRATORY SPECIES
Content of measure
Port development can lead to direct loss of habitat (e.g. intertidal mud as a result of dredging the tidal basin) and further impacts
with e.g. the displacement and disturbance of internationally important bird populations, risks to water quality from accidental
spillages or remobilisation of sediment bound contaminants and issues related to maintenance dredging and navigation. Habitat
creation as compensation for port development (e.g. in Natura 2000 areas), involving a unique agreement between the developer
and those who were initially opposed to the port expansion because of the habitat loss. (e.g. Humber estuary - UK)
Purpose / type of effect envisaged
In the Humber estuary example, farmland has been converted into new inter-tidal habitat to compensate for the land lost due to
the new port developments. Numerical modelling is helpful to support the choice for compensation areas. With one exception, all
target species established for the site have been observed. Extensive consultation and cooperation with environmental
organizations can positively affect the success of the implementation and can lead to acceptance. To this respect an agreement
between the developer and those who were initially opposed to the port expansion can lead to a successful implementation of the
measure. .
MSFD descriptor / pressure
1: Biological diversity is maintained
Applicant
Member State, scientific or technical body.
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Shipping/ports
Cost of measure
The cost was £ 3,5 million (around 4,3 million euro)..
Potential co-funding
- LIFE: Funding is possible under the LIFE traditional projects, priority areas of the sub programme NAT/BIO, where the protection
of habitats, species and birds are highlighted. If there is an innovative solution to improve the migration of species there may a
funding possibility under the priority areas of the sub programme ENV.
- EMFF article 40.1 b-g, i: Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – contribution to a better management or conservation,
construction, installation or modernisation of static or movable facilities, preparation of protection and management plans related to
NATURA2000 sites and spatial protected areas, management, restoration and monitoring marine protected areas, including
NATURA 2000 sites, environmental awareness, participation in other actions aimed at maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and
ecosystem services.
INSTALLATION OF MIGRATION BARRIERS FOR INVASIVE SPECIES
Content of measure
62
Deterrent electrical systems, salt water locks etc. installed to prevent and manage invasive species migration through channels,
particularly relevant for the Mediterranean (Suez) and Black Sea.
Purpose / type of effect envisaged
The global scale of alien species is becoming more and more evident. As many examples prove, aquatic invasions are irreversible
and alien species may be associated with unforeseeable ecological as well as economical risks (e.g. Carlton 1985; Bartley &
Minchin 1996; Reise et al. 1998, 2002). Even against the background that continuous climate change will probably influence the
biocoenosis of European aquatic systems much stronger (Nehring 1998, 2003), the introduction of alien species enhances the
trend of global unification of flora and fauna associated with an irretrievable loss in biodiversity. Measures may at least slow down
the rate of migration.
MSFD descriptor / pressure
2: Non-indigenous species
Applicant
Proposed in Germany by Aquatic Aliens (http://www.aquatic-aliens.de).
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Governments
Cost of measure
Unknown, depends on the nature and size of the measure.
Potential co-funding
- LIFE: Funding is possible under the priority areas of the sub programme NAT/BIO where the protection of species and birds are
highlighted. Non-indigenous species are a descriptor of the MSFD. Therefore funding is also possible under the LIFE traditional
projects, priority areas under the sub programme ENV. However, projects in the sub programme ENV must be demonstrative or
innovative.
- EMFF article 40.1 b-g, i: Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – contribution to a better management or conservation,
construction, installation or modernisation of static or movable facilities, preparation of protection and management plans related to
NATURA2000 sites and spatial protected areas, management, restoration and monitoring marine protected areas, including
NATURA 2000 sites, environmental awareness, participation in other actions aimed at maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and
ecosystem services.
INSTALLATION OF BREAKWATERS FOR FISH REPRODUCTION AND GROWTH
Content of measure
Presence of breakwaters can increase fish reproduction and growth. Especially the introduction of breakwaters in sandy areas
they will change the species community. Although the general impression is that breakwaters increase fish reproduction and
growth, several studies also show that species associated with sandy habitats may suffer from the introduction of the hard
substrate. Abundance of smaller fish may also be suppressed by increased predator presence around the breakwaters.
Purpose / type of effect envisaged
More and larger fish for conservation or exploitation
MSFD descriptor / pressure
3: Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish
Applicant
Member State, scientific or technical body, NGO
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Fishing industry, NGO, ports
Cost of measure
The costs of this measure depend on the coastal setting at which the breakwaters will be installed.
Potential co-funding
63
Breakwaters for fish production and growth may be used as conservation action but also as compensation and mitigation for
projects that harm the marine environment. Hence multiple co-funding routes:
- EMFF article 37: Support for the design and implementation of conservation measures.
- EMFF article 39: Innovation linked to the conservation of marine biological resources.
- LIFE: Funding is possible under the priority areas of the sub programme NAT/BIO, where the protection of species and birds and
synergy between conservation and marine uses are highlighted. If measures are innovative there are possibilities under the priority
areas of the sub programme ENV.
64
AQUACULTURE INCLUDING CONSERVATION AND BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION
Content of measure
Aquaculture causes nutrient and organic matter enrichment because of input of fertilizer/ organic matter. The European
Environmental Agency lists aquaculture as an important potential cause of environmental deterioration in the region (EEA, 2006).
Integrated Aquaculture (INTAQ) is the culture of two or more species of different trophic levels in a single farm or in close enough
proximity that they interact in a way that mimics the energy flow pathways in natural ecosystems. The main environmental
advantage that distinguishes INTAQ from monoculture is its capacity to reduce farm effluent in the form of uneaten food, faeces
and excretory wastes. Of particular interest is the combination of finfish culture with detritivores and algae both of which use finfish
waste as food. Their presence reduces waste effluent into the environment as compared to a monoculture finfish installation with
no waste treatment. It also produces added product that has a market value.
Purpose / type of effect envisaged
Preliminary evidence, mainly from pilot studies outside the Mediterranean Sea region, indicate that INTAQ can lower costs,
diversify and increase production and improve profits while solving a number of the environmental challenges posed by
monoculture aquaculture. The main environmental advantage that distinguishes INTAQ from monoculture is its capacity to reduce
farm effluent in the form of uneaten food, faeces and excretory wastes.
MSFD descriptor / pressure
5: Human-induced eutrophication is minimized
Applicant
Aquaculture enterprises. Considering operations under EMFF Article 47, which will be carried out by, or in collaboration with,
public or private scientific or technical bodies, recognised by the Member State. Regarding EMFF Article 49, advisory services
1(b) shall be provided by scientific or technical bodies, as well as by entities providing legal or economic advice with the required
competences as recognised by the Member State.
Support under point 1(a) shall only be granted to public law bodies or other entities selected by the Member State to set up the
farm advisory services. Support under point 1(b) shall only be granted to aquaculture SMEs or aquaculture..
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Aquaculture/ mariculture is targeted. Acceptance is required to be a successful measure, business operators will not engage in the
practice unless they are well informed and confident of success.
Information on the environmental and broader social consequences must be disseminated efficiently and public education
increased in order to counter prevailing skepticism and negative attitudes towards mariculture and INTAQ.
Cost of measure
INTAQ requires a higher level of technological and engineering sophistication and up-front investment. Preliminary indications for
(potential) significant improvement in the return on investment (mainly increased production -lower trophic taxa- without necessity
of augmenting manufactured feed inputs. Moreover, INTAQ may have advantages in risk management at the business level
(diversification of products, multiple markets: finfish, shellfish, macroalgae and other seafood directly as well as derivative
products).
Ways of co-funding
Co-funding possible through:
- Horizon 2020 BG-2-2015: Forecasting and anticipating effects of climate change on fisheries and
Aquaculture
- EMFF article 47: Innovation. (a) developing technical, scientific or organisational knowledge in aquaculture farms, which, in
particular, reduces the impact on the environment, reduces dependence on fish meal and oil, fosters a sustainable use of
resources in aquaculture, improves animal welfare or facilitates new sustainable production methods; (b) developing or introducing
on the market new aquaculture species with good market potential, new or substantially improved products, new or improved
processes, or new or improved management and organisation systems; (c) exploring the technical or economic feasibility of
innovative products or processes.
65
- EMFF article 48.1: Productive investments in aquaculture (a) productive investments in aquaculture; (b) the diversification of
aquaculture production and species cultured; (e) investments reducing the negative impact or enhancing the positive effects on the
environment and increasing resource efficiency; (f) investments in enhancing the quality of, or in adding value to, aquaculture
products;
- EMFF article 49.1: Management, relief and advisory services for aquaculture farms Support for: (a) the setting-up of
management, relief and advisory services for aquaculture farms; (b) the purchase of farm advisory services of a technical,
scientific, legal, environmental or economic nature.
- EMFF article 52: Encouraging new aquaculture farmers practising sustainable aquaculture in order to foster entrepreneurship in
aquaculture
- ERDF: co-financing of investments of production and/or water treatment facilities under TO6.
ELECTRIC PULSE FISHING
Content of measure
By application of electric pulse techniques the physical impact of fishing on the sea bottom to the physical environment can be
reduced. The pulse trawl is, a fishing net that floats just above the seabed and emits small electrical pulses to startle bottomdwellers into the net. This form of trawling causes much less disturbance to the seabed than traditional methods, results in less bycatch, and uses far less fuel. Heavy chains that damage the seafloor are not needed to chase the fish into the net, since this is
done by means of electrical pulses.
Purpose / type of effect envisaged
There is less impact caused to the physical environment (sea floor) than by the application of traditional beam trawlers that use
tickler chains which affect the sea bed, and additionally, a reduction in fuel consumption is a result as well.
MSFD descriptor / pressure
6: Sea-floor integrity
Applicant
MS national governments, fishery sector
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Fisheries sector, academia.
Cost of measure
This measure is already being applied in the Netherlands. No substantial costs to the sector are expected.
Potential co-funding
- EMFF article 38: Limiting the impact of fishing on the marine environment and adapting fishing to the protection of species.
- LIFE: As electric pulse fishing is already developed, future funding cannot come from the sub programme ENV, but it can come
from sub programme NAT/BIO. Developing tools, technologies and also practices to ensure the sustainability of economic
activities is mentioned as a project topic under NAT/BIO. If the project is innovative, for instance an optimal way to regulate the
electric pulses, funding is possible under the priority areas of the sub programme ENV.
MARINE AGGREGATE LEVY SUSTAINABILITY FUND (MALSF)
Content of measure
In 2002 the British Government imposed a levy on all primary aggregate production (including marine aggregates / sand and
gravel) to reflect the environmental costs of winning these materials. A proportion of the revenue generated was used to provide a
source of funding for research aimed at minimising the effects of aggregate production.
Purpose / type of effect envisaged
Funding for research to improve the knowledge on the impacts and possible mitigation of aggregate extraction. The Fund is aiming
at achieving better environmental management at aggregate sites, and at promoting greater use of recycled aggregates. Although
66
this type of earmarking of tax revenues can be questioned both on political and economic grounds, it can often be effective in
increasing the perceived legitimacy of the tax policy. The political problem lies in the fact that earmarking removes funds from
parliamentary control, and can thus lead to reduced democratic influence and even increased corruption. Economically earmarking
can be inefficient since it does not ensure that the tax revenues are used where their utility is the highest and/or where national
priorities currently are the most pressing.
MSFD descriptor / pressure
6: Sea-floor integrity
Applicant
MS National Government
Target group / stakeholders involved
Aggregate extraction
Cost of measure
Since 2002, over £20 million has been invested in projects increasing the knowledge and understanding of marine environmental
resources through applied, science led research. This directly supports marine planning and decision making through the provision
of robust state-of-the-art evidence. The MALSF has commissioned projects that have addressed a range of scientific and socioeconomic themes.
Potential co-funding
Costs are primarily administrative, as this measure is a levy on specific activities.
- ERDF INTERREG: exchange of (best) practices concerning certification systems may well be fundable through the INTERREG
VA or VB strands.
- LIFE: Funding may be possible under the LIFE traditional projects and the priority areas of the sub programme GIE. These
project must promote knowledge sharing, dissemination of best practices, better compliance, and awareness raising campaigns.
CERTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR PORTS AND MARINAS
Content of measure
The system aims to improve the environmental quality in ports. Encourage all operations that contribute to improving the
environmental quality of the marinas. In the port of Cavalaire (France) -driver for this initiative- first port cleaning in France was
conducted here (1993). The “Clean Ports” approach was launched in the PACA (Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur) region in 2001. In
2008, AFNOR created the « Harbour Environmental Management» certification.
Purpose / type of effect envisaged
Cleaner ports, less pollution
MSFD descriptor / pressure
8: Concentrations of contaminants
Applicant
Port authorities
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Port authorities
Cost of measure
Budget for the certification system was initially funded by the Water Agency (80%) and amounted to a grant aid of 120,000 euro.
Since 2001 when the concept of "ports propres" was launched, 86 ports have joined the process and in that respect been granted
funding of 14 million euros.
Potential co-funding
- EMFF article 43.1: Fishing ports, landing sites, auction halls and shelters – investments improving infrastructure.
- LIFE: Funding is possible under the LIFE traditional projects and the priority areas of the sub programme GIE. These project
must promote knowledge sharing, dissemination of best practices, better compliance, and awareness raising campaigns.
67
- ERDF INTERREG: exchange of (best) practices concerning certification systems may well be fundable through the INTERREG
VA or VB strands.
68
FISHING FOR LITTER PROGRAMME
Content of measure
Fishermen often (accidently) collect marine litter during their fisheries activities. This can be handed over to the harbour
authorities. It is possible that fishermen obtain a certain amount of money for this. Incentives can be given to stimulate this. By
participation on this programme they do not discard marine litter that they accidently collected but store this in big bags which are
being taken to land for processing Minimally, the facilities that accept waste should be easily available for participants in such
programmes (at no cost). Marine litter in general is to be collected, but other types of litter like debris, lost and abandoned fishing
gear etc. should be collected too..
Purpose / type of effect envisaged
Less marine litter present at sea.
MSFD descriptor / pressure
10: Properties and quantities of marine litter
Applicant
The operations referred to in EMFF Article 40.1.a may be implemented by scientific or technical public law bodies, Advisory
Councils, fishermen or organisations of fishermen which are recognised by the Member State, or by non-governmental
organisations in partnership with organisations of fishermen or in partnership with FLAGs.
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Fishermen, waste collection and processing industry, governments.
Cost of measure
Still unknown.
Potential co-funding
- EMFF Article 40.1.a: Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – collection of lost fishing gear and marine litter
- LIFE: Funding is possible under the LIFE traditional projects and the priority areas of the sub programme GIE. These project
must promote knowledge sharing, dissemination of best practices, better compliance, and awareness raising campaigns. Fishing
for litter can be seen as an awareness raising campaign. If the project is innovative, for instance an optimal way fish for marine
litter, funding may be possible under the priority areas of the sub programme ENV.
INSTALLATION OF NOISE REDUCTION TECHNIQUES IN SHIPS
Content of measure
A major contributor to underwater noise is shipping. Effects of underwater noise include disturbance, stress and the masking of
biological sounds used to communicate and find food. Ships generate underwater noise with their main engine and on board
generators. The level of underwater noise will probably increase with the expected increase of the shipping industry. New noise
reduction techniques will likely contribute to the achievement of GES for underwater noise. Possible noise reducing measures are:
- Standard silencers on diesel generator exhaust i.e. reflection type, absorption type and combination type silencers.
- Utilizing the main engine exhaust silencer during port stay for the diesel generator exhaust by rerouting the exhaust.
- On shore power supply
- Standard methods for reducing noise from ventilation systems onboard a ship including adding mineral wool to fan rooms,
cylindrical silencers, baffle silencers and noise reducing louvers.
Purpose / type of effect envisaged
To minimize exceeding the limits for above- and underwater noise.
MSFD descriptor / pressure
11: Introduction of energy, including underwater noise
Applicant
Shipyards, ports, research institute, shipping companies
69
Target groups / stakeholders involved
Shipping companies
Cost of measure
Costs of this measure depend on the project that will implement it and the scale of implementation.
Potential co-funding
- HORIZON 2020 : BG 9 2014: Acoustic and Imaging Technologies (closed)
- EMFF article 41.1 a/c: Energy efficiency – studies and investments to assess the contribution of alternative propulsion systems
and hull designs
- EMFF article 41.2: Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change – Replacement or modernization of main or ancillary
engines.
- LIFE: Funding is possible under the LIFE traditional projects and the priority areas of the sub programme NAT/BIO. Developing
tools, technologies and also practices to ensure the sustainability of economic activities is mentioned as a project topic. If the
project is innovative, for instance an optimal way to regulate the electric pulses, funding is possible under the priority areas of the
sub programme ENV.
MSFD DATA COLLECTION AND MONITORING
Content
At present, most of the methods in use necessitate gathering detailed information using direct observations or sampling methods.
Such approaches often provide adequate information for coastal areas but off shore detailed information is usually sparse or
absent. New broad‐scale methods and methods that use surrogate information about the resource are needed. Several
approaches and techniques of measurement are available in marine environment monitoring. These consist of direct sampling,
airborne and satellite imagery, hydrological measurements using CTD probes, remote sensing with the use of electromagnetic
waves and acoustic methods. Marine monitoring involves the acquisition, processing, integration and visualization of various kinds
of data obtained through these techniques
Purpose / type of effect envisaged
Alleviate present obstacles concerning data availability and its collection relating to marine environment assessment, target setting
and trends monitoring.
MSFD descriptor / pressure
All descriptors / pressures
Applicant
MS, research institutes
Target groups / stakeholders involved
MS, NGO’s, port and shipping companies, fisheries sector
Cost of measure
Costs vary, depending on the type of monitoring requirements and technology.
Potential co-funding
- EMFF article 77: Data collection
- EMFF article 80.1.c: Improving the knowledge on the state of the marine environment
- EMFF article 78: Technical assistance. This may hold specifically for those MS still lacking an initial assessment of the state of
the seas and GES characteristics, targets and indicators, due to administrative capacity problems.
70
Annex I
References
EMFF

Official documents concerning EMFF can be found on: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/index_en.htm

More information on eligibility and allocation: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/index_en.htm
Regional Funds (ERDF and CF)

Eligibility and allocation of funds per MS:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/eligibility/index_en.cfm

Complementarity between ESI-funds and non ESI-funds: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&from=EN

Database of previous, executed projects under ERDF/CF:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/indexes/project_examples_en.cfm
LIFE

More information on the types of projects in LIFE:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/documents/life2014-2020.pdf

Allocation of funding and co-financing rates: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/documents/life20142020.pdf

Allocation of LIFE-budget amongst Member States: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1293&from=EN
Horizon 2020

HORIZON 2020 – Work Programme 2014-2015 on Food Security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and
maritime and inland water research and the bio economy (European Commission Decision C (2013)8631 of 10
December 2013). Online: Work programme Horizon 2020 marine and maritime issues

2015 Blue Growth calls:
− BG 1 – 2015 Improving the preservation and sustainable exploitation of Atlantic marine ecosystems
− BG 2 – 2015 Forecasting and anticipating effects of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture
− BG 7 – 2015 Response capacities to oil spills and marine pollutions
− BG 16 – 2015 Coordination action in support of the implementation of the Joint Programming Initiative on
"Healthy and Productive Seas and Oceans"

Participant Portal: http://bit.ly/H2020PP

Helpdesk: http://ec.europa.eu/research/enquiries

Learn more about Horizon 2020: http://ec.europa.eu/horizon2020

National contact Points (NCPs): http://bit.ly/H2020NCP
More co-funding opportunities in field of (marine) environment

DG Environment funding opportunities

European Commission: The guide to multi-benefit Cohesion Policy Investments in Nature and Green
Infrastructure (2013)

European Commission: Financing Natura 2000. Guidance Handbook (2014)
71

European Commission: Enabling synergies between European Structural and Investment Funds, Horizon
2020and other research, innovation and competitiveness-related Union programmes. Guidance for policy-makers
and implementing bodies (2014)
72
Annex II
Classification of MSFDmeasures according to Annex VI
(Programmes of measures)
A Programme of Measures (PoMs) is a set of measures that the MS is responsible for implementing, put
into context with each other, referring to the environmental targets they address. The Programme of
Measures includes existing and new measures.
Existing measures (Art 13.1 & 13.2):
- Category 1.a: Measures relevant for the maintenance and achievement of GES under the MSFD, that have been adopted and
implemented;
- Category 1.b: Measures relevant for the maintenance and achievement of GES under the MSFD that have been adopted under
other policies but that have not yet been implemented or fully implemented;
New measures (Art 13.3):
- Category 2.a: Additional measures to maintain and reach GES which build on existing implementation processes regarding other
EU legislation and international agreements but go beyond what is already required under these;
- Category 2.b: Additional measures to maintain and reach GES which do not build on existing EU legislation or international
agreements.
The PoMs are structured as follows:

Input controls: management measures that influence the amount of a human activity that is permitted.

Output controls: management measures that influence the degree of perturbation of an ecosystem component
that is permitted.

Spatial and temporal distribution controls: management measures that influence where and when an activity is
allowed to occur.

Management coordination measures: tools to ensure that management is coordinated.

Measures to improve the traceability, where feasible, of marine pollution.

Economic incentives: management measures which make it in the economic interest of those using the marine
ecosystems to act in ways which help to achieve the good environmental status objective.

Mitigation and remediation tools: management tools which guide human activities to restore damaged
components of marine ecosystems.
The Table below gives an overview of potential measures (examples) structured according Annex VI of
the MSFD.
73
MSFD measures category cf.
annex VI
Clarification
List of example measures [ARCADIS, 2012b]
(1) Input controls:
management measures that
influence the amount of a
human activity that is
permitted.
Regulating instruments: guidelines,
bans, operating licenses,..
Stricter controls on discharges of thermal energy
Ban on fishing techniques (like beam trawling, other towed fishing
gear) that are the most damaging to the seabed, usually spatially
restricted
Ban on the discharge of sewage water from passenger ships and
ferries
Ban or further regulation of deepwater drilling
Designation of NOx emission control area (under MARPOL, Annex VI).
(2) Output controls:
management measures that
influence the degree of
perturbation of an ecosystem
component that is permitted.
- Regulating instruments: standards
License system for (sustainable) aquaculture (e.g. fin-fish farming)
- Clean-up measures
Limitations on density of wave and tidal device arrays
Compulsory bioremediation (e.g. bivalves in fish farms)
Control on saline discharges (e.g. creation of gas storage facilities)
Discard ban on the most commercially important species, ban on high
grading
Eco-tourism in coastal Natura 2000 areas. (local economic benefits
can also arise from the combination eco-agriculture and coastal
nature in semi-enclosed areas or coastal areas, e.g. Väinameri (“the
sea of straits”) area in West Estonia bordering the Baltic)
(3) Spatial and temporal
distribution controls:
management measures that
influence where and when an
activity is allowed to occur.
Regulating instruments geared at
spatial and temporal restrictions, e.g.
zoning.
Regulation of production areas of fish (mariculture) near areas where
wild migratory fish are present.
Application of Environmental Impact Zones/buffer zones around the
project site
Delineation of extraction zones (planning) to avoid particularly
sensitive features (micro-siting)
Designation and protection of marine habitats (MPA's, Natura 2000
for example)
Designation of a non-building zone of 2km (landward) from the
coastline.
Designation of national fishing zones
(4) Management
coordination measures: tools
to ensure that management
is coordinated.
Management coordination plans and
programming
Action plan for conservation of marine mammals (e.g. harbour
porpoises)
Application of Maritime Spatial Planning with an ecosystem approach
Coastal Area Management Programmas as an integrated sustainable
management tool for planning and development activities
74
MSFD measures category cf.
annex VI
Clarification
List of example measures [ARCADIS, 2012b]
Contingency plans for chemicals and oil spills in case of accidents
Creating MPAs. 3 objectives are generally defined:
- fisheries management, resource conservation
- biodiversity conservation / ecosystem protection
- opportunities for recreational users
(5) Measures to improve the
traceability, where feasible,
of marine pollution.
Preventive measures, R&I based.
Establish remote sensing (satellite) system for observing and
controlling fishing operations in open sea.
Introduction of a maritime surveillance system and risk assessment,
Pollution control of rivers, supported by monitoring system for water
quality
Strengthening the system of control for the movement of hazardous
substance and materials and prevention of marine pollution by
vessels
Application of a feedback monitoring system, enabling one to
intervene rapidly when dangerous levels are exceeded
(6) Economic incentives:
management measures
which make it in the
economic interest of those
using the marine ecosystems
to act in ways which help to
achieve the good
environmental status
objective.
Economic or market based
instruments, including fee-based
systems, financial incentives, liability,
warranty and trading systems.
(Habitat-species) banking: wetland mitigation banking, biobanking,
bushbroker scheme, bushtender scheme, conservation banking, fish
habitat banking…
‘No-special-fee’ system in all Baltic Sea ports
Additional harbour taxes for "polluting" ships
Aggregate taxes / levy
Agri-environmental schemes
Allocation of regional funds to promote fishing tourism in order to
reduce the fishing effort
Application of user fees for MPA, e.g. fees for scuba diving.
Charge for emissions as a baseline-and-credit system
Charging for waste services including landfills
Voluntary competitive biddings
Water pollution charge
(7) Mitigation and
remediation tools:
management tools which
guide human activities to
restore damaged
components of marine
ecosystems.
Prevention, abatement and
remediation measures, technical and
R&I based.
(Marine) Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund (MALSF)
Alternatives for anti-fouling paints
Anaerobic digestion of manure (biogas) to reduce N leaching
(technical measure), biogas production from manure
Application of an environmental friendly sand extraction
75
MSFD measures category cf.
annex VI
Clarification
List of example measures [ARCADIS, 2012b]
methodology or other mitigating measures for aggregate extraction
Application of mitigation and compensation measures when needed:
e.g. designation of protected sites, nature development projects.
Bioremediation or biomanipulation measures, such as mussel farming
(8) Communication,
stakeholder involvement and
raising public awareness.
Communication and awareness
types of measures
Active dissemination of research findings to the public
Award-based incentives for coastal villages with Integrated Waste
Management (IWM)
Awareness programs to mitigate ALDFG (abandoned, lost or
otherwise discarded fishing gear) impacts
Certification system for ports and marinas
Clean Shipping Index
Ecolabelling for fisheries, MSC labeled fish, MAC certification for
aquarium oganisms
76
Annex III
ETC Programmes
ETC Cross-Border Programmes (INTERREG V - A)
N°
Name of the Programme
Countries
1
(INTERREG V-A) NL-BE-DE Euregio Maas Rhein
NL-BE-DE
2
(INTERREG V-A) AT-CZ - Austria-Czech Republic
AT-CZ
3
(INTERREG V-A) SK-AT Slovakia-Austria
SK-AT
4
(INTERREG V-A) AT-DE - Austria- Germany (Bavaria)
AT-DE
5
(INTERREG V-A) ES-PT - Spain-Portugal
ES-PT
6
(INTERREG V-A) ES-FR - Espagne-France - Andorra
ES-FR-AND
7
(INTERREG V-A) ES- PT- Madeira-Açores-Canarias
ES-PT
8
(INTERREG V-A) HU-HR- Hungary-Croatia
HU-HR
9
(INTERREG V-A) DE-CZ - Bavaria-Czech Republic
DE-CZ
10
(INTERREG V-A) AT-HU Austria-Hungary
AT-HU
11
(INTERREG V-A) DE-PL Germany(BB)-Poland
12
(INTERREG V-A) PL-SK Poland-Slovakia
13
(INTERREG V-A) PL-DK-DE-LT-SE - South Baltic
14
(INTERREG V-A) FI-EE-LV-SE - Central Baltic
FI-EE-LV-SE
15
(INTERREG V-A) HU-SK - Hungary-Slovakia
HU-SK
16
(INTERREG V-A) SE-NO - Sweden-Norway
SE-NO
17
(INTERREG V-A) DE-CZ Saxony-Czech Republic
DE-CZ
18
(INTERREG V-A) PL-DE Poland(DS)-Germany
19
(INTERREG V-A) DE-PL Germany(Mecklenburg-Vorpommern/Brandenburg)-Poland
DE-PL
20
(INTERREG V-A) GR-IT - Greece-Italy
GR-IT
21
(INTERREG V-A) RO-BG - Romania-Bulgaria
RO-BG
22
(INTERREG V-A) GR-BG - Greece-Bulgaria
GR-BG
23
(INTERREG V-A) DE-NL - Germany-Netherlands
DE-NL
DE(BB)-PL
PL-SK
PL-DK-DE-LT-SE
PL(DS)-DE
77
24
(INTERREG V-A) DE-AT-CH-LI - Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein
DE-AT-CH-LI
25
-(INTERREG V-A) CZ-PL - Czech RepublicPoland
26
(INTERREG V-A) SE-DK-NO - Öresund-(INTERREG V-A) Kattegat-Skagerrak
27
(INTERREG V-A) LV-LT - Latvia-Lithuania
28
(INTERREG V-A) SE-FI-NO - Botnia-Atlantica
29
(INTERREG V-A) SI-HR - Slovenia-Croatia
SI-HR
30
(INTERREG V-A) SK-CZ Slovakia-Czech (INTERREG V-A) Republic
SK-CZ
31
(INTERREG V-A) LT-PL - Lithuania-Poland
LT-PL
32
(INTERREG V-A) SE-FI-NO - Nord
33
(INTERREG V-A) IT-FR - Italy-France maritime
IT-FR
34
(INTERREG V-A) IT-FR - Italy-France (ALCOTRA)
IT-FR
35
(INTERREG V-A) IT-CH - Italy-Switzerland
IT-CH
36
(INTERREG V-A) IT-SI - Italy-Slovenia
IT-SI
37
(INTERREG V-A) IT-MT - Italy-Malta
IT-MT
38
(INTERREG V-A) FR-NL-BE-UK - Les Deux Mers/Two seas
39
FR-DE-CH - Rhin Supérieur-Oberrhein
40
(INTERREG V-A) FR-UK - France-United Kingdom (Manche)
FR-UK
41
(INTERREG V-A) FR-CH France-Suisse
FR-CH
42
(INTERREG V-A) IT-HR - Italy-Croatia
IT-HR
43
(INTERREG V-A) BE-FR France-Wallonia-Flanders
BE-FR
44
(INTERREG V-A) FR-BE-DE-LU Grande Région
45
(INTERREG V-A) BE-NL - Belgium (Vlanderen)-Netherlands
BE-NL
46
(INTERREG V-A) UK-IE - Ireland- United Kingdom (Scotland and North Ireland)
UK- IE
47
(INTERREG V-A) IE-UK - Ireland-United Kingdom (Wales)
IE-UK
48
(INTERREG V-A) HU-RO - Hungary-Romania
HU-RO
49
(INTERREG V-A) EE-LV - Estonia-Latvia
EE-LV
50
(INTERREG V-A) Mayotte/Comores /Madagascar
51
(INTERREG V-A) IT-AT - Italy-Austria
IT-AT
52
(INTERREG V-A) SI-HU - Slovenia-Hungary
SI-HU
CZ-PL
SE-DK-NO
LV-LT
SE-FI-NO
SE-FI-NO
FR-NL-BE-UK
FR-DE-CH
FR-BE-DE-LU
FR/KM/MG
78
53
(INTERREG V-A) SI-AT Slovenia-Austria
SI-AT
54
(INTERREG V-A) GR-CY - Greece - Cyprus
GR-CY
55
(INTERREG V-A) DE-DK - Germany-Denmark
DK-DE
56
(INTERREG V-A) FR-NL (St. Martin - St Maarten)
FR-NL
57
(INTERREG V-A) France ( Guyane)-Brazil - Suriname (Amazonia)-
FR-BR-SR
58
(INTERREG V-A) France (Martinique & Guadeloupe)-OECS (Org Eastern Caribbean St)
FR-OECS
59
(INTERREG V-A) France (Ile de la Reunion) –IOC countries
FR/MU
60
(INTERREG V-A) PEACE
IE-UK
79
ETC Transnational Programmes (INTERREG V-B)
N°
Name of the Programme
MS
Non MS
1
(INTERREG V-B) ADRIATICIONIAN32
Greece - Croatia - Italy - Slovenia
Albania - Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Montenegro - Serbia
Germany - France - Italy - Austria Slovenia
Switzerland - Liechtenstein
Spain - France - Ireland - Portugal
- United Kingdom
N/A
Belarus - Norway - Russia
BALTIC SEA34
Denmark - Germany - Estonia Latvia - Lithuania - Poland Finland - Sweden
5
(INTERREG V-B) CARIBBEAN AREA
France
Other third countries
6
(INTERREG V-B) CENTRAL EUROPE
Czech Republic - Germany - Italy Croatia - Hungary - Austria Poland - Slovenia - Slovakia
N/A
7
(INTERREG V-B) DANUBE35
Austria - Bulgaria - Czech Republic
- Germany - Croatia - Hungary Romania - Slovenia - Slovakia
Bosnia and Herzegovina Montenegro - Serbia
8
(INTERREG V-B) INDIAN OCEAN
France
Other third countries
9
(INTERREG V-B) MEDITERRANEAN
Greece - Spain - France - Croatia Italy - Cyprus - Malta - Portugal Slovenia - United Kingdom
Albania - Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Montenegro
10
(INTERREG V-B) NORTHERN
PERIPHERY and ARCTIC
Ireland - Finland - Sweden United Kingdom
Other third countries
(INTERREG V-B)
2
ALPINE SPACE33
(INTERREG V-B)
3
ATLANTIC AREA
(INTERREG V-B)
4
32
The Programme should cover the same geographical scope of the EU Strategy for the Adriatic Ionian Region –
EUSAIR (for further info, see: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/adriat_ionian/index_en.cfm )
33
The Programme should cover the same geographical scope of the EU Strategy for the Alpine Region – EUSAR (for
further info, see: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/alpine/index_en.cfm )
34
The Programme should cover the same geographical scope of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region – EUSBSR
(for info, see: http://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/ )
35
The Programme should cover the same geographical scope of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region – EUSDR
(for further info, see: http://www.danube-region.eu/ )
80
N°
Name of the Programme
MS
Non MS
11
(INTERREG V-B) NORTH SEA
Belgium - Denmark - Germany The Netherlands - Sweden United Kingdom
Norway
12
(INTERREG V-B) NORTH WEST
EUROPE
Belgium - Germany - France Ireland - Luxembourg - The
Netherlands - United Kingdom
Switzerland
13
(INTERREG V-B) PLATEAU DES
GUYANES
France
Brazil - Suriname - Guyana
14
(INTERREG V-B) SOUTH WEST
EUROPE
Spain - France - Portugal - United
Kingdom
Andorra
15
(INTERREG V-B) BALKANS
MEDITERRANEAN
Bulgaria - Greece - Cyprus
Albania - Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia
--
MAC
Spain - Portugal
--
ETC Interregional Programmes (INTERREG V - C)
N°
NAME OF THE PROGRAMME
MS
Non MS
1
INTERREG EUROPE
All Member States
Switzerland - Norway
2
INTERACT
All Member States
Switzerland - Norway
3
URBACT
All Member States
4
ESPON
All Member States
81
Colophon
MSFD EU FUNDING MECHANISMS
CO-FINANCING GUIDANCE
CLIENT:
European Commission DG Environment
STATUS:
Draft report
AUTHOR:
Jeroen Klooster
Lies De Meijer
Christiaan van Sluis
Maria Ferreira (EUCC)
Mike Mannaart (EUCC)
CHECKED BY:
Jeroen Klooster
RELEASED BY:
Veronique Adriaenssens
20 October 2014
078085345:0.1
82
ARCADIS NEDERLAND BV
Lichtenauerlaan 100
P.O. Box 4205
3006 AE Rotterdam
The Netherlands
Tel +31 10 2532 222
Fax +31 10 4341 398
www.arcadis.nl
Dutch Trade Register 09036504
©ARCADIS. All rights reserved. Apart from certain exceptions allowed by the
law, no part of this document may be copied and/or made public by means of
printing, reprographics or digital reproduction or by any other means without the
written permission of the copyright owners
83
Annex 3: Reporting on programmes of measures under MSFD
See MSFD 14_2014-16
84