Download Agenda Item - OSPAR Commission

CoG(2) 13/7/1-E
English only
OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic
Meeting of the Coordination Group (CoG)
London (Secretariat): 21-22 November 2013
Contents of the Summary Record
Agenda Item 0 – Opening and representation at the meeting .................................................................................. 2
Agenda Item 1 – Adoption of the agenda ............................................................................................................... 2
Agenda Item 2 – Development of measures: outcome of ICG RECS .......................................................................... 2
Agenda Item 3 - Ecosystem approach and Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme .......................................... 3
Ecosystem Approach Audit ......................................................................................................................... 3
Development of the next Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP): Theme A and generic parts ... 4
OSPAR Science Agenda ............................................................................................................................... 5
Agenda Item 4 – Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and EU cooperation ................................................. 6
Outcome of the ICG MSFD meeting ............................................................................................................. 6
Streamlining of regional MSFD coordination action between neighbouring regional seas conventions ........... 12
Development of the OSPAR Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter ............................................................... 12
Agenda Item 5 – Cross-cutting and coordination issues ......................................................................................... 13
OSPAR Data and Information Management Strategy (ODIMS) ..................................................................... 13
UN Framework ........................................................................................................................................ 13
Agenda Item 6 – Any other business .................................................................................................................... 13
Agenda Item 7 – Adoption of the Summary Record ............................................................................................... 13
Annexes
List of participants ...................................................................................................................................Annex 1
Agenda and list of documents .................................................................................................................Annex 2
List of actions arising from the meeting ..................................................................................................Annex 3
Summary of discussion of application of ecosystem approach in OSPAR...............................................Annex 4
Coherent further process on MSFD Indicators ........................................................................................Annex 5
OSPAR Common Indicators and Candidate Indicators: updated overview of lead countries.................Annex 6
ICG-MSFD Forward Work Plan 2014-2017 ..............................................................................................Annex 7
1 of 13
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record CoG(2) 2013
CoG(2) 13/7/1-E
Agenda Item 7
CoG(2) 13/7/1-E
English only
OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic
Meeting of the Coordination Group (CoG)
London (Secretariat): 21-22 November 2013
Summary Record
Agenda Item 0 – Opening and representation at the meeting
0.1 The meeting of OSPAR’s Coordination Group was held on 21-22 November 2013 at the premises of
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in London. The Executive Secretary, Dr Darius
Campbell, welcomed delegates.
0.2 The Chairman of the Commission, Mr Victor Escobar (Spain), welcomed delegates to London. The
meeting was attended by representatives from the following Contracting Parties: Belgium, Denmark, the
European Union (EU, represented by the European Commission), France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (UK). The meeting was also attended by the Chairs of BDC, EIHA, HASEC, OIC and RSC and of the ICG
MSFD. A list of participants is at Annex 1.
Agenda Item 1 – Adoption of the agenda
1.1 The draft agenda (CoG(1) 13/1/1) was adopted without amendment. A copy of the agenda and
documents submitted to the meeting is at Annex 2. A list of actions arising from the meeting is at Annex 3.
1.2 CoG noted information on the degree of completion of actions agreed at its last meeting
(CoG(2) 13/1/Info.1), including that the issue of ‘climate change’ had been addressed by OSPAR 2013,
which requested Committees to embed it in their work; this would be revisited by CoG at its next meeting.
Agenda Item 2 – Development of measures: outcome of ICG RECS
2.1 The Secretariat provided an overview of the process that had been established by OSPAR 2013 in
order to conclude on a series of draft Recommendations concerning OSPAR Listed species and habitats. The
process had been set in place in order to complete this work and fulfil the commitment made by Ministers
in 2010 (OSPAR 13/21/1 §4.9).
2.2 OSPAR 2013 established terms of reference for an intersessional correspondence group to address
this matter and inform CoG of the progress made. CoG in turn had been requested to advise HOD as to
whether sufficient progress had been made to warrant an extraordinary meeting of the Commission before
the end of 2013 to conclude the matter. ICG-Recommendations met on 18-19 November 2013 in London
under the chairmanship of Mr John Clorley (UK) and represented by: Belgium, Germany, Iceland, the
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and the UK. Birdlife International, Oceana and WWF were
represented as Observers.
2.3 Further to the report of progress of ICG-Recommendations in their consideration of the 23 draft
Recommendations for the protection and conservation of certain OSPAR Listed species and habitats, CoG
agreed to note:
a.
the two outcomes of ICG-Recommendations:
2 of 13
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record CoG(2) 2013
CoG(2) 13/7/1-E
2.4
i.
the proposal of a “Statement on the common understanding of the Recommendations
on species and habitats”;
ii.
and resolution of 12 of the 23 draft recommendations.
b.
that the remaining 11 draft Recommendations were not considered by ICG-Recommendations
as a result of insufficient time to address these during the 2 day meeting.
c.
that one Contracting Party indicated that they had some remaining challenges with the text of
the draft Recommendation on Seamounts
d.
that the open question relating to the reporting dates (§5.1) should be finalised once the date
for adoption is clear.
CoG agreed to advise HOD:
a.
that the 12 draft Recommendations had reached a sufficient level of acceptability and should
be adopted in conjunction with the “Statement on common understanding”;1
b.
the draft “Statement on common understanding” should have the status of an OSPAR Other
Agreement and be applied to the present twelve and any future Recommendations on
furthering the protection of OSPAR listed species and habitats;
c.
there should be an on-going process to complete the remaining eleven draft
Recommendations. CoG advised that it was not possible to conclude this work in 2013 but
should rather aim for adoption at OSPAR 2014;
d.
that the most appropriate body to continue this work would be ICG-Recommendations. It was
proposed that a second meeting of ICG-Recommendations should take place back-to-back with
another relevant meeting. [The Netherlands agreed to investigate the possibility of hosting a
second meeting of ICG-Recommendations [13-14] February 2014, immediately prior to BDC];
e.
the Secretariat should follow up with the relevant BDC task leads responsible for the
development of the six draft Recommendations for species and habitats in the current
intersessional period to ensure that the outcomes of ICG-Recommendations is taken
appropriately prior to consideration at BDC.
Agenda Item 3 - Ecosystem approach and Joint Assessment and Monitoring
Programme
Ecosystem Approach Audit
3.1 The Secretariat introduced paper 13/3/1 which set out a light touch approach to undertaking an
ecosystem audit exercise, as agreed by CoG(1) 2013. The approach was to use a simple workshop session
within CoG to address a few questions on the ecosystem approach. This would help crystallise Contracting
Parties’ views on progress on the approach and main areas for future action, in particular through the JAMP
which was the next item on the agenda to be discussed.
3.2
CoG discussed issues based around:
a.
OSPAR capabilities to undertake more integrated environmental assessments;
b.
OSPAR capability to use integrated environmental assessments to make integrated decisions;
c.
ecosystem approaches in other frameworks.
3.3 CoG agreed that the Secretariat should provide a brief summary of the session after the meeting as
a guide to Contracting Parties’ views expressed in discussion, and in order to finalise the Ecosystem
Approach audit process at the next meeting of CoG. The detail (see Annex 4) would be of use to those
wanting to reflect on Contracting Party views for developing JAMP elements. In the workshop session itself,
1
DK, FR and IE retained a study reservation as these Contracting Parties did not participate in ICG RECS.
3 of 13
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record CoG(2) 2013
CoG(2) 13/7/1-E
Contracting Parties talked about how OSPAR had made a start on applying the ecosystem approach, but
complexity of systems hindered quick progress. Contracting Parties discussed whether an evolving process
may be realistic, also whether there could be a focus on particular pressures rather than a species by
species approach. When discussing integration of objectives, an option offered was to pick off a few
objectives to integrate rather than an all-in-one encompassing approach. Contracting Parties clearly
signalled a desire for more working with other RSCs, competent bodies, and sectoral stakeholders (see
Annex 4 for all detail). Practical follow-up was proposed by CoG to be via the JAMP (and any further issues
raised by Contracting Parties at future CoG meetings).
Development of the next Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP): Theme A and
generic parts
JAMP Theme A - Intermediate Assessment 2017 and Quality Status Report 2021
3.4 The Chairman stressed that the JAMP was an important programme to deliver the 2017 Intermediate
Assessment to which Contracting Parties had committed themselves at OSPAR 2013. The next JAMP should
articulate which products and steps are necessary to achieve that result. CoG should intensify the
preparations of the JAMP so that all Committees have a clear understanding of the requirements, and that
it reflects well the intentions of the Contracting Parties. There was as yet no proposal available for updating
the JAMP ‘Theme A’ (see state of play of work under that theme in CoG(2) 13/3/2, Annex 2).
3.5 CoG discussed the content of the Intermediate Assessment 2017 and reconfirmed that it should
mainly consist of the results of assessments of agreed indicators. In making their thematic indicators
operational, Committees should be clear on what could be achieved for each of the agreed common
indicators within this timeframe, also for the ‘priority’ candidate indicators (which are still in the pipeline).
On possible other components of the Intermediate Assessment 2017, such as on cumulative assessment of
pressures or advances in understanding on socio-economic issues, CoG concluded that these would not be
the focus of the intermediate assessment but that there may be scope in that Assessment to provide a
short update and general reference to progress in OSPAR. The Quality Status Report 2021 would provide a
better opportunity to include results of such more integrated assessment approaches which are presently
still under development. CoG agreed:
a.
that the task group should establish, by mid-January 2014 and for review by CoG Heads of
Delegation by email, a clear first proposal for the overall process for the Intermediate
Assessment 2017 and the Quality Status Report 2021 as the main assessment products of
JAMP Theme A;
b.
that the task group, under coordination of its lead Prof C Moffat (UK) and the Chair of the
relevant Committee, should subsequently liaise with the Committee’s work on the
elaboration of their thematic JAMP products in relation to the requirements of the
Intermediate Assessment 2017 and the Quality Status Report 2021 (which are planned under
Theme A), and to ensure that there is a good match and link between ‘Theme A’ products and
products under other JAMP Themes;
c.
that if Contracting Parties wished that ‘Theme A’ contained specific target products that they
considered essential contributions for the Intermediate Assessment 2017 and the Quality
Status Report 2021 (and which were not yet provided for under work under ‘indicators’ and
thematic assessments planned by thematic Committees), they were invited to make such
specific proposals by 31 January 2014 so that this could be picked up in the work of the task
group.
Drafting of the generic aspects of the Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme
3.6 The Secretariat informed CoG on the process with regard to the preparation of the general aspects of
the next JAMP (CoG(2) 13/3/2 and CoG(2) 13/3/2-Add.1). Although a CoG task group was established
consisting of the Chairs of the main Committees and Prof Colin Moffat (UK), the tasks that CoG May 2013
had identified had yet to be fully addressed. The document CoG(2) 13/3/2 contained Secretariat
suggestions for redrafting of existing general JAMP provisions, whereas the CoG(2) 13/3/2-Add.1 document
contained further recent drafting proposals from Prof. Moffat. The Secretariat acknowledged that
4 of 13
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record CoG(2) 2013
CoG(2) 13/7/1-E
Contracting Parties had not had sufficient opportunity to consider this, and that it was advisable that the
work should focus in the near future on the key requirements. It was important that the resulting JAMP,
which would be presented to OSPAR 2014 for adoption, would well reflect the specific intentions of
Contracting Parties and the resources available so that planning would be matched by delivery.
3.7
3.8
In discussion, the following points were made:
a.
several Committees had made internal arrangements for their JAMP drafting and needed to be
kept informed of the general parts of the JAMP, so they can take that into account in their
work and make proposals for eventual mutual adjustment. A particular issue identified in that
regard is the ‘opting out’ of common indicators (based on the current CEMP mechanism for
CEMP monitoring parameters);
b.
several Contracting Parties indicated that they needed sufficient time for internal
consultations, and this indicated that the drafting of the general parts of JAMP needed to
progress swiftly and in conjunction with developments in the Committees so that the draft to
be tabled for the next CoG meeting would be available by early April 2014 (noting that EIHA, as
last main Committee in the series, would only meet on 31 March-4 April 2014, which may
mean that the draft made available in early April may need adjustment to take account of EIHA
outcome);
c.
HELCOM’s newly adopted Monitoring and Assessment Strategy was being followed up by work
to ensure that the organisation of their information on monitoring and assessment was easily
usable by Contracting Parties in the framework of the MSFD. OSPAR’s work on the next JAMP
would also be beneficial if that aspect were to be addressed (e.g. in conjunction with the work
under OSPAR’s Data and Information Strategy (ODIMS))
CoG agreed:
a.
that the task group should continue with the tasks given by CoG May 2013 (as made explicit
in working materials provided by the Secretariat) and intensify its preparation of the general
parts of the JAMP;
b.
that the revised JAMP, both in its general and thematic parts, should focus on key
requirements and should thereby be kept slim and practical;
c.
that the task group should address any issues for clarification from Committees as identified
by their Chairs;
d.
that the task group should prepare a consolidated version of the draft of the general parts of
the JAMP by early April 2014 so that CoG would be able to finalise the proposal for
submission to OSPAR 2014.
OSPAR Science Agenda
3.9 On behalf of Dr Lisette Enserink (the Netherlands), lead of the task group on the OSPAR Science
(needs) Agenda, the Secretariat introduced CoG(2) 13/3/Info.1 (on recent developments in the organisation
and planning of marine sciences in a European context) and the report from the task group on the OSPAR
Science Agenda (CoG(2) 13/3/3). The Secretariat explained some of these developments and indicated that
the materials collected so far to underpin the development of the Science Agenda had already been useful
in contacts with projects and organisations, such as ICES, the ongoing STAGES project, and the
consultations from the ERA-NET Seas-Era and the JPI Oceans initiative. However, the task group needed to
make further progress on each of its four tasks in order to present CoG with a mature and balanced
proposal. The Secretariat stressed that the OSPAR Science Agenda was meant to be complementary to the
JAMP in the sense that it mainly signalled issues that would most effectively be addressed by cooperation
with other organisations. ICES had informed the Secretariat that it was finalising its own Science Plan under
its recently adopted Strategy, and that the ICES Secretary-General would inform the next meeting of CoG
on ICES’ plans.
3.10 In discussion, the following points were made:
5 of 13
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record CoG(2) 2013
CoG(2) 13/7/1-E
a.
the task group intended to liaise with ‘national contact points’ which were dealing with
scientific knowledge management at national level (e.g. how to address gaps in knowledge
required for improved MSFD implementation). Such contacts had so far been identified by
France, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and UK. Sweden confirmed that the Swedish task
group member, Prof Per Nilsson, was willing to liaise with these national contact points to
check that the emerging Science Agenda reflected sufficiently well their nationally identified
needs. The task group needed to progress with its work to benefit from this possibility.
Germany indicated that the best expertise to check on national needs was largely present in its
representation in OSPAR Committees;
b.
there was a general recognition that a finalised (but ‘living’) OSPAR Science Agenda would be
very useful to communicate both at national and international level;
c.
the OSPAR Commission in June 2014 should only be invited to adopt the overall Science
Agenda text, referring to the more technical (and changeable) description of specific needs on
the basis that Committees would ensure validation that this technical part represents the
current state of knowledge of such needs; i.e. OSPAR should not need to negotiate the entire
technical part, but Contracting Parties could propose to Committees ongoing changes to it, as
and when required;
d.
that the task group should ensure that all four tasks are well described in the main OSPAR
Science Agenda text;
e.
that the Science Agenda should also inform on tools that are available with regard to
exploitation of results of marine science, e.g. searchable on-line project catalogues and other
knowledge brokering tools, as these are being developed (e.g. under STAGES and through a
steer from the MSFD Project Coordination Group).
3.11 After discussion, CoG agreed that the task group should progress with its work, liaise – as suggested
– with OSPAR Committees on ways and means for identifying priority needs and finalising their parts of
the Science Agenda, and aiming to provide a finalised draft to the next CoG meeting.
Agenda Item 4 – Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and EU cooperation
Outcome of the ICG MSFD meeting
4.1 The Chair of the ICG MSFD, Mr Wim van Urk (the Netherlands), informed CoG of the results of their
meeting on 24-25 September 2013 (CoG(2) 13/4/1). He briefly highlighted the main outcomes of the work
since OSPAR 2013, such as on the OSPAR contribution to MSFD CIS planning, evolving considerations on
coordination work with respect to programmes of measures, and guidance on further work on common
indicators and follow-up of the June 2013 monitoring workshop. Each of these could be further discussed at
this meeting.
OSPAR contribution to MSFD CIS planning
4.2 CoG examined the draft OSPAR contribution to the MSFD CIS work programme for 2014 and beyond
(CoG(2) 13/4/2) which had been elaborated by ICG MSFD in response to an invitation by the European
Commission. It had been submitted to the European Commission on 15 October as a ‘draft’, pending CoG
discussion and agreement.
4.3
In discussion, the following points were made:
a.
the Executive Secretary stated that this draft had been well received at the MSCG meeting in
the week before CoG; some adjustment to the overall CIS planning was still expected in
response to the proposals of the Regional Seas Conventions. The EC indicated that all four RSCs
had provided a draft response to their invitation, and that the CIS work planning itself would
remain adaptable, especially in light of work needs that may be determined following the
Article 12 assessments;
6 of 13
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record CoG(2) 2013
CoG(2) 13/7/1-E
b.
it could be useful to keep the ‘draft’ OSPAR contribution also under review for the time being,
including to reflect better the opportunities for joint and coordinated work between OSPAR
and other RSCs (see below § 4.21-4.23 on possible cooperation with HELCOM);
c.
the European Commission proposed to amend the paragraph 10 on page 7 of the document to
read as follows:
“10. The EU and its Member States are the main direct beneficiaries of OSPAR coordination
work for the MSFD. While additional benefits of MSFD implementation are ultimately also
contributing to OSPAR objectives, it should be recognized that MSFD work has required strong
reliance on the regular OSPAR resources for various purposes (e.g. the Secretariat support to
coordination meetings and preparing documentation). Noting that through the PCG all involved
aim to enhance common benefits from the resources invested, OSPAR nevertheless would
welcome to explore further all opportunities of appropriate financial and resource contributions
to OSPAR for specific MSFD related tasks which the Contracting Parties assign to it, including
the increased use of projects, the participation in call for proposals or other possible
contributions by Contracting Parties including the EU (represented by the European
Commission) taking into account the benefits (including resource benefits) that this increased
collaboration will have for all Contracting Parties.”
4.4
Following discussion, CoG agreed:
a.
b.
to approve, as an ‘initial’ version (that is covered by a note stating it is subject to further
review and possible change), the draft OSPAR contribution to the EU-MSFD Common
Implementation Strategy work programme for 2014 and beyond as at CoG(2) 13/4/2, Annex 1,
with the inclusion of:
(i)
the amendment proposed by the European Commission as above;
(ii)
updated reference to the possibility of working with other Regional Seas Conventions in
order to streamline processes and procedures for Contracting Parties;
to task ICG MSFD with keeping the document under review and proposing any further
changes as required, taking account of developments in the EU CIS and in work by OSPAR
Committees and CoG.
EC updating on the MSFD Article 12 process
4.5 The European Commission informed CoG that the initial results of its MSFD Article 12 process would
be presented to Marine Directors at their upcoming December 2013 meeting, and that the official
European Commission’s findings (in a Communication and Commission Staff Working Paper) were planned
to be transmitted to the Council and Parliament before the Marine Conference on 3-4 March 2014 (to
which Ministers were invited). The follow-up process was expected to include (a) Council conclusions under
the Greek Presidency (which had announced it would give priority to marine and maritime issues under its
EU Presidency) and (b) a report by the European Parliament, as well as, possibly, (c) informal meetings to
discuss the outcome at regional level (not before April – May 2014).
Coordination of activities supporting Contracting Parties’ MSFD programmes of measures
4.6 Mr van Urk introduced, on behalf of France, the Netherlands and UK, a document meant as a basis
for a further round of strategic discussion on coordination of activities on the programmes of measures
(CoG(22) 13/4/3). France had initiated this work and this had been further elaborated by ICG MSFD and
already reflected in the CIS contribution document (see above). The document outlined different forms of
cooperation or coordination, and gave an overview, for the range of environmental issues represented by
the GES descriptors, which elements of further coordination could be addressed in OSPAR and by which
route (with roles for Committees). The ‘action requested’ invited CoG in particular to agree on further
common understanding and to decide on which issues which type of coordination would be appropriate.
7 of 13
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record CoG(2) 2013
CoG(2) 13/7/1-E
4.7 CoG considered the outcomes of the earlier ICG MSFD discussions on the need for developing
additional measures in OSPAR, and continued the dialogue between the Contracting Parties:
a.
Germany gave a presentation informing CoG on the national process for the establishment of
its Programme of measures. They stated that they had identified additional opportunities for
regional coordination (in OSPAR) for supporting the elaboration of the national programmes of
measures (the presentation was uploaded as a CoG document CoG(2) 13/4/6). Existing OSPAR
measures and OSPAR measures to be taken (e.g. in the form of OSPAR Recommendations)
could be part of the MSFD programmes of measures; that potential was insufficiently
recognised. OSPAR Committees could contribute to gap analysis and definition of targets to
progress towards GES, starting on the basis of already agreed OSPAR objectives and of the
OSPAR acquis with regard to measures. The format ‘regional action plan’ could be a flexible
tool to ensure coordinated and sustained activities to address environmental issues such as
Marine litter (under preparation for 2014), seafloor integrity, preventing the introduction of
non-indigenous species, underwater noise (e.g. action plan starting with noise mapping and
target setting);
b.
Portugal stressed the need to achieve a better regional and/or sub-regional determination of
‘good environmental status’ as a basis for coherent development of programmes of measures
in OSPAR. Portugal had already established many measures (referring to MSFD Annex VI),
especially with regard to coastal waters, and it was envisaging that its reporting to the EU
would combine their monitoring programme and their programme of measures. Portugal
advocated consideration in OSPAR of mechanisms that would result in improved coordination;
c.
Contracting Parties welcomed Germany’s proposal to increase the use and visibility of OSPAR
measures in the context of MSFD programmes of measures, but indicated that there was then
a need for even stronger interactions between the OSPAR processes on measures and the
national work preparing the MSFD programmes of measures, which required Contracting
Parties to enhance, at national level, liaison between their work under CoG (and ICG MSFD)
and the three main OSPAR Committees working in directly MSFD related areas;
d.
the concept of a ‘regional action plan’ was discussed and it was noted that Contracting Parties
held different ideas of what it might represent in relation to the MSFD programmes of
measures. The ongoing elaboration of the OSPAR Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter (see
§ 4.24-4.26 below) was an interesting test case for clarifying a number of issues, including how
to handle variability of uptake of specific measures in national MSFD programmes of measures
and determining the scope for new measures to be agreed regionally in OSPAR.
4.8 On the basis of further consideration by a drafting group, and taking into account the above, CoG
reached as a common understanding that the following different forms of co-ordination are required:
(1)
consideration by the OSPAR main Committees of the degree to which existing OSPAR programmes
and measures (agreed previously and/or in relation to OSPAR’s North-East Atlantic Environment
Strategy and its agreed objectives, targets) and are contributing to the MSFD objectives and targets,
(starting this activity in the upcoming Committee meetings in Spring 2014);
(2)
the exchange of information and coordination of measures that are primarily of national concern and
responsibility;
(3)
the development of measures at regional level (e.g. through OSPAR decisions or recommendations)
with a focus on large-scale, widespread and transboundary issues. This form of coordination is
central for the establishment of an OSPAR Regional Action Plan, as is currently being established for
marine litter;
(4)
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 the International
Maritime Organization but excluding Regional Sea Conventions) and agreement of concerted actions
of Contracting Parties to approach those bodies/authorities through OSPAR.
8 of 13
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record CoG(2) 2013
CoG(2) 13/7/1-E
4.9 CoG emphasised that the coordination of programmes of measures and regional action plans should
not only be driven by the MSFD timelines, as national timelines for implementation vary considerably and
hence also agreed that it is important to continue, for the foreseeable future (also beyond the 2015
delivery of the first generation of MSFD Programmes of Measures), the dialogue and exchange of
information between Contracting Parties on the following questions:
o for which issues which type of coordination would be appropriate; the further clarification when
new measures are intended to be taken by Contracting Parties;
o Contracting Parties’ intentions to elaborate coordinated (sub-)regional measures within the OSPAR
framework.
4.10 Concerning the table attached in CoG(2) 13/4/3, CoG agreed that this should be presented as a
starting point for discussion in the relevant Committees, which should address the following issues:
(1)
does the column named “Current developments of measures in OSPAR” accurately describe the
ongoing activities which are the most relevant for consideration by Member States while developing
their MSFD programmes of measures? In doing this, Committees should take into consideration and
allocate the existing OSPAR objectives and targets (cf. § 4.8 (1) above) in this table
(2)
further identify, and keep under review, the needs for additional measures to be taken into account
for the programmes of measures in the short- and medium term;
(3)
do you agree with the proposed identification of the Committee which should be involved in the
inventory of existing measures and/or development of additional measures(right-hand column of the
table)?
4.11 CoG also agreed that ICG MSFD should consider further how OSPAR could support reporting by EU
Member States on the coordination concerning the different types of cooperation with joint
documentation.
4.12 The Secretariat also introduced CoG(2) 13/4/Info.3 on the outcome of the OSPAR Socioeconomic
Analysis Workshop highlighting the link between the socioeconomic analysis and the development of
programmes and measures. The workshop had discussed the practical actions that could be undertaken in
the short and medium terms (e.g. from sharing national cost benefit analysis studies to harmonising data
and methodologies to developing a socioeconomic roof report of the next initial assessment). These will be
outlined in the workshop report, which will be presented to EIHA 2014 for further discussion.
Joint documentation on monitoring programmes (MSFD Art. 11)
4.13 The UK and the Secretariat presented a proposal to CoG on how OSPAR could elaborate ‘joint
documentation’ that could be used by OSPAR Contracting Parties / EU Member States in their reporting
under MSFD Art. 11 on monitoring programmes (CoG(2) 13/4/4). The proposal followed from earlier
discussions on this issue in ICG MSFD in June and September. CoG was made aware that the guidance for
Member States’ reporting on monitoring programmes was still being refined under WG DIKE. The proposal
included that OSPAR should proceed with preparing joint documentation consisting of:
a.
general elements on monitoring coordination – which could be considered a ‘roof report’ on
regional coordination of monitoring. The Secretariat explained that a draft report was being
elaborated under the ICG MSFD and would be presented to the next CoG. If agreed, this could
be the third overall OSPAR publication on the MSFD following the road map (2010) and the
‘Finding common ground’ publication (2012);
b.
‘fact sheets’ on monitoring supporting common indicators related to MSFD GES descriptors D5,
D8 and D10. – The UK gave a presentation explaining that the OSPAR ‘fact sheets’ would
contain the (common) OSPAR components of Member States answers to specific questions at
the level of ‘sub-programmes’, starting with the elements on monitoring of parameters that
support the indicators related to MSFD descriptors for which there were agreed OSPAR
monitoring programmes, i.e. D5, D8 and D10. This would require the competent OSPAR groups
to compile the relevant elements of information that would respond to the specific issues
9 of 13
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record CoG(2) 2013
CoG(2) 13/7/1-E
requested in the reporting sheets for ‘sub-programmes’. This was a relatively simple option
that had the benefit of being feasible with existing resources in the relatively short term.
4.14 In discussion, the following points were made:
a.
Germany informed CoG that HELCOM had now agreed to follow a different approach for
documenting the regionally coordinated elements of information on their MSFD-relevant
monitoring, and that Germany, together with other Contracting Parties that were a party to
both Conventions, had a keen interest in ensuring that the documentation approaches of
OSPAR and HELCOM would not diverge and that a practical and structured approach is taken
to provide easily accessible information. Technical experts in HELCOM would discuss and aim
to make progress on reporting of monitoring programmes at a workshop planned for 13-14
January 2014, which would immediately precede the meeting of the WG DIKE Technical Group
that would also aim to finalise guidance on reporting of monitoring programmes, following the
trial of the reporting sheets. Germany proposed that OSPAR should take advantage of the
processes in the EU CIS and HELCOM to achieve an approach that would be more streamlined;
b.
France welcomed the proposal made in CoG(2) 13/4/4 indicating that it remained cautious on
this subject, particularly regarding sub-programmes, as there may be a lot of detailed work
required depending on the approach chosen. The final results of the work under WG DIKE
should be awaited before OSPAR decides on what it can contribute in terms of ‘joint
documentation’ and in what format. France informed the meeting that the work of the
Barcelona Convention was also aiming to make their information on monitoring interoperable;
c.
Denmark supported the German proposal and Portugal stated that it aimed to combine as
much as possible its reporting on monitoring programmes with the reporting on programmes
of measures. Portugal was not sure whether it would be using the ‘fact sheet’ approach for
reporting on monitoring programmes.
4.15 CoG noted that here are differences between the envisaged OSPAR and HELCOM approaches to
regional documentation of Art. 11 reporting. CoG concluded that progress needed to be made in OSPAR
with a view to supporting Contracting Parties being able to easily document the regional coordination of
their monitoring, with a perspective that convergence with other regional sea conventions (in particular
HELCOM) should be considered wherever possible, but also balancing with the interest that Contracting
Parties have in achieving useful results in the relatively short term without incurring significant additional
costs. CoG agreed:
a.
that OSPAR should explore the possibilities for agreeing on a common approach between the
regions. To this end the following practical steps should be taken:
i.
OSPAR should take advantage of two upcoming technical workshops to further explore
common approaches between the regions, namely:

ii.
b.
2
the DIKE TG workshop on 16-17 January 2014 (issue will be accommodated in the
agenda);

the HELCOM workshop on factsheets on 13-14 January 2014 (OSPAR to be
invited);
the technical discussion in the two workshops should seek mid-term options for regional
support for Art. 11 reporting within the reporting cycle until 2020;
that for the short term, and as proposed by the UK, the appropriate OSPAR working groups2
take forward the work to articulate the information on D5, D8 and D10 monitoring (sub-)
programmes in the form of the questions in the WG DIKE reporting sheet as a basis for joint
OSPAR documentation so that answers to the questions reflect what regional coordination
OSPAR is providing in monitoring;
D8: MIME and INPUT; D5: ICG EUT and INPUT; D10: ICG ML
10 of 13
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record CoG(2) 2013
CoG(2) 13/7/1-E
c.
that ICG MSFD should revisit this issue at its next meeting with a view to making progress at
the next CoG meeting, both on ‘roof report’ and on providing documentation at the
appropriate level of sub-programmes.
Common (/candidate) indicators and associated monitoring needs
4.16 The UK presented the outcome of the ICG MSFD consideration of guidance for a coherent further
process on MSFD-related indicators (CoG(2) 13/4/1, Annex 1) which intended to capture the main elements
that all OSPAR experts working on the indicators should use as a basis. It reflected the OSPAR agreement
that CoG, assisted by the ICG MSFD, should ensure that the Committees have sufficient operational
guidance on the use of these indicators for MSFD purposes to maintain the closest possible linkage
between OSPAR and MSFD processes. The proposed guidance started from the OSPAR 2013 agreements,
set out some clarification of roles of different groups and key considerations for the further process. There
was a need also to enhance communication across the group of individuals that played a key role in this
process, so that OSPAR’s work on indicators would deliver robust outcomes. The Chairman expressed CoG’s
interest to continue to engage with this process, and requested that information be updated on the
question whether there were lead countries for all indicators.
4.17 In discussion, the following points were made:
a.
it was queried whether the process in the Committees would now be sufficiently clear, and
whether all agreed (common and priority candidate) indicators had lead countries to take the
work forward. In this regard, CoG was informed that following the most recent meeting of ICG
COBAM, mainly the indicators ‘D1 birds 6’ and ‘D1 Fish/cephalopods 8’ still had no lead
country. For the latter, the UK and Ireland were invited to discuss how to take this indicator
up as it applied (so far) only to Region III. On the former, the next meeting of ICG COBAM
should address this indicator;
b.
CoG reiterated the importance of the sharing of information between Contracting Parties on
existing monitoring, to allow decision makers in OSPAR to gauge the extent to which any to be
adopted indicators could benefit from already on-going monitoring;
c.
CoG noted that the indicators on inputs (under D5 and D8) were not secured of further work
pending discussions (and resourcing of work) in working group INPUT, and that the application
of the ‘D10 litter in Fulmar’ indicator to other regions than the North Sea required information
by Contracting Parties outside the North Sea;
4.18 After discussion and slight amendment, CoG agreed to the guidance on a coherent further process on
MSFD-related indicators as at Annex 5. The updated overview of lead countries for OSPAR Common
Indicators and Candidate Indicators is at Annex 6.
ICG MSFD Forward Work Plan 2014-2017
4.19 Noting that in particular the following items needed to be adjusted [during the amendment stage of
the draft Summary Record of the present meeting] in order to reflect the outcome of the present meeting:
a.
the products relating to ‘programmes of measures’ (in particular products 7 and 8);
b.
the question of joint documentation on programmes of measures (product 6), in particular
from Autumn 2014 onwards when CIS guidance is available;
c.
reflecting the outcome of further initiatives from – in particular – Germany and Sweden
following scoping of opportunities of collaboration with other regional sea conventions, in
particular HELCOM;
CoG agreed the ICG MSFD Forward Work Plan 2014-2017 as at Annex 7, noting that this should be used
flexibly taking account also of the developing MSFD CIS planning at EU level.
11 of 13
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record CoG(2) 2013
CoG(2) 13/7/1-E
Next meeting of ICG MSFD
4.20 CoG thanked Ireland for its willingness to host the next meeting of ICG MSFD in Cork on 7-8 April
2014.
Streamlining of regional MSFD coordination action between neighbouring regional seas
conventions
4.21 On behalf of Sweden and Germany, Germany informed CoG of the results of an informal meeting
held at their initiative that explored the options for taking forward the streamlining of activities and the
improvement of coordination between OSPAR, HELCOM and the EU level in MSFD work strands (CoG(2)
13/4/Info.1). The meeting had looked at the substance, structures and procedures within the MSFD
implementation triangle of CPs / RSCs / EU CIS. Initial ideas for specific coordinated activities had been
identified, and CoG was invited to discuss how best such cooperation with HELCOM in the MSFD context
could be taken forward.
4.22 In discussion, the following points were made:
a.
several Contracting Parties indicated that they were willing to consider concrete proposals for
cooperation and coordination in a pragmatic way. Common new challenges were probably
easier to address than older issues for which both Conventions had already adopted practices
and procedures; the practicalities and resource implications for coordinated activity needed to
be given consideration in planning to ensure that it was possible and of interest for OSPAR
Contracting Parties to proceed in that direction;
b.
Contracting Parties that are party to two Conventions (OSPAR-HELCOM, OSPAR-Barcelona
Convention) are in the best position to inform and lead discussion in OSPAR groups on what
could be done to streamline activities: CoG counted on these Contracting Parties to take a lead
role in such discussions.
4.23 After discussion, CoG agreed to invite Sweden and Germany to continue this process, through
interaction with the relevant OSPAR Committees, and to discuss this further at the next meeting on the
basis of a proposal from the next meeting of ICG MSFD.
Development of the OSPAR Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter
4.24 Germany presented a brief update from the recent OSPAR workshop it hosted on marine litter in
Hamburg, 6-7 November (CoG 13/3/4 info 2). The workshop followed OSPAR 2013 agreement that a
Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter should be developed by 2014.
4.25 The workshop described was based on parts of the issue paper developed for the earlier Berlin
Marine Litter Conference and a new questionnaire on marine litter and potential measures and targets.
The workshop was attended by 52 participants, including stakeholders, and discussed land based sources,
sea-based sources and smarter production. The output of the workshop was to be a zero draft of an OSPAR
Action Plan on Marine Litter. This draft, following comments from Contracting Parties, would be considered
at a second workshop, to be held in the Netherlands in February 2014. A final draft Action Plan would be
delivered to EIHA 2014.
4.26 CoG welcomed the issue paper, offering further written comment in due course. Some of the issues
raised could be integrated into science needs as well as discussions on indicators and on programmes of
measures. It was underlined that the link between technical and policy work needed to be maintained
throughout the process. The European Union described its continuing process to develop a non-legislative
EU ‘headline target’ on marine litter, reminding Contracting Parties of its ongoing public consultation on
this. The European Commission also reminded other Contracting Parties of the EU Beach Clean day on 10th
May.
12 of 13
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record CoG(2) 2013
CoG(2) 13/7/1-E
Agenda Item 5 – Cross-cutting and coordination issues
OSPAR Data and Information Management Strategy (ODIMS)
5.1 Following the endorsement by OSPAR 2013 of a new OSPAR data and information management
strategy (ODIMS), the Secretariat presented an update of progress that has been made (CoG (2) 13/5/1).
The Secretariat also informed the meeting of major data management projects that are underway
concerning development of the OSPAR MPA database and the RID database, expected to deliver in
February and March 2014 respectively.
5.2 The Secretariat highlighted that Phase 7 of the Strategy was at a critical stage – the build of the ODIM
System. A draft call to tender had been prepared by the Secretariat and input invited from the Information
System Task Force. To date only very few comments have been received and Contracting Parties invited to,
where possible urge their nominated technical experts to assist the Secretariat finalise this document so
that it can be issued before the end of 2013.
5.3 CoG noted the update. France indicated that they wished to make a nomination to the Information
System Task Group and provided the Secretariat with two names. A further report of progress will be made
to CoG 2014.
UN Framework
5.4 The Secretariat updated Contracting Parties on issues related to OSPAR’s relationships with other
international organisations.
5.5 Cooperation with the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine: The Executive
Secretary outlined that the Rhine Commission was keen on cooperation with OSPAR, but under the basis of
existing arrangements, rather than something more formal such as an MoU. CoG endorsed this approach,
looking to further development of cooperation on hazardous substances and eutrophication, litter, invasive
species and migratory fish. COG also underlined the links between the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive and the Water Framework Directive that could impel such cooperation.
5.6 CoG noted the Executive Secretary report on his attendance at the 15th global meeting of Regional
Seas Conventions, including alignment with the the UNEP Regional Seas Strategic Directions (2013-2016).
5.7 The Executive Secretary reminded CoG of the recently signed MoU with the Abidjan Convention. CoG
was content that, subject resource constraints, the Secretariat would try to look sympathetically to
occasions where injections of OSPAR experience are requested to benefit specific processes in the Abidjan
Convention. An example could be where Abidjan is developing regulation of offshore discharges.
5.8 CoG also indicated it would be content for the Secretariat to continue to explore the potential for
OSPAR and NEAFC to work together (with potential funding from by Norway) to develop 4 way
cooperation with their sister regional fisheries and environment organisations in West Africa. Further
discussion would be needed should any proposal became clearer.
Agenda Item 6 – Any other business
6.1
There was no other business.
Agenda Item 7 – Adoption of the Summary Record
7.1
The Summary Record of the meeting was adopted in a written procedure.
13 of 13
OSPAR Commission
Summary Record CoG(2) 2013
CoG(2) 13/7/1-E