NSAC Spatial Planning Working GroupTues, 11th November 2014, 9.30 – 12noon

Martin’s Brussels EU Hotel, Boulevard Charlemagne 80, Brussels

SPWG Brussels 11 Nov 2014

Agenda

1) Approve report of last meeting (10 March)2) Actions arising from last meeting (LD)3) Dogger Bank update (ED)4) Engaging with MSFD5) Future planning for SPWG

- Other key emerging topics- Issues within different Member States

- Improving NSAC links with DG Env6) AOB 7) Date & place of next meeting

SPWG Brussels 11 Nov 2014

Agenda

1) Approve report of last meeting (10 March)2) Actions arising from last meeting (LD)3) Dogger Bank update (ED)4) Engaging with MSFD5) Future planning for SPWG

- Other key emerging topics- Issues within different Member States

- Improving NSAC links with DG Env6) AOB 7) Date & place of next meeting

Progress of actions from SPWG 10 March 2014Action Responsibility Progress

Provide weblink to planning website detailing which organisations have responded to ‘statement of common ground’ [with Forewind]

Sophie Barrell (Forewind)

Requested but not provided

Any information to input to 3D simulator to be passed to Forewind. Henrik Lund to provide info on bottom structures

All / HL Progressed by individuals

Approach ExCom chair regarding presentation [on MSFD D3] by Gerjan Piet at next ExCom

LD GP not available – possibility for future ExCom

Agree what we will do about seafloor integrity for MSFD and report back to next ExCom

ED, PV Update required to be discussed during meeting

Draft code of conduct for organisations wishing to formally consult with NSAC

ED, LD Update required

Dogger Bank update (Nov 2014)

Timeline as of 3 Sep (DBSG)

Delays

• 23 Oct: DBSG drafting gp met, expected to have Member State approval of draft joint recommendation towards end Oct

• Plan was to then circulate to ‘third states’ (Scheveningen Gp) and NSAC for consultation (as per CFP Art 18, para 2)

• 3 Nov: DBSG (webex discussion): Member States unable to proceed because of (inter alia) seining issue: GER and NL want ban on seining in Dogger Bank, DK and UK resist

• Ton IJlstra to arrange meeting with directors-general to address seines issue

• So no joint recommendation expected ‘in the short term’ – at best no NSAC consultation likely before December.

Issues 1) ED has emailed Ton IJlstra to request :-• Being kept updated on timeline• Clarity on terms of consultation• Clarity on participation and scope of meeting

originally scheduled for Brussels in December 2) Agree procedure for NSAC response to DBSG

consultation (if SPWG cannot be convened)3) Other issues/questions?

NSAC engagement with MSFD

Reminder of elements/timelines of MSFD strategy required of each Member State for their marine waters:

• Monitoring programme (by 14 July 2014)• Programme of cost-effective measures to achieve or

maintain GES- submit by December 2015- operational by end of 2016

NSAC engagement with MSFD

Other developments in 2014: • Comm Staff Working Doc 2014 showed that few MSs had

adequate definitions for descriptors , with enormous variation in content and level of detail

• DG Env therefore instigated process to facilitate implementation of the MSFD by national Marine Directors

• DG Env invited ICES to review the 2010 Commission Decision (2010/477/EC) on criteria and methodological standards of GES on fisheries (D3), foodwebs (D4), seafloor integrity (D6) and introduced energy (noise) (D11)

Strong linkage with new CFP

• CFP requires Member States to ensure that: ‘impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised’.

• Unprecedented attention drawn (Article 2.5(j)) to the need for the CFP to be ‘coherent with the Union environmental legislation’, and especially with the objective of achieving good environmental status by 2020 under the MSFD.

NSAC engagement with MSFD

Previous NSAC discussion • MSFD focus gp (Ijmuiden, 12 Feb) suggested to address (a)

D3 (through Demersal WG), (b) seafloor integrity (through SPWG)

• ExCom (London, 25 Feb) was invited to consider hosting a meeting of North Sea Member States to discuss the development of their monitoring programmes (ExCom agreed that any such meeting must have clear objectives and outcomes)

D6 (current Commission decision)

• Criterion 6.1: Physical damage, having regard to substrate characteristics

Indicator 6.1.1 - type, abundance and areal extent of relevant biogenic substrate

Indicator 6.1.2 – extent of the seabed significantly affected by human activities for the different substrate types

D6 (current Commission decision)

• Criterion 6.2: Condition of benthic communityIndicator 6.2.1 – presence of particularly sensitive and/or tolerant species

Indicator 6.2.2 – multi-metric indexes assessing benthic community condition and functionality, such as species diversity and richness, proportion of opportunistic to sensitive species

Indicator 6.2.3 – proportion of biomass or number of individuals in the macrobenthos above some specified length/size

Indicator 6.2.4 – parameters describing the characteristics (shape, slope and intercept) of the size spectrum of the benthic community

So what might SPWG do?

• Define what effective implementation of D6 looks like (i.e. to comply with GES, CFP and integrate with other MSFD descriptors, especially D1 and D3)

• Evaluate the approach of different North Sea member states to D6 measures, nationally and in regional cooperation

• Commission an external assessment? • Advice to Scheveningen Gp and Commission

(especially DG Env)• Roles, responsibilities, timeline, capacity, resources