Mapping and preliminary analysis of policy needs for evidence

Transcription

1 CSA OCE*» S JPI Oceans support action SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME Mapping and preliminary analysis of policy needs for evidence WP 5 - Deliverable 5.1

2 Project full title: CSA Healthy and Productive Seas and Oceans Website: Grant agreement no.: SCS2-GA CSA Oceans Project start date: 1st September 2012 Duration: 36 months Funding scheme: SP1 -Cooperation; Coordination and support action; Support actions FP7-SST-2012-RTD-1 Deliverable number: 5.1 Deliverable name: Mapping and preliminary analysis of policy needs for evidence WP no: 5 Delivery date: Month 20 (Feb 2014) Lead Beneficiary: NERC Authors: Tom Redd (NERC), Jacky Wood (NERC), Jo Foden (CEFAS), David Mills (CEFAS), Wendy Bonne (JPI Oceans Secretariat) Nature: R = Report Dissemination Level: PU = Public Cover images: Beach Combouzas en A rteixo Flickr - jl.cernades Jellyfish m acro Flickr - M r. Physics A t play., dolphins and bow wave Flickr- OneEighteen Tourism Boracay Flickr- Daniel Y Go LED light on photobioreactor fo r algae cultivation Ifrem e r - M ichel Gouillou

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IN T R O D U C T IO N Background Objectives o f Deliverable W O RK PACKAGE M E T H O D O L O G Y N ational funding agencies q ue stion naire Stakeholder w o rkshops O nline open c o n s u lta tio n Desk-based re se a rch M AR IN E POLICIES M O ST RELEVANT TO JPI O C EANS Integrated m aritim e p o licy... 8 Progress...8 Stakeholder Responses Policy fo r M arine E nvironm ent P ro te c tio n...11 The D evelopm ent o f a Directive and th e link to science M arine Strategy Fram ew ork D ire c tiv e Progress Regional cooperation fo r M SFD...20 Stakeholder responses W a te r fra m e w o rk d ire c tiv e WFD in te r-c a lib ra tio n Driver fo r jo in t assessment on regional b a sis...27 Joint assessment is obligatory in WFD, MSFD and CFP Com m on fisheries p o lic y CFP Process CFP R e fo rm...33 Stakeholder Responses

4 3.4 M a ritim e spatial planning and integrated coastal zone m a n a g e m e n t Stakeholder Responses Blue G ro w th Stakeholder Responses THE SCIENCE - POLICY IN TE R FAC E Research...42 W h a t do w e mean by p o licy? Increasing size and com plexity o f policies C om m unication o f uncertainties and ris k Stakeholder engagem ent in th e M arine and M a ritim e Sector at EU le v e l Stakeholder responses on Science-Policy In te rfa ces CONCLUDING R E M A R K S A N N E X E S Annex I - Policies p e rtin e n t to JPI Oceans in te re s ts Annex II - Policy reference sh e e ts Annex III - Science to policy m echanism s...69 Annex IV - Relevant science- policy strategies, docum ents and p ro je c ts...70 Annex V - N ational Funding Agencies Q uestionnaire Form F REFERENCES

5 E INTRODUCTION JPI Oceans is a coordination and integrating process open to all EU M em ber States and Associated Countries w ho invest in m arine and m aritim e research. By bringing to g e th e r th e interested M em ber States and Associated C ountries JPI Oceans aims to : 1. Enable th e advent o f a know ledge based m aritim e econom y, m axim ising its value in a sustainable w ay; 2. Ensure Good Environm ental Status o f th e seas and optim ise planning o f activities in the m arine space; 3. O ptim ise th e response to clim ate change and m itig ate hum an im pacts on th e m arine environm ent. This re p o rt uses th e input fro m a series o f stakeholder consultations to provide an insight into how d iffe re n t groups view specific policies and th e science to policy process in general. An o utline o f the d iffe re n t consultations and in fo rm a tio n on how th e y w ere conducted are fo u n d in section 2. The main co n te n t o f this re p o rt is divided into tw o sections: Section 3 investigates specific policies p e rtin e n t to th e interests o f JPI Oceans and Section 4 discusses th e general science to policy process (see section 1.2). In addition to th e main discussions, this re p o rt contains extensive annexes w hich are presented as factsheets to provide in fo rm a tio n on th e d iffe re n t policies discussed. 1.1 BACKGROUND During th e p re lim inary phase o f JPI Oceans initia tive, a com m on Vision "JPI Oceans visionm<i) was developed by th e p articipating M em ber States o utlinin g th e long-term goals and objectives o f JPI Oceans. One o f JPI Oceans' stated goals fro m th e outse t was to im prove th e exchange o f know ledge betw een policy-m akers and scientists in th e m arine and m aritim e sphere. To ensure policy decisions are m ade using th e best available scientific evidence, th e research co m m unity needs to be inform ed and understand th e requirem ents o f policy-m akers. Policy-m akers and th e ir scientific advisers also need to be able to e fficie n tly access and in te rp re t a w ide range o f scientific in fo rm a tio n to understand its im plications and p ote ntia l applications. JPI Oceans could help to strengthen the science-policy interface by developing b e tte r ways o f understanding and addressing th e specific needs o f scientists and policy-m akers. 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF DELIVERABLE 5.1 This CSA deliverable aims to provide tw o m ain outcom es. It w ill provide a state o f play o f d iffe re n t m arine and m aritim e policies p e rtin e n t to JPI Oceans and id e n tify th e requirem ents, as stated by stakeholders, to fu lfil th e ir objectives. The deliverable also aims to id e n tify exam ples o f science to policy mechanisms w hich stakeholders view as p articularly effective; th e outcom e w ill be used in th e 4

6 fu tu re to make recom m endations on how existing m echanisms can take advantage o f new approaches. A key aspect o f th e w ork package is to develop options to im prove knowledge tra n sfe r betw een science and policy to ensure curre n t knowledge can be used to inform policy m aking and to ensure th a t policy needs are considered in th e d evelopm ent o f science program m es. This deliverable reports on th e m apping exercise conducted by CSA Oceans and aims to deliver a com pendium o f inform a tion to su pport th e science-policy interface d evelopm ent o f JPI Oceans. 2. WORK PACKAGE METHODOLOGY The CSA p roject was set up as a group o f separate b ut closely integrated w o rk packages, each addressing a d iffe re n t aspect o f interest fo r JPI Oceans. The CSA is designed to underpin th e d evelopm ent o f th e Strategic Research and Innovation agenda. Initial identifica tion o f th e evidence needs highlighted th a t in th e firs t phase a com m on approach to stakeholders across th e w ork packages w ould be preferable to avoid m u ltip le contacts and stakeholder fatigue. To this end the consortium m em bers w orked to g e th e r to id e n tify th e key stakeholders at national, regional, European and international levels and th re e separate stakeholder consultation exercises w ere designed and undertaken to fu lfil th e requirem ents o f several w o rk packages. These exercises w ere: N ational fu nding agencies questionnaire; S takeholder w orkshops; O nline open consultation. Desk-based research fo llo w e d to exam ine th e responses to th e th re e exercises and provide the results o f fu rth e r research. 2.1 N A TIO N A L FU NDIN G AGENCIES Q U ESTIO N N AIR E This questionnaire was developed collectively in th e CSA consortium and sent to M em ber States and Associated Countries. It comprises o f 89 questions in six sections relating to d iffe re n t aspects o f th e JPi's interests. The questionnaire was sent on 31 M ay 2013 to national fu nding agencies. By February 2014, 10 m em be r countries had responded, show n in Table 1. Table 1: Respondents to the national funding agencies questionnaire Belgium Belgium Belgium Denmark Belgian Science Policy Office w w w.belsoo.be Fund fo r Scientific Research w w w.frs-fn rs.be Flanders M arine In stitu te h tto ://w w w.vliz.b e /e n / Danish Council fo r Strategic Research fivu.dk/en/re se arch-and- Final 11/1 0/20 13 Partial response 11/1 0/20 13 Draft 11/10/2013 Final 0 2/1 2/2013 5

7 Estonia Finland Ireland Italy Lithuania Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Turkey UK innovation/councils-andco m m issions/the-danish-council-forstrategic-research M in istry o f th e Environm ent w w w.envir.e e Academ y o f Finland h tto ://w w w.a ka.fi/e n -G B /A / M arine In stitu te w w w.m a rin e.ie N ational Research Council o f Italy w w w.c n r.it Research Council o f Lithuania w w w.lm t.lt Netherlands O rganisation fo r Scientific Research (NWO) w w w.n w o.n l/e n The Research Council o f Norway w w w.forskningsradet.no N ational Science Centre w w w.ncn.gov.ol N ational Centre fo r Research and D evelopm ent w w w.ncb ir.o l Foundation fo r Science and Technology w w w.fc t.o t M in istry o f National Education h tto ://w w w. research, e d u.ro / The Scientific and Technological Research Council o f Turkey w w w.tu bitak.gov.tr N ational Environm ental Research Council w w w.nerc.ac.uk Final 11/0 9/20 13 N ot final version 19/09/2013 Final 10/1 0/20 13 Final 2 5/11/2013 Final 2 5/11/2013 Final 19/1 2/20 13 Form F only 12/1 1/20 13 Final 2 4/07/2013 Final 2 3/09/2013 Final 12/0 8/20 13 Final 16/0 9/20 13 Final (N ot official) 0 5/0 2 / STAKEHOLDER W O RKSHOPS CSA Oceans hosted a series o f w orkshops in Some 150 stakeholders w ere in itia lly identifie d and these w ere grouped and invited to six workshops in June 2013 relating to th e ir d iffe re n t stakeholder groupings. Over 50 stakeholders to o k part in th e workshops. The participants w ere asked to com plete a pre-w orkshop questionnaire and w ere th e n encouraged to elaborate th e ir responses th ro ugh th e online open consultation. Some stakeholder organisations th a t w ere n ot able to particip a te on th e day provided w ritte n inputs. W o rk Package 5 planned th e w orkshop "U N -International Organisations, Policy and Regional C onventions" specifically to look at science to policy m echanisms. Since th e discussions are p articula rly relevant to this report, th e a ttending organisations are provided in Table 2. The attendees to th e o th e r w orkshops can be fo und on th e JPI Oceans' w ebsite. 6

8 Table 2: Organisations represented at the "UN-International Organisations, and Regional Conventions" workshop United Nations Environm ent Program m e (UNEP) h ttp ://w w w.u n e p.o rg / The Commission on th e P rotection o f th e Black Sea h ttp ://w w w.b la cksea-co m m issio n.o rg / Against Pollution In te rn atio na l Hydrographic O rganisation (IHO) h ttp ://w w w.ih o.in t/s rv l/ Partnership fo r O bservation o f th e Global Oceans h ttp ://w w w.o c e a n -p a rtn e rs.o rg / (POGO) OSPAR Commission h ttp ://w w w.o s p a r.o rg / Intergovernm ental Oceanographic Com m ission (IOC) o f h ttp ://io c -u n e s c o.o rg / UNESCO The Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) h ttp ://w w w.io c -g o o s.o rg / Global Clim ate Observing System (GCOS) h ttp ://w w w.w m o.in t/p a g e s /p ro g /g c o s /in dex.php GEOHAB (Global Ecology and Oceanography o f Harm ful h ttp ://w w w.g e o h a b.in fo / Algal Blooms) 2.3 ONLINE OPEN CO N SU LTATIO N The online open consultation allow ed individuals and stakeholders fro m th e m arine and m aritim e com m unity to respond to a detailed questionnaire regarding th e ir views on th e priorities and agenda fo r JPI Oceans. In to ta l 49 stakeholders responded to th e online questionnaire and up to 33 answered questions relating to th e science-policy section. The co n te n t o f th e questionnaire can be fo un d on th e JPI Oceans w ebsite w w w.ipi-oceans.eu. 2.4 DESK-BASED RESEARCH To fu lfil th e objectives o f this deliverable, this re p o rt also includes th e results fro m substantial desk based research. W hile th e consultation procedure has provided valuable inform a tion, it is also useful to com p lim ent th e findings w ith a certain level o f desk-based research and experience-based input. 3. M ARINE POLICIES MOST RELEVANT TO JPI OCEANS The JPI Oceans is expected to co n trib u te strongly to th e EU2020-objectives by helping th e EU Integrated M aritim e Policy (IMP) to m axim ise th e value o f th e m a ritim e econom y and secure the good e nviro n m e nt status o f European seas th rough th e M arine Strategy Fram ework Directive (MSFD). The IMP and th e MSFD call upon a strong science base to support th e ir objectives, w hich is echoed in th e EU M arine and M a ritim e Research Strategy. JPI Oceans can help to provide this know ledge base, in particular to help support th e im p lem enta tion o f th e MSFD and IMP by fostering concerted dialogue betw een th e scientific co m m u n ity and m a ritim e policy-m akers as w ell as

9 m anagem ent auth orities as indicated in th e C om m unication on an Integrated M a ritim e Policy fo r the European Union*2. This chapter sets o u t th e state o f developm ent o f each o f th e key European M arine and M a ritim e policies. It is intended th a t these pages could fo rm th e basis fo r th e 'policy reference' fo r JPI oceans and m ight subsequently be developed into a w eb based know ledge bank resource fo r th e JPI Oceans com m unity. Further w o rk to id e n tify 'know ledge gaps' is anticipated as p art o f deliverable 5.2 o f this w o rk package. 3.1 INTEGRATED M A R IT IM E POLICY Since its creation in 2007, th e IMP has sought to enhance th e sustainable d evelopm ent o f the European m aritim e econom y and to b e tte r p ro te ct th e m arine e nviro n m e nt by fa cilita tin g th e cooperation o f all m a ritim e stakeholders across sectors and borders*3. PROGRESS The European Commission has published a progress re p o rt on th e IMP, five years a fte r its inception. Since 2007 th e econom ic clim ate has radically changed. W ith th e Europe 2020 strategy, th e EU is seeking to get th e European econom y back on track to deliver em ploym ent, com petitiveness and social cohesion. Since 2009, th e EU has launched key initiatives in all policy areas related to th e seas in o rd er to strengthen Europe's com petitiveness. The progress re p o rt highlighted several relevant reports and program m es associated w ith th e IMP including: The contribution of the maritime economy to growth and employment Blue G row th: O p portunities fo r m arine and m aritim e sustainable g row th. M a ritim e Transport: W h ite Paper fo r Transport, European m aritim e tra n sp o rt space w ith o u t barriers, new guidelines fo r Trans-European N etworks. Energy: Strategic Energy Technology Plan, In te lligent Energy program m e, In te ro p e ra b ility o f trans-european energy netw orks. Shipbuilding: LeaderSHIP, Fram ew ork on State Aid to Shipbuilding Fisheries a nd aquacu lture : Reform o f th e Com m on Fisheries Policy, European M aritim e and Fisheries Fund Cooperation across sectors and borders to ensure optimum growth conditions for the maritime economy M axim ising the sustainable deploym ent o f activities on coasts and a t sea: M a ritim e Spatial Planning (MSP), Integrated Coastal Zone M anagem ent (ICZM), ICZM Protocol to th e Barcelona C onvention. P rotecting European citizens and m a ritim e industries against sea-related threats: Com m on In fo rm atio n Sharing E nvironm ent (CISE), Third M a ritim e Safety Package, European Border Surveillance System. M a ritim e em ploym ent and career m o b ility: Task fo rce on M a ritim e Em ploym ent and Com petitiveness, Agenda fo r new skills and jobs and Youth on th e move. 8

10 Research, knowledge and end-users: bridging the gap between research and industry Ensuring European m a ritim e leadership through innova tion and research: EC com m unication on an EU Strategy fo r m arine and m a ritim e research, th e FP7 Ocean o f T om o rrow calls, specific projects such as MARCOM+ fo ru m and EMAR2RES Sharing m arine know ledge to fa c ilita te innovation, investm ent and sound policy-m aking: European M arine O bservation and Data N etw o rk (EM ODnet) The territorial benefits of maritime policy Regional policy: Regional Policy co n trib u tin g to sm art g ro w th in Europe Sea basin strategies: EU strategy fo r th e Baltic Sea Region, M a ritim e Strategy fo r th e A tlantic, M a ritim e governance in th e M editerranean, A driatic and Ionian Seas. Protecting marine ecosystems a condition and factor for growth The challenge o f h e a lthy m arine ecosystems: o M arine Strategy Fram ework Directive (MFSD) 2008/56/EC o W a te r Fram ew ork Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC o Flabitats (92/83/EEC) and Birds' Directives (2009/147/EC) - Natura 2000 N etw ork o Com m on Fishery Policy o Guidelines on th e Im ple m e ntatio n o f th e Birds and Flabitats Directives in Estuaries and Coastal Zones o Integrated P ollution Prevention and C ontrol D irective (IPPC D irective) 2008/1/EC o EIA/SEA Directives 2011/92/E U and 2001/42/EC o Directive on Port State C ontrol 2009/16/EC o Directive on w aste reception fa cilities in EU ports 2000/59/EC o International C onvention fo r th e Prevention o f P ollution fro m Ships (MARPOL) o Inte rn atio na l C onvention on Oil P ollution Preparedness, Response and Coo pe ra tion (OPRC C onvention) and its OPRC-HNS p ro toco l to p o llu tio n incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances A d apta tion to and m itig a tio n o f clim ate change: European Clim ate A daptation Platform Addressing a ir p o llu tio n fo rm ships: Directive 1999/32/EC- relating to a reduction in the sulphur co n te n t o f certain liquid fuels and am ending Directive 93/12/EEC Better management of maritime affairs Developm ents in M em ber States: M em ber States are increasingly applying coordinated approaches fo r th e developm ent o f th e ir m a ritim e econom y, th ro ugh national strategies, such as in France, Portugal o r Germ any, o r th ro u g h specific initiatives, such as th e M arine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and its Scottish equivalent in th e UK, th e Danish M a ritim e Strategy o r th e Irish science strategy. Developm ents a t EU level: European Parliam ent and Council Regulation establishing a Program m e to su pport th e fu rth e r d evelopm ent o f an EU IMP Developm ents a t in te rn a tio n a l level: EU has pushed fo r m ore am b itio n in th e Resolutions on Oceans and th e Law o f th e Sea and on Sustainable Fisheries Awareness and visibility o f m a ritim e Europe: Eurostat, M a ritim e Forum or th e Atlas o f the Sea

11 STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES Research requirements In each o f th e stakeholder engagem ent activities, participants w ere asked to sum m arise th e research req uirem en ts needed in ord er to create an IMP. National Funding Agencies Romania sees th e need fo r a coherent pan-european policy o f d evelopm ent fo r e nvironm entally frie n d ly econom ic activities. Romania suggests th e need fo r dedicated program s to increase cooperation betw een m ajor elem ents o f th e m aritim e econom y including R&D organisations, stakeholders and companies. Ireland called fo r m ore support fo r p ilo t M a ritim e Spatial Planning initia tives w hich w ould include m ulti-use o f m a ritim e space (e.g. aquaculture and m arine renewable energy infrastructures) and related Environm ental Im pact Assessments. Stakeholder Workshops In a pre-w orkshop questionnaire fo r th e U N -International Organisations, Policy and Regional Conventions w orkshop, respondents gave several d iffe re n t requirem ents to fu lfil th e objectives o f an IMP. The International M a ritim e O rganisation (IMO) reported th a t th e re is a lack o f investm ent in ocean research and new technologies. The BONUS1 response suggested th a t education systems are n o t designed fo r integration o f m aritim e activities. The response stated th a t university education in m arine and m aritim e fields is to o scattered, n ot problem oriented and is confined to uni-disciplinary fields. It was suggested th a t sum m er schools and professor w orkshops could help align a curriculum to w ards interdisciplinary studies w hich include m anagem ent aspects. MARTEC II2 considered th a t a long te rm m a ritim e policy can only be developed by relatively independent researchers or organisations and th a t young and experienced researchers could be involved in discussions o f fu tu re needs. During th e w orkshop, th e European A quaculture Technology and Innovation Platform (EATip) representative suggested th a t it w ould be useful to have a map o f actual m a ritim e clusters and th a t it is im p o rta n t to make infrastructures accessible to industry. This could lead to m ore cooperation in developing m on itoring infrastructure. 1 BONUS integrates the Baltic Sea system research into a durable, cooperative, interdisciplinary and focused multinational programme in support of the regions sustainable development 2 The objective of ERA-Net MARTEC II is to strengthen the European Research Area in waterborne research by coordinating and developing synergies between national and regional maritime research programmes and policies. 10

12 Coordinated m onitoring National Funding Agencies The response fro m Portugal called fo r integrated m aritim e in fo rm a tio n and com m unication technologies. They suggested th a t th e re is a need fo r stream lined in fo rm a tio n sharing betw een m arine m onitoring, m aritim e surveillance and Earth observation systems, im proving m aritim e com m unications and supporting in-situ and rem ote sensing, and decision making, as w ell as robotics. They also called fo r m ethodologies to analyse cum ulative im pacts and th e relationship betw een pressures and environm ental indicators. A t a regional sea basin level, th e Irish response suggested th a t synergies betw een N ational Programmes, such as th e Integrated M arine Plan fo r Ireland: Harnessing Our Ocean W ealth, need to be identified. They suggested th a t th e re needs to be jo in t fu nding betw een M em be r States in areas o f m utual interest w hich require a regional / pan-european approach. Stakeholder Workshops The representative fro m BONUS argued th a t m onitoring is largely uncoordinated betw een various sectors like environm ent, energy, fisheries, m ining, and defence. It was suggested th a t th e coordinated d evelopm ent o f a fle e t o f m ulti-purp ose European Regional research ships w ould be useful. The response fro m MARTEC II suggested th a t databases on national and regional level are o fte n closed and th a t th e y should be m ore centralised and include also national inform a tion. C om m unity Research and D evelopm ent In fo rm atio n Service (Cordis) was suggested as an exam ple of a centralised database, but th e respondent suggested th a t it was n o t e fficie n t in th e science/policy context. The response fro m European Dredging Association (EuDA)-WATERBORNE agreed th a t m o n ito rin g data should be shared. To aide this goal, th e ARIEMA/ European Fisheries Technology Platform (EFTP) representative suggested th a t m o n ito rin g regulations should be harm onised. 3.2 POLICY FOR M A R IN E E N V IR O N M E N T PROTECTION European and international dimensions to policy-making M uch environm ental policy originates at th e European and international level. In Europe, new environm ental legislation is generally proposed by th e EC, th en scrutinised and decided upon by th e Council o f th e European Union and th e European Parliam ent. The M em ber States G overnm ents and parliam ents have o p p o rtu n itie s to scrutinise EU legislation as it is being developed by th e European Com mission, this is inform ed by scientific opinion w ith in those countries. EU Directives and Regulations The main fo rm s o f EU law are directives and regulations. Directives establish a com m on aim fo r all m em ber states, b ut each state decides fo r itse lf how to transpose th e directive into national law. Each directive specifies th e date by w hich th e national laws m ust be adapted - giving national a u th o ritie s fle x ib ility w ith in th e deadlines necessary to take into account th e unique national 11

13 Situation. Directives may concern one or m ore M em ber States, o r all o f th em. Regulations are d ire ctly applicable th ro u g h o u t th e EU as soon as th e y com e into force w ith o u t fu rth e r action by th e M em be r State. Regulations have binding legal force on a par w ith national laws. M uch o f th e existing European environm ental legislation takes into account th e need to m inim ise transboundary environm ental effects. MSFD and related m arine science-policy interfaces could draw on th e approaches and lessons learnt by such com m unities. THE DEVELO PM ENT OF A DIRECTIVE A N D THE LINK TO SCIENCE The open framework of Directives Concerning environm ental p ro tectio n, a long tra d itio n o f European C om m unity legislation has existed since th e seventies, usually expressed in Directives. A d irective is binding in th e result to be achieved, b ut shall leave to th e national a u th o rity th e choice o f fo rm and m ethods. Directives norm ally leave m em ber states w ith a certain am ount o f leeway as to th e exact rules to be adopted. Fram ew ork Directives set up a fra m e w o rk in th e sense th a t this prescribes steps to reach th e com m on goal rath er th an adopting th e m ore tra d itio n a l lim it value approach. Only a fe w Fram ework Directives exist, th e 1st being th e W aste Fram ework D irective in 1975, concerning e nvironm ental p ro tectio n fo llo w e d by th e WFD in 2000 and th e MSFD in The la tte r tw o concern m arine w aters. There are several o p p o rtu n itie s fo r scientific in p u t in these policy processes, n ot only during th e developm ent and negotiation o f a (Fram ework) Directive, b ut also during th e im p lem enta tion phase. The science-policy cycle does n ot stop w ith th e a doption o f a (Fram ework) Directive. During th e im p lem enta tion a vast o p p o rtu n ity and necessity exists to let science feed into th e policy im p lem enta tion. During the development of a (Framework) Directive before adoption The te x t o f a d ra ft directive is prepared by th e European Commission a fte r consultation w ith its own and national experts and scientists. The d ra ft is presented to and negotiated w ith th e Council, composed o f relevant m inisters o f m em ber governm ents, and th e European Parliam ent, in itia lly fo r evaluation and com m ent, th en subsequently fo r approval o r rejection. During this negotiation process, Commission a n d /o r M em ber States m ay also continue to consult scientists. During the implementation of a (Framework) Directive after adoption The im p lem enta tion o f th e WFD and MSFD is organised th ro ugh a Com m on Im ple m e ntatio n Strategy (CIS), shown in Figures 2 and 3. The aim o f th e CIS process is to allow, as fa r as possible, a coherent and harm onious im p lem enta tion o f th e WFD and MSFD w ith in th e EU<4). In th e CIS th re e governance levels can be distinguished w ith decreasing legal or fo rm a l pow er: th e C om itology C om m ittee, the Strategic C oordination Group and technical w orking groups. Scientific advice and projects are needed o r fo llo w e d up at some o f these d iffe re n t levels during th e im p lem en ta tion o f a Directive: in th e Strategic C oordination Groups, th e Project C oordination Group (for th e MSFD) and in some o f th e technical w orking groups o f th e Com m on Im plem entation Strategy. 12

14 CIS O rganisation Prep-SCG >.. Scunce-Pollcy in tirto c«octrvfty L M d : C O M. F R W ater Directors Stwmng of mplamantabon pracist Char Presidency. Co-ch«r Cûmnwraon I \ Strategic Co-ordination Group Art 21,.*r Co*dfdtnthon of wdrit programme ( * * Char Cotnrr* : non and MSflbc) COfTW Im to C Working Group Eco*tat~ Load: COM O i. OK W orking Group E-fíow»" Load COM. ES FR W ort mg Group Programma» of moasuro» LoadiCOMNTT.EL Wo»» log Group Flood»" Load: COM IE. 6E VttMkkliJ «.imp» -fl.la.mí«! h iliu m.lic it Staring l».ul: C "M F I A. Df W ort mg Group 'G roundw atar' Load: COMAT. UK Working Group C Komi cat» Laad COM. CT. RO W o tting Group Agnculturo" Load: COM UK W orking Group Econom ics* Load: COM. FR. UK Water Status Cluster Water Management Cluster Knowledge Integration and Dissemination Cluster Figure2: Common Implementation Strategy fo r the WFD MSFD Common Implementation Strategy Organisational structure and beyond Marine Directors RSCs (BARCON. OSRAR, HELCOM, BSC) Project coordination öroup (PCG) Measures, Ltonomic & Social Analysis ( ESA) Data, Inloft Knowledge L«rh jng e D IK L ) Assessment & Monitoring (G S) 1 TCS (Noise, Utter, Marine Data) Workshops, combi Figure 3: MSFD Common Implementation Strategy (MSCG = Marine Strategy Coordination Group, TG = Task Group, CC4GES = Competence Centre for Good Environmental Status) 13

15 How policy im p lem enta tion decisions in this CIS can and should also be based on scientific in p u t is explained as follow s. 1. The Committee procedure (closed m eetings w ith nom inated fo rm a l representatives) The European Commission is assisted by com m ittees in im p lem enting C om m unity decisions and th e re fo re, (Fram ework) Directives include com itology prescriptions. C om itology com m ittees are part o f th e EU's broader European Union C om m ittee System th a t assists in th e making, adoption, and im p lem en ta tion o f EU laws. There are about 300 com m ittees th a t operate according to five d iffe re n t types o f procedures. C om itology refers to a process by w hich EU law is m odified or adjusted and takes place w ith in "co m itology co m m itte es" chaired by th e European Com m ission. The official te rm fo r th e process is co m m itte e procedure. The Commission m ust act in conjunction w ith these com m ittees o f representatives o f m em ber states w ho ofte n have th e pow er to block th e Commission and refe r th e m a tte r to th e Council in case no agreem ent on im p lem enta tion aspects w ould be reached. These com itology com m ittees fo r WFD or MSFD, fo r exam ple, adopt Commission Decisions th a t prescribe specific im p lem enta tion aspects o f th e (Fram ework) Directives and are d irectly binding. These Commission Decisions are o f m uch m ore prescriptive detailed value th an th e Directive itse lf and o fte n specify legally binding technical specifications, like fo r good ecological or chemical status fo r th e WFD and good environm ental status fo r th e MSFD. The C om itology C om m ittee or R egulatory C om m ittee, according to th e specific procedure fo llo w e d fo r WFD and MSFD, is part o f a Com m on Im plem entation Strategy th a t also consists o f a fo rm a l Strategic C oordination Group, an inform al high-level D irectors group and several technical w orking groups to negotiate on reporting obligations and technical or scientific aspects o f th e im p lem enta tion o f a (Fram ework) Directive, to develop th e prescriptions o f reporting fro m th e M em ber States to th e Commission and th e legally binding details to be published in Com m ission Decisions. These o p p o rtu n itie s fo r te chnical/scientific additions o r adjustm ents are fo rm u la te d as fo llo w s in the W a te r Fram ew ork Directive, fo r exam ple: Technical specifications and standardised m ethods fo r analysis and m onitoring o f w a te r status shall be laid dow n in accordance w ith th e procedure laid dow n in A rticle 21. According to A rticle 21 o f th e Directive th e Commission shall be assisted by a co m m itte e (referred to as "th e C om m ittee"). Technical adaptations to th e Directive 1. Annexes I, III and section o f Annex V may be adapted to scientific and technical progress in accordance w ith th e procedures laid dow n in A rticle 21 (the C om m ittee), taking account o f th e periods fo r review and updating o f th e river basin m anagem ent plans as referred to in A rticle 13. W here necessary, th e Commission may adopt guidelines on th e im p lem enta tion o f Annexes II and V in accordance w ith th e procedures laid dow n in A rticle For th e purpose o f transm ission and processing o f data, including statistical and cartographic data, technical fo rm a ts fo r th e purpose o f paragraph 1 may be adopted in accordance w ith th e procedures laid dow n in A rticle 21 (the C om m ittee). 14

16 For th e M arine Strategy Fram ew ork Directive: GES: C riteria and m ethodological standards to be used by th e M em be r States, w hich are designed to am end non-essential elem ents o f th is D irective by supplem enting it, shall be laid dow n, on th e basis o f Annexes I and III, in accordance w ith th e regulatory procedure w ith scrutiny referred to in A rticle 25(3) by 15 July 2010 in such a w ay as to ensure consistency and to allow fo r com parison betw een m arine regions o r subregions o f th e e xtent to w hich good e nvironm ental status is being achieved. Before proposing such criteria and standards th e Com m ission shall consult all interested parties, including Regional Sea C onventions. M o n ito rin g program m es: Specifications and standardised m ethods fo r m on itoring and assessment w hich take into account existing co m m itm e nts and ensure com parability betw een m o n ito rin g and assessment results, and w hich are designed to am end non-essential elem ents o f this Directive by supplem enting it, shall be adopted in accordance w ith the reg ula tory procedure w ith scrutiny refe rre d to in A rticle 25(3). Technical adaptations: 1. Annexes III, IV and V m ay be am ended in th e light o f scientific and technical progress in accordance w ith th e regulatory procedure w ith scrutiny referred to in Article 25(3), taking into account th e periods fo r th e review and updating o f m arine strategies laid dow n in A rticle 17(2). 2. In accordance w ith th e reg ula tory procedure referred to in A rticle 25(2): (a) m ethodological standards m ay be adopted fo r th e application o f Annexes I, III, IV and V; (b) technical fo rm a ts m ay be adopted fo r th e purposes o f transm ission and processing o f data, including statistical and cartographic data. For th e MSFD th e CIS process could also help ensure th a t th e necessary evidence has been gathered to prepare fo r a review o f th e MSFD if and w hen it is decided (at th e latest in 2023 as required by A rticle 23). 2. The Strategic Coordination Groups in the Common Implementation Strategy (w ith nom inated fo rm a l representatives and open to observers on invita tio n ) The Strategic C o-ordination Groups (SCG) play a crucial role in coordinating th e jo in t activities betw een th e European Commission and th e EU M em ber States to support th e im p lem enta tion o f the WFD and MSFD, as laid dow n in th e Com m on Im ple m e ntatio n Strategy (CIS) o f these tw o Directives. The European Commission also organised Science-Policy Interface (SPI) initia tives th ro u g h this SCG w ith in th e CIS fo r th e WFD to advise DG RTD on p riorities fo r fu tu re research funding. This input has served th e elaboration o f research program m es in DG RTD. Since some CIS-SPI actors w ere also part o f th e Stakeholder Advisory Group o f JPI W ater, th e y also passed th e list o f identifie d research needs to JPI W a te r to feed th e ir process fo r th e elaboration o f th e ir SRIA. A sim ilar exchange betw een DG ENV and JPI Oceans could help to jo in tly pick up th e in te rn a tio n a lly defined scientific needs to define good environm ental status o f th e WFD and MSFD, p o te n tia lly th ro ugh th e PCG. 15

17 The SCG should also ensure th a t activities such as th e European Semester and Science- Policy Interface are fu rth e r developed and th a t a volu ntary peer-review system is p ut in place fo r th e WFD by 2014 fo r d ra ft river-basin m anagem ent plans to enhance m utual learning betw een M em ber States. For th e MSFD a nother im p o rta n t strategic group is th e Project C oordination Group (PCG). The m andate o f this group w ith in th e CIS o f th e MSFD is to give advice and consider practical means to im prove th e coherence o f projects related to th e im p lem en ta tion o f th e MSFD. In particular, th e PCG seeks to m axim ise synergies w ith o th e r relevant activities, on-going and planned, at national, regional and EU level and im prove coordination and in fo rm a tio n exchange betw een th e EU and Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs). The p roject co ordin atio n group reports and, w here appropriate, can m ake proposals to th e MSCG (Strategic C oordination Group o f th e M arine Strategy as explained above). Key activities o f th e PCG: Consider fu tu re needs fo r MSFD im p lem enta tion su pport to w hich th e IMP Program m e or o th e r EU financial instrum ents could co ntribute. Advise th e European Commission on a m edium to long te rm planning fo r possible assignm ents under projects discussed in th e PCG, starting w ith projects directly linked to MSFD im p lem enta tion. Exchange in fo rm a tio n on relevant activitie s/p ro jects at European, regional (RSCs) and national level. Receive technical reports and o th e r docum ents produced by th e projects fo r com m ents, w hen appropriate. M em bers o f th e PCG are expected to share in fo rm a tio n on PCG activities w ith relevant colleagues in each Regional Sea C onvention. M em bers to this group are appointed in th e ir personal capacity. JPI Oceans has been invited ad-hoc to th e 2 m eetings o f this group taking place in The technical working groups in the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) (closed m eetings w ith nom inated technical representatives and open to external experts on in vita tio n ) These w orking groups (as indicated in th e CIS o f th e WFD and MSFD) w o rk o u t th e ecological and chem ical (fo r WFD) and e n viro n m e nta l status assessments, pressures and im pacts and socioeconom ic analyses, m o n ito rin g and co ordin atio n o f related assessment and m o n ito rin g under w a te r- related directives (e.g. good e nvironm ental status descriptors 5 and 8), reporting and data sharing, developing and dissem inating know ledge and to ols under th e um brella o f th e W a te r Inform ation System fo r Europe (WISE), th e identifica tion, planning and im p lem enta tion o f measures, w hile ensuring co ordin atio n w ith th e program m es o f measures developed under th e WFD, MSFD and coherence w ith o th e r policies. In this e ntire im p lem enta tion governance, th e re are tw o key topics fo r w hich scientific input and evidence provision is im p o rta n t, i.e.: 16

18 1) The m arine w a te r status assessment, th a t needs to feed into th e WG GES fo r MSFD and into WG ECOSTAT and WG Chemicals fo r WFD; 2) The im pact o f measures in th e m arine w a te r m anagem ent, w ith its restoration potential problem setting, th a t needs to feed into th e WG ESA fo r th e MSFD and into th e WG on Program mes o f measures fo r th e WFD M AR IN E STRATEGY FR AM EW O RK DIRECTIVE The aim o f th e European Union's MSFD (EU, 2008) is to p ro te ct th e m arine e n viro n m e nt across Europe. It establishes a fra m e w o rk w ith in w hich M em ber States shall take th e necessary measures to achieve or m aintain good environm ental status (GES) in th e m arine e n viro n m e nt by The process by w hich M em ber States are set to achieve GES is shown in Figure 1. GES involves p rotecting th e m arine e nvironm ent, preventing its d e te rio ra tio n and restoring it w here practical, w hile using m arine resources sustainably. It aims to p ro te ct th e resource base upon w hich m arine-related econom ic and social activities depend. The MSFD constitutes th e environm ental p illar o f th e IMP, designed to achieve th e fu ll econom ic p ote ntia l o f oceans and seas in harm ony w ith th e m arine environm ent. The Directive is very w ide-ranging and sets o u t 11 descriptors o f GES relating to biological diversity, non-indigenous species introductions, com m ercially exploited fish and shellfish populations, fo od webs, hum an-induced e u trophica tion, sea flo o r integrity, hydrographical conditions, concentrations o f contam inants, contam inants in fish and o th e r seafood, litte r and noise. The p ote ntia l effectiveness o f th e MSFD has been debated since it was unveiled by th e Commission. In 2006 th e German Advisory Council on th e Environm ent (SRU) concluded th a t th e strategy w ould n o t fo rm a su fficien t pillar o f a European m a ritim e policy <s). The re p o rt published by th e SRU argued th a t because th e d e fin itio n o f GES is le ft to M em ber States, some could end up setting very weak objectives. PROGRESS M em ber States have com m enced th e process o f im p lem enting th e MSFD. The MSFD is delivered by M em be r States th ro ugh a va riety o f national m inistries or departm ents, and regional bodies, known as com p ete n t authorities. These have been reported to th e Commission as specified in A rt.7 Annex III o f th e Directive. M em ber States have carried o u t an initial assessment (Art.8), defined GES characteristics (A rt.9) and d ra fte d targets and indicators (A rt.10). The initial assessment takes into account existing evidence about th e state o f th e seas and, to g e th e r w ith th e d ra ft targets and indicators, is th e basis fo r th e d evelopm ent o f fu rth e r evidence gathering and m on itoring program m es to m eet th e objectives o f th e Directive. These activities are carried o u t by M em ber States, w ith regional and sub-regional collaborations, coordinated th ro ugh structures such as th e Regional Seas C onventions. M em ber States are required to im p lem ent th e MSFD to a specified tim e -lin e in th e fo llo w in g process: develop descriptors; m on itoring program m es; program m es o f measures; achievem ent o f GES. A visual exam ple (from th e UK) is show n in Figure 1. 17

19 Directive is»nptamented Monitoring programme established Revision of national manna Strategies GES a chie ved MSFD Assessment of UK Seas GES/ Indicators defined I Ô 20'O Programme of measures developed Programme of measures Implemented i <2> Q Figure 1: An example of a MS's time-line for delivering the MSFD By 2014, M em ber States have to p ut in place m on itoring program m es to measure progress tow ards GES (A rt.11). By 2016 m anagem ent measures m ust be im plem ented in o rd e r to achieve GES by 2020 (Art.13). There is also an obligation to hold public consultations o f proposals fo r m on itoring program m es and program m e o f measures. The European Commission assesses w h e th e r th e elem ents reported by M em ber States, to g e th e r co nstitu te an appropriate fra m e w o rk to m eet th e requirem ents o f th e Directive. The "MSFD 2012 Baseline assessment" is a p re lim inary analysis by th e European Environm ent Agency (EEA) th a t was presented to th e M arine Directors in Decem ber The re p o rt is expected to be finalised by January 2014 and available fo r th e m arine conference on 3rd- 4 th M arch A sum m ary o f the m arine baseline assessment w ill be made available at th e m arine conference. There w ill be a co nsultation on th is baseline assessment. The state o f play in im p lem enta tion, at th e tim e o f w ritin g, is sum m arised in Table 3. Table 3: State of play of Member States in their implementation of five Articles of the MSFD. Reported: green = received, ye llo w = p art received, red = com plete OK, ye llo w = ongoing, red Reported Conformity Reported Conformity Reported Conformity Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Available 2013 Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland Available 2013 Available

20 France Germany Greece Available 2013 Available 2013 Available 2013 Hungary Ireland Available 2013 Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxemburg Malta Available 2013 Netherlands Poland Portugal Available 2013 Romania Slovenia Slovakia Spain Sweden UK W hen establishing specifications and standardised m ethods fo r m on itoring program m es (A rt.11) and program m es o f measures (A rt.13) fo r MSFD, M em ber States are required to take into account existing co m m itm ents to ensure com parability. A t th e tim e o f w ritin g M em ber States are finalising th e ir MSFD m o n ito rin g program m es in fu lfilm e n t o f A r t. ll. In general M em ber States are basing th e ir m onitoring program m es on m o n ito rin g arrangem ents already in place fo r e xtant instrum ents such as national com m itm ents, Regional Seas Conventions (e.g. th e OSPAR Co-ordinated E nvironm ental M o n ito rin g Program m e, CEMP) and European Directives (e.g. WFD integrated m o n ito rin g program m e fo r each river basin d istrict) (see Stakeholder Responses, below ). There are indicators fo r some MSFD Descriptors th a t have n ot previously required regular m o n ito rin g under existing instrum ents, p articularly Descriptors 10 (Litter) and 11 (energy, including u nderw ate r noise). In these cases new m o n ito rin g program m es are likely to have been developed to fu lfil A r t. ll. M em be r States m ust re p o rt th e ir m on itoring program m es to th e Commission by autum n M em ber States' MSFD program m es o f measures (Art.13) should integrate w ith measures th a t have been established under existing C om m unity legislation, fo r exam ple th e Urban W aste W a te r T re a tm e nt Directive (1991) and th e Bathing W aters Directive (2006). For m ost M em ber States this process is at th e tim e o f w ritin g ; program m es o f measures are to be developed by 2015 and im plem ented by For exam ple, th e UK has produced a Business As Usual re p o rt (ABPmer & eftec 2012), w hich considers how su fficient th e existing measures w ould be fo r achieving GES targets. In th e UK a process is underw ay in w hich policy, scientific and technical leaders m ee t to 19

21 discuss th e e xtent to w hich existing measures w ill help th e UK to reach GES in its w aters and to id e n tify w h a t a n d /o r w here existing measures w ill be insufficient. As is th e case fo r m onitoring program m es some o f th e MSFD Descriptors such as litte r (DIO) and noise ( D ll) are unlikely to have fit-fo r-p u rp o se program m es o f measures under existing legislation, because th e re has been no previous requirem ent fo r these. In these cases program m es o f measures m ay need to be adapted or new ones p ut in place. REGIONAL C O O PERATIO N FOR MSFD Due to th e scientific d ifficulties and acknowledged initial u nderestim ation o f th e e ffo rt needed to show co m p arab ility betw een d iffe re n t ecological assessment m ethods fo r th e WFD, th e prescriptions fo r regional co m p arab ility o f ecosystem based assessments w ere requested to be m ore open fo r th e MSFD and n ot bound to detailed prescriptions. The transboundary nature o f th e m arine e nviro n m e nt means th e MSFD requires M em ber States sharing a m arine region or sub region to cooperate to ensure th a t, w ith in each m arine region or sub region, th e measures required to achieve th e objectives o f this Directive are coherent and coordinated across th e m arine region o r sub region concerned. Im plem enting th e MSFD is firs t and fo re m o st a M em ber State responsibility. Each M em ber State faces specific questions and challenges related to national, regional a n d /o r local situations and conditions, w hich can be resolved only by th a t particular M em be r State. Nevertheless, each M em ber State sits w ith in and shares one o r m ore m arine (sub) regions and is e xplicitly required by th e D irective to both d eterm ine GES at th e level o f th e m arine (sub) region and to w o rk w ith neighbouring M em ber States and th ird countries in o rd er to im p lem ent th e Directive, ensure th e coordinated developm ent o f m arine strategies fo r each m arine region or sub region and achieve GES. A com m on understanding and approach is th e re fo re crucial to successful im p lem enta tion, and is required by th e MSFD n ot only to ensure a su fficient degree o f co m m onality in th e d ete rm in a tio n o f GES, b ut also to ensure a 'level playing fie ld ' fo r econom ic uses o f th e m arine environm ent. A com m on understanding also lim its th e risks o f poor, diverse or inadequate im p lem enta tion o f th e D irective and o f subsequent disputes and should encourage proactive and apparitional im p lem enta tion. W here practical and appropriate, existing in stitu tio n a l structures established in m arine regions o r sub regions, in p articular Regional Sea Conventions, should be used to ensure such co ordin atio n (Common Im ple m e ntatio n Strategy MSFD<4)). The Regional Seas conventions have a role in ensuring th e cohesion o f assessments w ith in th e ir regions. Both OSPAR and HELCOM have established specific coordinating p latform s fo r th e regional im p lem en ta tion o f th e MSFD, striving fo r harm onised national m arine strategies to achieve good environm ental status and im p lem enting th e ir overall agreed co m m itm e n t to an ecosystem approach. For th e North-East A tlantic, th e regional cooperation fo r th e MSFD is coordinated in th e Inter- sessional C orrespondence Group fo r th e Im ple m e ntatio n o f th e MSFD (ICG MSFD) o f th e OSPAR C onvention governance structure. O ther W orking Groups or Inter-sessional Correspondence Groups (ICG) th a t co n trib u te to cooperate fo r d ete rm inin g GES o r o th e r aspects o f th e MSFD are: 20

22 ICG on th e C oordination o f Biodiversity Assessment and M o n ito rin g (ICG COBAM) ICG on Environm ental Assessment C riteria (ICG EAC) ICG on M arine P rotected Areas (ICG MPA) ICG on M arine Litter (ICG ML) ICG EUT 2013/14 (on eutrophica tion) ICG on Noise W orking Group on M o n ito rin g and on Trends and Effects o f Substances in th e M arine E nvironm ent (M IM E) ICG on M arine Spatial Planning (ICG MSP) ICG Close to zero Specific w orkshop can also be held, such as one on th e OSPAR Economic and Social Analysis C oordination. In th e Baltic Sea, th e fo llo w in g w orking groups o f HELCOM (the Helsinki or Baltic M arine Environm ent P rotection Commission) address d iffe re n t aspects o f HELCOM's w o rk in relation to th e MSFD : Group fo r Im ple m e ntatio n o f th e Ecosystem Approach (GEAR) The N ature P rotection and Biodiversity Group ( HABITAT) The Land-based P ollution Group ( LAND) The M a ritim e Group (MARITIME) The M o n ito rin g and Assessment Group (MONAS) The Response Group ( RESPONSE) HELCOM has also established th e fo llo w in g "in te ra c tio n " pla tfo rm s to co m plem ent th e w o rk o f th e main groups: HELCOM A griculture and E nvironm ent Forum (AGRI/ENV FORUM) enhances dialogue betw een agricultural and environm ental authorities. HELCOM Fisheries and Environm ent Forum (FISH/ENV FORUM) serves as a p la tfo rm fo r dialogue betw een fisheries and environm ental auth orities. Joint HELCOM-VASAB M a ritim e Spatial Planning W orking Group (HELCOM-VASAB MSP W G ) is developing co herent M a ritim e Spatial Planning Principles. There are also o th e r (ad hoc) expert groups: a d hoc Seal Expert Group (HELCOM SEAL) Joint HELCOM/OSPAR task group on Ballast W a te r M anagem ent C onvention Exem ptions Expert group on environm ental risks o f hazardous subm erged objects For th e M editerranean, th e U nited Nations E nvironm ent Program m e - M editerranean Action Plan (UNEP-MAP) is th e regional p la tfo rm fo r co ordin atio n betw een th e M editerranean countries fo r the MSFD im p lem enta tion: The Ecosystem Approach (EcAp) C oordination Group reviews and com m ents on th e w o rk o f 4 C orrespondence Groups related to th e MSFD: o C orrespondence G roup on GES and Targets - Pollution and L itte r Cluster o C orrespondence G roup on GES and Targets - Biodiversity and Fisheries Cluster o C orrespondence G roup on GES and Targets - Coast and H ydrography Cluster o C orrespondence G roup on Economic and Social Analysis For th e Black Sea, th e fo llo w in g advisory groups w o rk on issues related to th e MSFD im p lem enta tion: PMA - Advisory Group on th e P ollution M o n ito rin g and Assessment LBS - Advisory Group on C ontrol o f P ollution fro m Land Based Sources IDE - Advisory Group on In fo rm a tio n and Data Exchange 21

23 CBD - Advisory Group on th e Conservation o f Biological Diversity FOMLR - Advisory Group on th e Environm ental Aspects o f th e M anagem ent o f Fisheries and o th e r M arine Living Resources o r ICZM: Advisory Group on th e D evelopm ent o f Com m on M ethodologies fo r Integrated Coastal Zone M anagem ent The Black Sea Commission has also paid particula r a tte n tio n to th e WFD th ro ugh th e establishm ent o f an ad hoc W orking Group on th e W a te r Fram ew ork Directive and connections betw een th e river system and th e Black Sea in th e Joint A d hoc Technical W orking Group (Danube/Black Sea Joint Technical W orking Group). The WFD has not been focused upon by th e o th e r Regional Conventions. STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES Progress in implementation National Funding Agencies Several M em ber States responded to th e NFA question related to progress in im p lem en ta tion o f MSFD. The respondents w ere asked to provide an account o f th e cu rrent status o f th e MSFD in th e ir country; these responses are shown in Table 4. Table 4: Progress in the implementation o f MSFD by Member States, from the RFA questionnaire. Member State Belgium Progress in implementation of MSFD MSFD: Last year, Belgium reported to th e Commission its 'Initia l assessment' (in accordance w ith A rt. 8 (section la & lb )), 'D e fin itio n o f good environm ental status' and 'E nvironm ental ta rg ets' (in accordance w ith clauses in A rt. 9 & 10). The initial evaluation also includes a socio-econom ic analysis o f th e use o f th e Belgian m arine w aters and o f th e costs associated w ith damage inflicted on th e m arine e nvironm ent, pursuant to A rt. 8 (section le ) o f th e MSFD. The next step in the im p lem enta tion o f th e M arine Strategy is th e pro duction o f a m o n ito rin g program by 2015, and a program o f measures by M U M M is responsible fo r th e d ra fting o f an overall, integrated m o n ito rin g program, covering all th e necessary m o n ito rin g needs fo r th e MSFD, WFD and Natura The d ra ft m on itoring program w ill be presented in a public consultation in spring The M arine E nvironm ent Service published a public te n d e r fo r th e preparation o f th e program o f m easures. The consultancy office ARCADIS Belgium w ill perform th e study w hich w ill result in a firs t d ra ft list o f measures fo r th e m arine environm ent, necessary to w o rk to w ards a good environm ental status by This list of m easures w ill provide th e basis fo r fu rth e r consultations and discussions w ith com p ete n t auth orities and stakeholders. The consultation procedure and th e fin alisatio n o f th e program o f measures w ill be coordinated by th e M arine E nvironm ent Service. M ore in fo rm a tio n can also be fo und in th e Com pendium fo r Coast and Sea - Chapter 3. 22

24 MSP: The p re lim inary d ra ft MSP has been su bm itted by th e M in iste r fo r th e N orth Sea to th e Advisory Council, end January The Advisory Council has tra n sm itte d an advice to th e M in iste r fo r th e N orth Sea, beginning M arch The advice has lead to some m odifications to th e pre lim inary d ra ft o f th e MSP and has been adopted by th e federal Council o f M inisters, converting th e prelim inary d ra ft in th e d ra ft o f th e MSP. In parallel, a Strategic Environm ental Assessment Procedure on th e d ra ft MSP is conducted. Both docum ents, th e d ra ft MSP and th e Strategic Environm ental Report have been p ut in a public consultation procedure, beginning July The neighbouring countries (UK, FR, NL) have also been contacted to get involved in th e Belgian MSP process. The end o f th e public consultation procedure is planned fo r end Septem ber Thereafter, th e com m ents w ill w e considered and p o te n tia lly inserted into th e dra ft MSP. The d ra ft MSP w ill be adopted by Royal Decree, on th e proposal o f th e Council o f M inisters. This is foreseen fo r end Ireland Regular progress updates prepared by th e Inter-D epartm ental M arine C oordination Group. Poland The progress can be described as fo llo w s: 1. There are pieces o f national legislation th a t are fu nd am e nta l fo r successful im p lem enta tion o f ICZM in Poland. They include th e Act o f Parliam ent on coastal p ro tectio n u ntil 2024, O rdinance o f th e G overnm ent o f Technical and P rotection Belts in coastal zones and th e establishm ent o f coastal and m aritim e adm in istratio n (M a ritim e Offices) w ith in th e M in istry relevant fo r m aritim e econom y, now th e M in istry o f Transport, C onstruction and M a ritim e Economy. M a ritim e Offices are prerequisites o f successful m anagem ent o f coastal zones, because having overw helm ing ju risdictio n in th e technical b elt and shared ju risdictio n in th e pro tectio n belt th ey guarantee rudim e nta ry o rd er in coastal zones and prevent excessive coastal squeeze. One o f th e provisions o f th e coastal program is bi-annual m on itoring o f near shore seabed fro m +2 till -6m; it provides data on longte rm e volution o f seabed in coastal zones all along th e polish coast. The M a ritim e Offices also collaborate w ith local auth orities o f coastal com m unes on in tro d u ctio n o f areas endangered by m arine floods due to clim ate change; these areas are defined as land below 2.5 m above the cu rrent mean sea level - this d e fin itio n is tra n sm itte d into local spatial m anagem ent plans o f coastal com m unities and prevent w rong locations of dangerous facilities, susceptible to inundations by seawater. The positive role o f M a ritim e Offices is also associated w ith th e m a ritim e spatial planning; th e y developed p ilo t plans, whose basic concept is th e division of a large basin into sub-basins, w here prim ary, secondary, to le ra te d and banned uses are determ ined individually fo r each sub-basin. The experience achieved during p ilo t plans w ill be used w hen preparing m arine spatial plans fo r th e e ntire coastal and exclusive econom ic zones o f Poland. 23

25 Lithuania 2. The success related to ecology o f th e Baltic Sea is basically related to the im p lem enta tion o f provisions o f th e HELCOM convention. Poland has co m m itte d to reducing th e inputs o f n utrients below thresholds d eterm ined by HELCOM. For exam ple since July 2013 th e purchase o f detergents containing phosphates is no longer possible. The success associated w ith th e im p lem en ta tion o f CFP is related to substantial red uctio n o f fishing vessels by scrapping or conversion to non-fishery uses and retra in in g o f m any ex-fisherm en to to u rism -re la te d business, such as recreational angling instead o f com m ercial fishing. It is an on-going process th a t is hard to describe in brief. UK W e've com pleted th e firs t 2 o f these requirem ents in th e UK M arine Strategy Part One. W e 'll consult on: proposals fo r th e UK m o n ito rin g program m es fo r good environm ental status in autum n 2013 UK program m es o f measures fo r achieving good environm ental status in autum n 2014 How the directive fits with other marine policies For th e UK, th e directive is part o f a set o f policies to help us m eet our aim to achieve clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. Policies like th e im p lem en ta tion o f th e M arine and Coastal Access Act, and the reform o f th e Com m on Fisheries Policy, w ill helo us achieve good environm ental status. More information M ore in fo rm a tio n about th e directive is available: M arine Strategy Fram ew ork D irective consultation: UK initia l assessment and proposals fo r good environm ental status questions and answers Factsheet 1: Links betw een th e M arine Strategy Fram ework and th e W a te r Fram ew ork Directives Factsheet 2: Links betw een th e M arine Strategy Fram ework Directive and o th e r legislation Factsheet 3: W h a t th e M arine Strategy Fram ework D irective means fo r m arine industries Factsheet 4: W h a t th e M arine Strategy Fram ework D irective means fo r th e fishing industry Factsheet 5: W h a t th e M arine Strategy Fram ework D irective means fo r conservation Factsheet 6: Links betw een th e M arine Strategy Fram ework Directive, th e Shellfish W aters D irective and th e EU Food Hygiene Regulations Economic and social assessment fo r th e M arine Strategy Fram ew ork Directive Public consultation on th e transposition o f th e M arine Strategy Fram ew ork Directive in 2009, sum m ary o f responses to th e consultation, published on 22 June 2010, and th e associated im pact assessment Contact Defra at M SFDTeam@ defra.gsi.gov.uk Italy MSFD: The MSFD has been im plem ented in Italy by Legislative law no. n. 190 o f 13 O ctober This law states th a t fo r Italy th e C om petent A u th o rity fo r MSFD is th e M in istry o f th e E nvironm ent th e land and th e sea (MATTM ), w ith fu nctio ns o f national co ordination. M ATTM signed a special convention w ith th e In stitu te fo r Environm ental P rotection and Research (ISPRA) to support th e m in istry in scientifictechnical co ordin atio n activities. CNR and th e o th e r Italian research organisations (e.g. CONISMA, INGV etc) is supporting ISPRA providing scientific data and 24

26 necessary expertise. The MATTM has set up a technical co m m itte e to ensure co ordin atio n betw een national and local a uthorities. To technical com m ittee, participate a representative o f all th e relevant Italian m inistries, th e regional and local auth orities as w ell as ISPRA and th e scientific com m unity. Italy has sent April 30, 2013 th e results o f th e im p lem enta tion o f Articles 8, 9 and 10 o f th e Directive, providing th e initial evaluation o f th e GES. Despite th e large num ber o f data and in fo rm a tio n relating to th e m arine e nviro n m e nt collected at national level, on th e basis o f existing data and in fo rm a tio n it was possible to develop a com prehensive assessment o f th e state o f th e m arine e nviro n m e nt. This m eets o nly partially th e D irective requirem ents. This is m ainly due to the inadequacy o f such data / in fo rm a tio n is characterised by spatial and te m p ora l scales inadequate and in-hom ogeneities in th e m ethodologies adopted. The MATTM w ith th e help o f ISPRA and scientific co m m unity is presently design th e fu tu re m o n ito rin g program to be delivered to th e EU by July ICZM Strategy is still in th e preparation phase. The M in istry fo r th e Environm ent, Land and Sea, in ord er to overcom e th e frag m entatio n o f responsibilities fo r th e d iffe re n t levels o f g overnm ent has th e re fo re im plem ented a com prehensive in stitu tio n a l cooperation in th e fie ld o f Integrated Coastal Zone M anagem ent, th ro ugh th e involvem ent o f regional and local auth orities about th e planning and m anagem ent o f coastal areas, in view o f th e d e fin itio n o f th e strategy required, as w ell as th e preparation o f Plans / Programs o r Guidelines fo r ICZM Strategy. Sweden EU WFD was im plem ented 2004, and th e EU M arine directive There are now d evelopm ent o f measures program m es fo r th e m arine enviro n m e nt fo r th e fo rth co m in g cycle starting H owever th e re is still gaps in th e m arine e n viro n m e nt m apping, p articularly th e b iotope inventory. Stakeholder workshops Analyses have previously been carried o u t on th e issues o f gaps in science. For exam ple th e BONUS project, 'Science fo r a b e tte r fu tu re o f th e Baltic Region', carried o u t a policy fra m e w o rk analysis in th e fields relevant to th e BONUS program m e W ATER FR AM EW O RK DIRECTIVE The EU W a te r Fram ew ork Directive (WFD) was adopted in The purpose o f th e D irective is to establish a fra m e w o rk fo r th e p ro tectio n o f inland surface w aters (rivers and lakes), transitional w aters (estuaries and lagoons), coastal w aters (to one nautical m ile fo r ecological status and including te rrito ria l w aters fo r chem ical status) and g ro undw ater. The overall aim fo r these surface and g ro undw a ter 'w a te r bodies', including p rotected areas in th e river basins, is to achieve good chem ical and ecological status by To m eet th e objectives o f th e WFD M em ber States had to establish River Basin D istricts and develop Plans and Program mes o f Measures th a t detail th e actions th a t need to be taken w ith in each D istrict to avoid d e te rio ra tio n or im prove th e w a te r q uality w here it has m oderate status o r worse. 25

27 The MSFD is closely aligned to th e W a te r Fram ew ork Directive (WFD) to define good environm ental status o f coastal and m arine w aters. The MSFD also covers th e m arine w aters w here th e WFD needs to be im plem ented, as set o u t in A rticle 3.1.b o f th e MSFD: " m arine w aters means also coastal w aters as defined by Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC, th e ir seabed and th e ir subsoil, in so fa r as p a rtic u la r aspects o f the e nvironm ental status o f the m arine environm ent are n o t already addressed through th a t Directive or o ther C om m unity legislation". This means th a t th e WFD and MSFD are com plem entary in m arine w aters and require consistent q u a lity assessments. W FD IN TER -CALIBR ATIO N The WFD is th e legislation to o l w ith th e strongest emphasis on regional cooperation and com parability, w hich had to be shown th ro ugh a scientifically underpinned intercalibratio n exercise. The essence o f intercalibratio n is to ensure th a t th e high/good and th e g ood/m o d e ra te boundaries o f ecological status in all M em ber States' assessment m ethods fo r biological q uality elem ents correspond to com parable levels o f ecosystem a lteratio n. During th e negotiation o f th e Directive at th e Council, several M em be r States w anted to continue using th e ir tra d itio n a lly used m ethods in historical m onitoring series, w here established already, fo r assessment o f w a te r q u a lity and w ould n o t be keen in adopting one com m on set o f European w ide assessment m ethods. Still, M em ber States needed to prove th a t th e ecological status classification results o f th e WFD assessment m ethods developed by th e M em ber States w ere com parable, even if th e y w anted to use d iffe re n t m o n ito rin g protocols o r assessment m ethods fo r th e biological q ua lity elem ents. For this reason, the inte rca lib ra tio n exercise was aim ed at ensuring this co m p arability and needed to establish values fo r th e boundary betw een th e classes o f high and good status, and fo r th e boundary betw een good and m oderate status, th a t also needed to be consistent w ith th e norm ative d efin itio ns o f those class boundaries described in th e WFD. The intercalibratio n aim ed m ainly at obtaining this com parability w ith in th e regional sea basins (North-East A tlantic, Baltic, M editerranean and Black Sea). A p art from high, good and m oderate status, also poor and bad status needed to be established, adding up to five classes on th e ecological q uality ratio scale fo r th e M em ber States' m o n ito rin g systems. A fte r 2 phases o f intercalibratio n, still significant gaps exist fo r m ainly coastal and transitional waters. The analysis o f th e relationship betw een th e assessment m ethods and com bined pressures in th e m arine e nviro n m e nt and calibrating fo r regional differences is m ore com plex than and n o t as straig htforw ard as in lakes and rivers. Existing scientific know ledge fo r this intercalibratio n process is recognised to be im p o rta n t in th e practical intercalibratio n guidance protocol adopted by th e W ater Directors in December 2010, since scientific argum ents need to be provided w hen it is n o t possible to develop a W FD -com pliant m ethod or w hen an a lternative intercalibratio n approach w ould need to be fo und if th e adopted options w ould be insufficient, as it is som etim es very d iffic u lt to solve the com parisons solely w ith adopted routin e calculation tasks. Susan P. Davis, one o f th e reviewers o f th e 2nd cycle o f intercalibratio n concluded th a t some unevenness in th e results o f intercalibratio n across Europe u ndoubtedly reflects also historical differences in th e degree to w hich nations have been politically w illing, a n d /o r econom ically able, to p rio ritise basic and applied aquatic research, and investm ents in w a te r resource m anagem ent*6. Clearly, it w ou ld be o f benefit to all to search fo r m echanism s to ensure continual im provem ents and reductions in uncertainty, fo r all countries and sea basins, especially those th a t may n ot share a strong tra d itio n o f aquatic science (Peer review o f th e intercalibratio n exercise phase II*6 ). 26

28 3.2.3 DRIVER FOR JO IN T ASSESSMENT ON R EGIONAL BASIS JO IN T ASSESSMENT IS OBLIG ATORY IN W FD, MSFD AN D CFP Due to th e transboundary nature o f th e m arine e nviro n m e nt, assessing th e q uality o f m arine w aters and taking measures to Im prove Its q uality are some o f th e challenges th a t no single co untry could address on Its own. Regional cooperation, and by preference jo in t assessment o f m arine environm ental q uality are a necessity to obtain transparent, co st-e fficient and reliable quality assessments and an Id entificatio n o f effective measures. The European Fram ew ork Directives on m arine e nviro n m e nt p ro tectio n and sustainable e xploita tion o f m arine resources have fu rth e r stim ulated regional cooperation, In itiate d already In th e seventies by some Regional Sea Conventions. How regional cooperation was stipulated In th e European legislation Is explained above, leaving still a lo t o f underexplored te rra in fo r fu rth e r scientific cooperation, developm ents and Input, Including fo r m odelling co ntributions. Solutions are cu rre n tly discussed o r already being deve lo ped/in place at regional sea level, especially fo r th e MSFD, b ut this needs to be brought back to th e European level - so th e creation and m aintenance o f a fo ru m to ensure continued know ledge sharing and coherence Is necessary. Concerning th e know ledge flo w fro m north to south several Initiatives are running. The outcom e o f these su pport actions should lead to a m ore coherent level o f assessments (therefo re n ot strictly harm onised m ethodology) betw een n orth and south, w hich can be fo llo w e d up and assessed In th e same European fo ru m. For this reason, a JRC-based Com petence Centre on GES (CC4GES) w ill be established to manage fle xib le experts netw orks responding to needs and requests o f M em ber States and Regional Sea Conventions Identified th ro ugh th e MSFD Com m on Im ple m e ntatio n Strategy w ith th e aim to produce predefined deliverables feeding d ire ctly to th e Im plem entation o f th e MSFD. The CC4GES could, Inter alla, co n trib u te to several activities o f th e MSFD Im plem entation, such as com piling an agreed glossary o f MSFD term s, developing an Inventory o f m ethodological standards and supporting the WG GES In th e possible revision o f th e GES Decision 2010/477/EU*4. Relevant International organisations, In p articular th e In te rn atio na l Council fo r th e Exploration o f th e Seas (ICES), are also Invited to provide a system atic scientific Input to deliverables under th e MSFD Com m on Im ple m e ntatio n Strategy according to th e ir expertise and In close colla bo ra tion w ith th e CC4GES(4). 3.3 C O M M O N FISHERIES POLICY The Com m on fisheries Policy (CFP) was fo rm a lly created In Essentially, th e policy was created to grant m utual access to th e new ly created Economic Exclusive Zones (EEZs) o f M em ber States. It covers th e conservation, m anagem ent and e xploita tion o f m arine resources, and th e processing and m arketing o f fish ery and aquaculture products. It provides fo r co he re nt measures concerning: Conservation, m anagem ent and e xploita tion o f living aquatic resources; Lim itation o f th e environm ental Im pact o f fishing; C onditions o f access to w aters and resources; 27

29 Fleet capacity; Control; A quaculture; Com m on organisation o f th e m arkets; In te rn atio na l relations. The m ost im p o rta n t areas o f action o f th e CFP are: laying dow n rules to ensure Europe's fisheries are sustainable and do n ot damage th e m arine e nviro n m e nt; th e re are th re e types o f fishing rules: o Fishing e ffo rt lim ita tio n s restrict th e size o f th e fle e t th a t sets to sea and th e am ount o f tim e it can spend fishing, o Catch lim its restrict th e q u a n tity o f fish th a t can be taken fro m th e sea before fisherm en need to stop fishing, o Technical measures regulate how and w here fisherm en can fish. They can, fo r exam ple, be used to p ro te ct young fish (juveniles), encourage th e use o f m ore selective fishing gear or prevent serious damage to th e m arine environm ent. providing national auth orities w ith th e to o ls to enforce these rules and punish offenders; m o n ito rin g th e size o f th e European fishing fle e t: all EU fishing vessels are registered in the C om m unity fle e t register, w hich is updated every quarter; providing fu nding and technical support fo r initiatives th a t can m ake th e industry m ore ecologically and econom ically sustainable; M em ber States have an obligation to adjust th e ir fishing capacity in o rd er to balance fishing capacity w ith fishing o pportu nities. The CFP sets quotas fo r how m uch o f each species can be caught (in a certain area). Each co untry is allocated a quota based upon th e to ta l available stock (Total A llow able Catch, TAC) and th e ir tra d itio n a l share. Given th e critical situation o f m any stocks in European w aters, th e to ta l capacity o f th e C om m unity fle e t has been 'fro zen' since 31 December C om m unity fishing vessels all enjoy equal access to w aters and resources except in th e 12-m ile zone, w hich falls w ith in th e sovereignty o f th e M em be r States Decisions and Regulations concerning fisheries are taken by th e European Parliam ent and th e Council on a proposal fro m th e Commission a fte r consulting th e Economic and Social C om m ittee and th e C om m ittee o f th e Regions. In some cases, a decision w ill be taken w ith th e consent o f th e Advisory C om m ittee on Fisheries and A quaculture in accordance w ith th e procedure established by Decision 1999/468/EC laying dow n th e procedures fo r th e exercise o f im plem enting powers conferred on th e Commission or involving o th e r bodies. The European Commission and th e M em ber States m ay take em ergency measures in th e event o f a serious th re a t to th e conservation o f resources or to th e ecosystem fo r periods o f up to six m onths. The M em ber States' decisions m ay apply only to w aters fa llin g under th e ir sovereignty. They may also take n on-discrim inatory conservation measures, w ith in th e 12-m ile lim it, to preserve the ecosystem. CFP PROCESS 1. The Committee procedure In contrast to WFD and MSFD, at present th e re is no regulatory co m m itte e assisting th e Commission in th e im p lem en ta tion o f fisheries policy. Three m anagem ent com m ittees assist th e Commission in 28

30 developing m anagem ent measures th a t it needs to take, relating to th e application o f th e CFP o r to th e im p lem en ta tion o f program m es w ith substantial budgetary im plications: 1. The C om m ittee fo r Fisheries and A quaculture (CFA) provides opinion upon request on subjects dealing w ith th e general im p lem enta tion o f th e CFP such as conservation measures, co ntrol and enfo rce m en t, some structural m easures and data collection program m es. II. The C om m ittee on Structures fo r Fisheries and A quaculture (CFAS) is convened fo r issues dealing w ith EU fisheries aid (FIFG), in p articular those related to jo in t enterprises, producer organisations and im p lem enta tion rules. III. The M anagem ent C om m ittee fo r Fisheries Products (MCFP) assists th e Commission on subjects related to th e com m on organisation o f th e m arkets in fishery and aquaculture products, such as the level o f in te rventio n schemes. These com m ittees are com posed o f representatives o f th e M em ber States and are chaired by a representative o f th e Commission. Reference to th e fu ll Council is possible in th e event o f disagreem ent betw een th e Commission and a m a jo rity o f M em ber State representatives. These com m ittees m eet once a m onth, and w hile th re e com m ittees exist on paper, in practice th e y are generally com prised o f th e same national civil servants, each m eeting sequentially over tw o days. Fisheries policy is generally developed th ro ugh m anagem ent com m ittees much less than in o th e r policy areas. This is perhaps because o f th e political nature o f fisheries policy, w hich means th a t Council w orking groups largely take a lead. Even w here m anagem ent com m ittees are delegated p ow er under legislation, th e Council w orking groups ofte n lead w ith negotiations and e ffectively hand over outcom es to th e com m ittees fo r official adoption as a Commission decision or Regulation (EU Fisheries Decision M aking Guide o f IEEP<7)). Figure 4 illustrates how th e m anagem ent com m ittees are related to th e o th e r bodies involved in the im p lem en ta tion o f th e CFP. 2. Technical - Scientific input combined with input from stakeholders W hen proposing new fisheries rules and regulations, th e European Commission seeks scientific advice fro m a num ber o f bodies. Facts and figures collected by EU countries under th e Data C ollection Fram ework fo rm th e basis fo r these bodies' w ork. Specialised institu tio n s produce form alised knowledge, w hich is th en used as a basis fo r m anagem ent decisions and im p lem enta tion by a centralised bureaucracy fo r th e CFP<9). The process is explained below about how th e Council Regulations on th e TACs are established. The CFP sets quotas fo r how m uch o f each species can be caught in a certain area. Each country is given a quota based upon th e to ta l available stock, know n as th e Total Allow able Catch (TAC), and th e ir tra d itio n a l share. TACs are fixed annually by th e Council o f M inisters. They consider proposals draw n up by th e European Commission, a fte r an advisory and co nsultation process involving several scientific and stakeholder bodies. International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) W ith in th e EU, th e main source o f scientific know ledge fo r th e CFP is ICES, w hich uses biological data collected by national research institute s fro m research program m es and landing records to assess th e state o f th e m ain com m ercial stocks. ICES is an in tergo vernm e nta l body fo un de d in 1902 to 29

31 conduct and coordinate research into th e m arine ecosystems o f th e N orth A tlantic. ICES provides advice to a num ber o f governm ents and regional fisheries m anagem ent organisations, including th e EU. It publishes Popular Advice by fish species and by region on its w ebsite. Stakeholders Experts Mem ber State representatives Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee STECF Committee on structures for fisheries and aquaculture Commission Committee for fisheries and aquaculture Æ k ES? Policy makers Committee for fisheries products - Representatives # Working groups Opinions and recommendations # Regional advisory councils Comitology procedure Figure 4: Advisory and consultation bodies fo r th e CFP (s) The Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) GFCM is a regional fisheries m anagem ent organisation established in 1952 w hose structure and m andate w ere renew ed in SAC advice fo rm s th e basis fo r binding GFCM recom m endations on fisheries m anagem ent and th e conservation o f m arine resources in th e area fo r w hich it is responsible, com prising th e M editerranean, th e Black Sea and connecting w aters. Scientific and Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF) A fte r getting th e in p u t fro m ICES, th e Commission subsequently consults its ow n advisory C om m ittee STECF, w hich is com prised o f national experts, m ostly scientists (biologists and econom ists), on this ICES advice. It was set up in 1993 to advise th e Commission on fisheries m anagem ent. It is n ot a perm anent body, b ut a pool o f experts w ho co n trib u te to its w o rk e ith e r on a te m p o ra ry basis as m em bers, o r on a dem and basis as experts in w orking groups. The M em bers o f th e STECF are em ployed by national research institute s and nom inated by th e Commission fro m highly qualified scientific experts having com petence in these fields (m arine biology and ecology, fisheries science, 30

32 gear technology, aquaculture, and fisheries econom ics). The te rm o f a M em ber o f th e C om m ittee is 3 years and is renew able. The curre n t STECF M em bers and reserve list was adopted on 27 O ctober 2010 and can be fo und on th e STECF webpage. Acting in co-operation w ith officials o f th e Commission th e C om m ittee may fo rm internal w orking groups, whose m eetings can also be attended by invited experts. The Commission provides th e secretariat o f th e C om m ittee and o f th e w orking groups. The STECF may be consulted by th e Commission on all problem s connected w ith th e provisions governing access to zones and resources o f EU fisheries and th e regulation o f fisheries activities. The opinion o f STECF is crucial in th e process o f setting annual Total A llow able Catches TACs and quotas. The STECF may also on its ow n in itia tive provide opinions in th e areas o f its expertise and produces an annual re p o rt on th e situ atio n as regards fisheries resources and on developm ents in fishing activities. It also reports on th e econom ic im plications o f th e fishery resources situation. Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) TACs are also discussed in th e ACFA, w here stakeholder views are identifie d. This co m m itte e gives th e m ain stakeholders in th e CFP th e o p p o rtu n ity to analyse issues and take com m on positions, to provide policy advice. They can also pass on to th e Commission th e ir opinions on issues arising from th e im p lem enta tion o f CFP legislation. Their in p u t is m ainly political*3. The ACFA consists o f a co m m itte e, a bureau and fo u r w orking parties, o f w hich w orking group 2 are in charge o f A quaculture. Figure 5 illustrates th e com position and interests o f this Advisory C om m ittee. As a fo ru m fo r EU interests, m em bers are recruited fro m am ongst European organisations. R epresentation o f specific stakeholder groups assumes th a t these groups at national, regional or individual levels hold m em bership o f th e relevant European organisations. They consist o f a m yriad o f types o f national organisation, w ith m em bership draw n fro m am ongst companies, low er level organisations and individual citizens - th e latter, fo r exam ple, w ould be th e norm fo r NGOs. Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) The RACs are also consulted on th e annual fishing o pportu nities. They w ere established as part o f the 2002 CFP reform to enable th e European Commission to b enefit fro m th e know ledge and experience o f stakeholders in th e fo rm u la tio n and im p lem enta tion o f fisheries m anagem ent measures by the European institutio ns, and hence to increase stakeholder p articipation in th e policy process. Representatives o f th e fisheries sector and o th e r interest groups, like environm ental p ro tectio n and consum er groups, co nstitu te th e RACs. These organisations are relatively autonom ous. Their main task is to prepare recom m endations and suggestions on fisheries stock m anagem ent related to th e geographical area th a t th e y cover, and present th em to th e Commission a n d /o r relevant national authorities*3. Scientists also participate in th e w o rk o f th e Regional Advisory Councils. They may be consulted by th e Commission, fo r exam ple on th e im p lem en ta tion and preparation o f m anagem ent and recovery plans. They w ill also, on th e ir own initia tive, present recom m endations w here necessary and inform th e Commission and th e M em ber States about problem s associated w ith im p lem enting th e CFP. 31

33 Committee Organ«Plenary Committee ("the Committee") 2 1 member* 8 representatives o f professional organisations 3 representatives o f non professional organisations concerned with the CFP Chair and vice chair o f Sectoral Social Dialogue committees of fisheries Chaii and vice chan of the»our working groups Roles Direct the work of the committee and express the opinions Bureau - 9 members Chair and wee chairs of the four working groups Workers representative from the Sectoral Dialogue Committee Prepare and organise the actrvtties of the working groups WG It WG 2: WG 3: WG 4 Access to fisheries resouices and management of falling activity Aquaculture, fish, shellfish and molluscs Markets and Trade Policy General questions economics and sectoral analysis Prepare the ofxtuons of the committee Interests Chair Chair rvice ch a ir Chair. Chair Prívale vhip owner* Vice ch a ir Cooperative Pxp o w rm i StocK-breedm of IWV Uockbreederj of moflirte* and ihh lfah Processor* vkfcntry Vica ch a ir Producer organisation P riva te tfn p o w n m Vice chair. Trade industry Private shipowners Cooperative ship owners TmpSoyed fishermen Producer orgarusatrom Stock breeders of fish Mollus/sbellfah stock breeders Processors Traders Consumer Environment Development Biology Economy Banks Auctions and ports Total Figure 5, consisting of two parts - the lower part illustrates the organisation of ACFA, i.e. the Plenary Committee, the Bureau and the Working Groups; the upper part illustrates the interests represented and their respective number of seats in the Working Groups and the Plenary. The Commission services participate in the meetings of the Plenary, and the Working Groups. The Secretariat function is provided by the Commission*8. 32

34 In th e end, a Commission proposal is p ut to th e Council o f M inisters, including th e fo llo w in g year's TACs and th e conditions under w hich th e y should be caught*9. The Council o f M inisters fu rth e rm o re (when relevant) takes account o f th e views o f non EU fishing nations and th e advice com ing d irectly fro m ICES, w hich is independent o f EU institutio ns. A fte r negotiations in th e w orking groups and COREPER, th e Council o f M inisters th e n takes th e final decision on TAC levels and any related measures (usually in late December). It is typical fo r th e Council to adopt TACs d iffe re n t from those proposed. In th e run up to Council m eetings, industry and NGOs typ ically engage in intensive lobbying to try and influence th e M inisters o f th e ir respective countries. These annual TACs are subsequently divided betw een M em ber States according to fixed pro portio ns fo llo w in g th e 'principle o f relative sta b ility' based on historical catch records*9. A fte r quotas are fixed by th e Council o f M inisters, each EU m em ber state is responsible fo r policing its ow n quota. D iffe re nt countries d istrib u te th e ir quota am ong fisherm en using d iffe re n t systems. Standing Committee on Agricultural Research's strategic working group SCAR-Fish In 2012, SCAR agreed on th e establishm ent o f a policy-driven strategic group w ith th e objectives to advise th e Commission and M em ber States on research policies and research them es in o rd er to b e tte r coordinate and d irect these activities in support o f th e revised CFP. The group should also develop collaboration betw een M em ber States on a m ore long-term basis in o rd er to su pport cost e fficie n t science and advice. It is expected to achieve p o te n tia lly significant im provem ents such as providing econom y o f scale, avoiding duplication and im proving research efficiency at EU level, sharing research results, linking existing w o rk m ore closely, and jo in tly funding strategic areas*i0). According to th e SCAR-Fish re p o rt Science in su pp ort o f the European fisheries and aquaculture policy: "A lthough several research netw orks, Associations, Com m ittees and International O rganisations play an im p o rta n t role in p ro m o ting research at EU level, th e y m ainly represent th e scientific com m unity and th e industry and are de fa c to end users o f th e EU research program m es and related budgets. None include m in istry representatives n or have th e capacity to define strategic research agenda a n d /o r to m obilise national funds fo r launching jo in t initiatives betw een M em ber States. There are also funding organisation collaborative activities such as SEAS-ERA and JPI Oceans, b ut th e m em berships o f these are much w id e r th an th e fisheries and aquaculture m inistries. The SWG w ou ld help to link th e national donors, p rim arily th e M em ber States' m inistries in charge o f fisheries and aquaculture, w ith th e European Commission, to develop co llaboration beside th e existing structures including fa cilita tio n o f co-operation betw een existing and new collaboration instrum ents and in itia tiv e s."^ CFP REFORM Europe's fisheries policy was in urgent need o f reform. Vessels w ere catching m ore fish than can be reproduced sustainably, thus exhausting individual fish stocks and th re a te n in g th e m arine ecosystem. Today 80% o f M editerranean stocks and 47 % o f A tla n tic stocks are overfished and the fishing ind ustry is experiencing sm aller catches and facing an uncertain fu tu re. By bringing fish stocks 33

35 back to sustainable levels, th e new CFP aims to provide EU citizens w ith a stable, secure and healthy fo o d supply fo r th e long term. The new CFP intends to radically tra n sfo rm fishing practices in Europe and includes: Firm dates to ban fish discards; A legally binding co m m itm e n t to fish at sustainable levels; De-centralised decision making, allow ing M em ber States to agree th e measures appropriate to th e ir fisheries. For th e firs t tim e th e CFP also includes a legally binding co m m itm e n t to fish at sustainable levels, achieving 'm axim um sustainable yield ' by 2015 w here possible, and by 2020 at th e latest. This should ensure th a t annual quotas w ill be underpinned by scientific advice, to achieve healthy fish stocks and a prosperous fishing industry. The new laws w ill also allow countries to w o rk to g e th e r regionally to im p lem ent measures a ppro priate to th e ir ow n fisheries, this w ill replace th e over-centralised system th a t cu rre n tly hinders progress in EU fisheries. In June 2012, th e Council o f th e European Union developed concrete te x t am endm ents fo r several o utstanding issues, relating to th e latest reform o f th e CFP, includes: Maximum sustainable yields (MSY): th e com prom ise aims to achieve MSY by 2015 w here possible (e.g. w hen scientific advice on th e stocks are available at th e necessary detail) and by 2020 at the latest. Consultation w ith th e th ird countries concerned w ill be initia ted in case w here th e stocks are shared, w ith a view to fin d in g an agreem ent on MSY e xploita tion if possible. Multiannual plans: th e com prom ise establishes th a t m ultiannual plans should manage fisheries in m ore detail th ro ugh q uantifia ble targets linked to biological param eters as w ell as safeguard and rem edies. It applies th e MSY to th e significant stocks in m ixed fisheries w hile specific measures apply to o th e r stocks w ith an approach taking into account interactions betw een stocks. Landing obligation and discards ban: Discarding w ill be phased out. The practice o f th ro w in g unw anted fish overboard is estim ated at 23 % o f to ta l catches and substantially m ore in some fisheries. Fishermen w ill be obliged to land all th e com m ercial species th a t th e y catch. This w ill lead to m ore reliable data on fish stocks, support b e tte r m anagem ent, and im prove resource efficiency. It is also an incentive to avoid unw anted catches by means o f technical solutions such as m ore selective fishing gear. A gradual approach o f th e policy is proposed b ut th e aim is still th e e lim in a tion o f discards. W ith regard to th e landing obligation in id e ntifie d fisheries a specification th ro ugh m ultiannual plans w ith in a fixed tim e fra m e is laid dow n. Régionalisation: this concept is supported by a vast m a jo rity o f m em ber states as it accepts th a t one size does n ot fit all. The com prom ise also introduces an a lterna tive m odel fo r régionalisation w here m em ber states adopt national measures th ro u g h regional cooperation. Advisory councils: th e com prom ise envisages th e creation o f additional advisory councils nam ely one fo r th e Black Sea and one fo r o u te rm o st regions o f th e EU. Transferable fishing concessions (TFCs) and capacity management: as requested by many delegations, th e agreem ent stipulates th a t TFC systems should be vo lu ntary. Exem ptions to fle e t 34

36 m anagem ent rules is possible w here TFCs are established and access to funds fro m th e European M a ritim e and Fisheries Fund is strictly co nditioned by fo llo w -u p on a reinforced reporting on capacity m anagem ent. Storage aid: The concept o f storage aid provides a mechanism to store excess produce w hich w ould o therw ise be lost. Flowever, no m ajor change was m ade to th e Commission proposal concerning th e rem aining interven tion instru m e n t storage aid. The EMFF, on w hich a general approach was not foreseen, envisages th e phase-out o f this in stru m e n t over tim e. Consumer information: in add itio n to th e horizontal fo od in fo rm a tio n regulation (1169/2011), conditions fo r displaying vo lu n ta ry in fo rm a tio n are highlighted. The fra m e w o rk allow ing th e Com m ission to develop an EU sustainability label is established. Use of fish not conforming to marketing standards: all caught fish m ay be used fo r purposes o ther th an hum an consum ption. STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES Research requirements National Funding Agencies The UK views th e reform o f th e CFP as a necessity to end unsustainable fishing practices w hich has resulted in th e overfishing o f EU fish stocks and damage to th e m arine environm ent. In th e UK, th e inshore fle e t - fishing boats m ostly under 10 m etres in length w hich operate in coastal w aters - has p articular d ifficulties. Fish stocks are at historically low levels, w ith essentially to o m any boats chasing to o fe w fish. The UK sees th e CFP reform as part o f a set o f policies w hich w ill help to achieve clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. The UK is deeply involved in th e fu ndam e nta l reform o f th e CFP is also negotiation to ensure th a t th e European M a ritim e and Fisheries Fund w ill include funding to help im p lem ent a new CFP. They are also m anaging fish stocks. by negotiating at fisheries councils and th ro ugh measures to co ntrol and reduce w aste o f fish (fish discards) and im p lem enting th e EU regulation to prevent th e im p o rt o f illegal, unregulated and unreporte d fish and fish products into th e EU. The Poland response views th e successes associated w ith th e im p lem enting th e CFP to be related to a substantial reduction o f fishing vessels by scrapping or converting to non-fishery uses and retra in in g o f m any ex-fisherm en to to u rism -re la te d business, such as recreational angling instead o f com m ercial fishing. The Irish response suggested th a t th e use o f existing state m aritim e infra structu re should be m axim ised th ro u g h m ulti-purpose usage and sharing to support th e Data C ollection Fram ew ork fo r th e CFP and im p lem enta tion o f measures including th e conservation, m anagem ent and rebuilding o f fish stocks Stakeholder Workshop During th e UN International Organisations, Policy and Regional Conventions w orkshop th e representative SCARFISH provided several insights into th e CFP. The suggestion was th a t th e science 35

37 to policy mechanisms fo r fisheries are w ell developed and th a t th e re is progress in sharing sensitive data betw een M em be r States such as discard num bers. However, it was noted th a t th e re are still issues surrounding th e use o f th e MSY, notably th a t fishing below MSY is a risk to fo o d security and th a t fishing above MSY is in breach o f CFP. It was also stated th a t th e problem w ith regional scientific com m ittees is th a t th e science is being im parted to th e fishers them selves, n ot th e ir higher level representatives. 3.4 MARITIME SPATIAL PLANNING AND INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE M A N A G E M E N T M a ritim e spatial planning (MSP) and integrated coastal m anagem ent (ICZM) should be com plem entary tools. Their geographical scope overlaps in th e coastal and te rrito ria l w aters o f M em be r States. W here M a ritim e spatial plans w ill map existing hum an activities and id e n tify th e ir m ost effective fu tu re spatial developm ent, integrated coastal m anagem ent strategies ensure the integrated m anagem ent o f these hum an activities. Applied jo in tly, th e y both im prove sea-land interface planning and m anagem ent. It is envisaged th a t MSP and ICZM w ill strengthen and com p lim ent existing m arine legislation such as th e MSFD, Habitats Directive, IMP and th e reform ed CFP. In o rd er to fu rth e r p ro m o te sustainable developm ent o f coastal zones, on th e 12th o f M arch 2013 th e Commission adopted a d ra ft proposal fo r a Directive establishing a fra m e w o rk fo r m aritim e spatial planning and integrated coastal m anagem ent. The proposed instru m e nt w ill require M em ber States to establish coastal m anagem ent strategies th a t build fu rth e r on th e principles and elem ents set o u t in th e Council R ecom m endation on ICZM o f 2002 and th e Protocol to th e Barcelona C onvention on ICZM, ratifie d by th e EU in Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) Coastal zones are also am ong th e m ost vulnerable areas to clim ate change and natural hazards. Risks include flooding, erosion, sea level rise as w ell as extrem e w eath er events. These im pacts are fa r reaching and are already changing th e lives and livelihoods o f coastal com m unities. Integrated coastal m anagem ent aims fo r th e coordinated application o f th e d iffe re n t policies affecting th e coastal zone and related to activities such as nature p ro tectio n, aquaculture, fisheries, agriculture, industry, o ff shore w ind energy, shipping, to urism, d evelopm ent o f infra structu re and m itig atio n and adaptation to clim ate change. It w ill co n trib u te to sustainable developm ent o f coastal zones by th e application o f an approach th a t respects th e lim its o f natural resources and ecosystems, th e so-called 'ecosystem based approach'. Integrated coastal m anagem ent covers th e fu ll cycle o f in fo rm a tio n collection, planning, decisionmaking, m anagem ent and m o n ito rin g o f im p lem enta tion. It is im p o rta n t to involve all stakeholders across th e d iffe re n t sectors to ensure broad support fo r th e im p lem enta tion o f m anagem ent strategies. 36

38 C oherent application w ith m a ritim e spatial planning w ill im prove th e sea-land interface planning and m anagem ent; fo r instance connection o f offshore w ind energy installation to th e e le ctricity n etw o rk on land o r effects o f infra stru ctu re w orks to p ro te ct coastlines against erosion or flo odin g on activities in coastal w aters such as aquaculture or p ro tectio n o f m arine ecosystems. Maritim e spatial planning (MSP) C om petition fo r m a ritim e space, fo r renew able energy equipm ent, aquaculture and o th e r g ro w th areas, has highlighted th e need fo r e fficie n t m anagem ent, to avoid p ote ntia l co n flict and create synergies betw een d iffe re n t activities. M a ritim e spatial planning is com m only understood as a public process fo r analysing and planning th e spatial and te m p o ra l d istrib u tio n o f hum an activities in sea areas to achieve econom ic, environm ental and social objectives. The u ltim a te aim o f m a ritim e spatial planning is to draw up plans to id e n tify th e utilisa tion o f m aritim e space fo r d iffe re n t sea uses. STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES Research requirements National Funding Agencies The response fro m Estonia stated th a t MSP and ICZM should n ot com prom ise th e achievem ent o f GES. They suggest th a t these policies should ensure th e social and econom ic livelihood o f coastal com m unities b u t th a t know ledge gaps (including insufficiency o f research, data and personnel) exist. The response fro m Ireland proposed th a t investm ent in capacity to im p lem ent MSP and ICZM could speed up licensing, providing business ce rta in ty and p ro tectin g ecosystems. The respondent from Poland stated th a t a com prehensive ICZM database is missing, w hich includes clim ate change driven processes, pressures and im pacts on th e land-sea interface. They suggest th e need fo r a gradual d evelopm ent o f detailed pan-eu ICZM stocktaking th a t w ill include clim ate change related problem s. Coordinated monitoring National Funding Agencies The Belgian response confirm ed th a t a procedure has been established, shaped by a Royal Decree, to adopt a MSP fo r Belgian m arine w aters. The response also stated th a t th e M anagem ent U nit o f the N orth Sea M athem atical M odels and th e Scheldt estuary (M U M M ) is considered as an a u th o rity having com petency at sea and participates on th e Advisory Council, this Council fo rm u la te d advice to th e M in iste r on th e p relim inary d ra ft o f th e MSP. 37

39 Stakeholder Workshops In th e pre-w orkshop questionnaire, th e European M arine Board suggested th a t th e re needs to be an integrated approach to dealing w ith m ultiple stressors at various levels, including regulation and planning o f activities (MSP, MPAs, ICZM, etc), m on itoring o f cum ulative impacts and developm ent and im p lem enta tion o f robust and reliable risk m anagem ent strategies. During th e w orkshop, UNEP-MAP stated th a t it has a, M editerranean ecosystem roadm ap, ecological objectives (11 agreed) and ICZM roadm ap. C urrently UNEP-MAP is w orking on m ethodologies fo r: d ete rm in a tio n o f GES fo r th e 11 ecological objectives; preparing an integrated m onitoring system; and com pleting an integrated assessment th a t includes socio-econom ic assessment. The IOC representative inform ed th e w orkshop th a t th e Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) has developed a d ocu m e nt on integrated observations fo r m u ltip le purposes. The representative from th e Black Sea C onvention stated th a t EU legislation is n ot fu lly integrated. The suggestion was th a t this lack o f integration arises fro m : A need to assess approaches at national, regional and international level; Differences at each level makes coordination d ifficu lt; A lack o f general co ordination; A need to u nify approaches to increase co ordin atio n betw een d iffe re n t levels. Web consultation The IHO reported th a t th e coastal zone is an area o f specific concern as m ost existing data have been collected to m eet th e requirem ents o f navigation and th a t th e coverage and th e q uality is insufficient fo r proper MSP and ICZM. They also noted th a t th e IHO and th e European Commission signed a M em orandum o f U nderstanding in The purpose o f this M ou is to provide a fra m e w o rk ensuring co ntinuing liaison betw een th e tw o sides in th e specific areas o f com m on interest including surveillance activities, offshore renew able energy, MSP, ICZM, m arine observation and data netw orks, im p lem enta tion o f th e MSFD, m arine research, data standards (including those specified by INSPIRE D irective (2007/2/EC) and co-operation w ith th ird countries. 3.5 BLUE GROWTH Blue G row th is th e long te rm strategy to support sustainable g ro w th in th e m arine and m aritim e sectors as a w hole. It recognises th a t seas and oceans are drivers fo r th e European econom y w ith g reat p ote ntia l fo r innovation and g ro w th. It is th e Integrated M a ritim e Policy's c o n trib u tio n to achieving th e goals o f th e Europe 2020 strategy fo r sm art, sustainable and inclusive grow th*. The 'blue' econom y represents 5.4 m illion jobs and a gross added value o f ju st under 500 b illion a year. However, fu rth e r g ro w th is possible in a num ber o f areas w hich are highlighted w ith in th e strategy. The strategy consists o f th re e com ponents: 38

40 1. Specific integrated m a ritim e policy m easures a. m arine know ledge to im prove access to in fo rm a tio n about th e sea; b. m a ritim e spatial planning to ensure an e fficie n t and sustainable m anagem ent o f activities at sea; c. Integrated m aritim e surveillance to give auth orities a b e tte r picture o f w h a t is happening a t sea. 2. Sea basin strategies to ensure th e m ost a ppro priate m ix o f measures to p ro m o te sustainable g ro w th th a t take into account local clim atic, oceanographic, econom ic, cultural and social factors: a. A driatic and Ionian Seas b. A rctic Ocean c. A tla n tic Ocean d. Baltic Sea e. Black Sea f. M editerranean Sea g. N orth Sea 3. Targeted approach to w a rd s specific activities: a. aquaculture (Fisheries w ebsite) b. coastal to urism c. m arine biotechnology d. ocean energy e. seabed m ining STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES National Funding Agencies T hroughout th e questionnaire respondents gave answers relating to th e d evelopm ent o f a Blue G row th strategy. The response fro m Romania stated th a t th e re needs to be a coherent pan- European policy fo r th e developm ent o f environm ental frie n d ly econom ic activities. To do this, th ey propose dedicated program s to push fo rw a rd th e cooperation am ong m ajor players in m aritim e econom y (R&D organisations + stakeholders + companies). A dditionally, th e response suggests th a t econom ic g ro w th relies on know ledge transfer, fro m its creators (R&D organisations) to its users (com panies, public a dm in istratio n, etc.). Fostering know ledge tra n sfe r facilitates jo b creation, p ro tectio n o f e nviro n m e nt as w ell as social p ro tectio n. The response fro m Denm ark calls fo r governance and policies to underpin sustainable industry g ro w th based on life cycle analysis and cradle to cradle principles to m inim ise environm ental fo o tp rin t. The Portuguese response suggested th a t Stakeholders lack awareness and m obilisation around th e National Ocean Strategy and objectives to be achieved regarding th e blue g ro w th. They see th a t barriers at a European level are m ainly bureaucratic and th a t to p dow n action in Europe takes years to be effective, th e perception is th a t roughly 30% o f tim e and m oney is lost in paper w ork. They also see th e need to develop and increase research in th e field o f econom y and social sciences associated to blue g ro w th. O ther issues relating to th e Blue G row th agenda w ere raised by Belgium and Turkey w ho expressed concern over fu tu re requirem ents o f policy fo r deep sea m ining and piracy respectively. 39

41 Stakeholder Workshops A consistent th em e w hich appeared th ro ugh th e stakeholder w orkshops was th e need fo r stable fra m e w o rk conditions to enable Blue g ro w th. During th e ERANETS w orkshop it was suggested th a t th e curre n t regulatory fra m e w o rk is n ot suitable to ensure th a t activities are conducted in a sustainable w ay and th a t it is also necessary to ensure a level playing fie ld fo r industry. In the Technology Platform s w orkshop, th e cu rrent legal fra m e w o rk was n ot considered suitable to im p le m e n t technological advances into th e relevant industries; it was th o u g h t th a t th e re is a need fo r long te rm, stable fra m e w o rk conditions w ith th e fle x ib ility to adapt to m arket changes. During th e EU projects w orkshop, it was suggested th a t policy regulations need to be harm onised at national and intern a tio n a l levels in th e collection o f m arine data. This view was echoed in th e Technology Platform s w orkshop, w here it was suggested th a t th e re is a lack o f harm onisation in th e fishing sector because all th e vessels should have th e same m o n ito rin g regulation. During th e Infrastructures w orkshop, it was recognised th a t in o th e r areas o f th e w o rld, m arine sectors are experiencing rapid g ro w th, like aquaculture in China, com pared w ith th e EU and th a t this needs to be addressed. Since th e fishing industry w ill n ot grow, th e role o f aquaculture w ill be th e only w ay to produce m ore seafood. The nature o f aquaculture is d iffe re n t to fishing and as such th e environm ental im pacts are d iffe re n t. There needs to be a w ay to co-exist betw een this productive a ctivity th e preservation o f th e e nviro n m e nt. It was th o u g h t th a t this could be tackled at EU and som etim es in stitu tio n a l level. For exam ple, IFREMER are said to be developing m ethods o f productive aquaculture w hich w ill n o t harm th e environm ent. Web consultation EuroGOOS believes th a t th e lack o f know ledge and know ledge tra n sfe r is th e m ost im p o rta n t barrier to Blue G row th. Innovation and g ro w th o f m aritim e econom y can be fa cilita te d by a m ore structured interactio n betw een know ledge producers and users. Experience fro m th e aquaculture sector has shown th a t w hen th e re are w ell-d e fined issues th a t can be addressed by short to m edium -term research th en this interactio n is active and e fficient. W hen longer te rm issues have to be addressed, w here im pacts and benefits are n ot easily visible, th en additional m echanisms (such as JPI-Oceans) are needed fo r strategic planning and relevant investm ents. The Sclerochronology and S cleroclim atology group at Bangor U niversity considers th a t th e policies m ay be conflicting and w ill im pact industries in d iffe re n t ways. For exam ple, subsidies fo r m arine renewables are positive but restrictions on fisheries are negative. It was th o u g h t th a t th e m ost prom ising aspect o f Blue g ro w th is to change th e focus o f policies such as th e Com m on Fisheries Policy and develop integrated and sustainable fisheries policy. The end result fo r this should be to reduce th e to ta l take and im pact o f fishing w hile increasing th e econom ic value o f fisheries. 40

42 THE SCIENCE - POLICY INTERFACE The science policy interface may be seen as a boundary betw een know ledge producers and know ledge users and can be described in te rm s o f a sim ple econom ic m odel o f supply and demand*22. The m odel sees science (knowledge producers) and governance (policy) as d iffe re n t systems w ith boundary organisations*23 acting as interm ediaries betw een scientists w ho produce in fo rm a tio n, and decision m akers w ho use th e inform a tion. These organisations operate in a dynam ic e nviro n m e nt, essentially "stra dd lin g th e shifting divide betw een politics and science". However, if considered in te rm s o f in fo rm a tio n flo w, and Luhmann's th e o ry o f 'ecological com m unication', such boundary organisations m ay becom e self replicating systems in th e ir own right. They w ill generate th e ir own program s and codes by w hich data and in fo rm a tio n are transfo rm ed into useable in fo rm a tio n th a t lead to decisions. Consequently, th e y lead to d e te rio ra tio n in th e in fo rm a tio n flo w fro m science to policy, w hich now needs translatio n tw ice. In this co nte xt program s (th a t could be algorithm s) are regarded as mechanisms fo r 'filte rin g ' data to e xtract m eaning and used to create evidence whereas codes can be seen as mechanisms fo r w eighing evidence to decide an outcom e. By analogy, w ith in a legal fra m e w o rk th e process o f gathering evidence w ill require screening (filtering) o f data th a t w ill be tu rn e d into evidence and the rules governing this process equate to th e program s. The evidence is w eighed according to set o f codes (rules) in order to dete rm ine if it is su fficien t to indicate g u ilt o r innocence. An EC Fram ework 6 program m e SPICOSA (Science and Policy Integration o r COastal System Assessment), an EU integrated project, has provided an im p o rta n t analysis o f th e science policy dom ain as p art o f a larger program m e th a t developed an operational research approach fra m e w o rk fo r th e assessment o f policy options fo r th e sustainable m anagem ent o f coastal zone systems. The Science-Policy Interface can be seen as a com m unications space, a fo ru m in w hich governance, civil society and science interacts (Figure 6). Each o f th e large rectangles represents an in stitu tio n ; the sm aller, rounded-corner, rectangle represent 'actors': groups or organisations o f people operating according to th e rules o f these institutio ns. The parenthetical w ords (knowledge, decision, and d elibera tion) refer to th e m ain a ttrib u te o f each in stitu tio n (in relation to environm ental problem s). So th e key a ttrib u te o f Science is know ledge obtained according to defined procedures: th e re is, o f course, also knowledge elsewhere, b ut it is n ot defining as in th e case o f Science. Civil society is also shown to contain decision-m aking institu tio n s fo r environm ental co-m anagem ent, w hich are part o f th e collective arrangem ents. SPICOSA's SAF (Systems Approach Fram ework) is a set o f rules w ith tw o main fu nctio ns: to open a space fo r com m unications betw een th e actors (playing th e roles o f stakeholder, scientist o r g overnm ent (o fficia l)/e n viro n m e n t m anager); and to evaluate policy options o r m anagem ent choices relating to a socio-ecological Issue. 41

43 constitutional cvnsw u SCIENCE I / GOVERNANCE! 7 (dea soo) coi! ( IW iv - ledae) operational (deliberation) CIVIL SOCIETY C o - U w Q w to i & / > *? * Figure 6: Interactions between governance, civil society and science(14) RESEARCH A range o f research fu nding m echanisms all have a role to play in generating th e science required to generate new know ledge needed to inform policy. A t th e m ost d irect level policy-m akers may com m ission research or fu nd provision o f advice to address a w ell defined need or policy response. Com m issioned research may have longer (2-5 y) or sh orter (<1-2 y) te rm aims and objectives or be sh orter te rm. Longer te rm research may, fo r exam ple, set o u t to provide im proved understanding o f phenom ena o f strong relevance to policy th a t m ay not be carried o u t elsew here (e.g. eutrophica tion, ecosystem consequences o f overfishing). Such w o rk m ay draw in collaborators fro m o th e r research groups based in institu tio n s and universities. Shorter te rm research projects (1-3 y) are likely to be com m issioned w here answers to m ore specific questions are required (e.g. evaluate and recom m end m odels fo r use to predict oil spill m ovem ent, w o rk to develop an indicato r o f ecosystem status). Projects m ay be e ith e r d ire ctly com m issioned (e.g. single te n d e r actions) o r te ndered th ro ugh a co m p etitive process. M any policy m aking departm ents have th e ir ow n strategic program m es fo r fu nding research (e.g. Defra's). For th e longer te rm and broader questions policy-m akers look to th e scientific co m m un ity's funded activities to draw o u t know ledge and evidence to inform th e ir needs. Conversely th e science co m m unity's approaches, funding m echanisms, o u tp u ts and even perform ance judgem ents are based generally on supporting com binations o f blue skies and strategic research projects a n d /o r program m es w ith criteria based on research excellence usually having greater emphasis th an im pact o r im m ediate application. Yet th e drivers and pressures to d em onstrate im pact and make use o f science fo r a range o f policy and financial reasons are growing. The need fo r effective science/policy interfaces betw een th e science com m unity, th e science com m unity funders and th e policy-m akers are becom ing ever m ore critical. Both o f th e main research modes result in new knowledge b ut com m ission (or applied) research are directed to w ards specific aims and objectives. 42

44 W H A T DO WE M EAN BY POLICY? A policy can be considered a plan or m easure w hich is intended as a response to a perceived need and is im plem ented to achieve a p articular outcom e. For exam ple, regulatory agencies o fte n provide guidance or establish official rules and procedures (regulations); organisations develop strategies to focus th e ir activities; and governm ents introduce legislation to achieve a range o f social, econom ic and environm ental goals. Evidence-based policy-making G overnm ent departm ents increasingly stress th e need fo r evidence-based policy, and it is clear th a t sound policy-m aking relies upon th e g overnm ent receiving a flo w o f reliable in fo rm a tio n fro m all relevant sectors, public and private. A t th e same tim e, policy-m akers and scientists need to recognise th a t policy may have to be decided in th e absence o f com plete inform a tion. Indeed th e scope of policies such as th e MSFD is so w ide it w ill be d iffic u lt to ever have all o f th e in fo rm a tio n th a t is th e o re tica lly required to answ er th e questions posed. A m ore feasible approach is to recognise th a t th e in fo rm a tio n required m ust be f it fo r purpose and legally defensible. The decision w ith regard to w h a t is fit fo r purpose p rim arily lies w ith th e policy user o f scientific inform a tion. Scientists may need to q ualify th e advice th e y give, b ut be ready to fo rm opinions on th e possible options. Policy should be... Evidence based Fit for purpose Defensible Ongoing process Iterative Policy im p lem enta tion is an ongoing process. Although th e process varies, it com m only involves an ite ra tive cycle. Since scientific findings can co n trib u te to th e evaluation as w ell as th e initial d evelopm ent and im p lem en ta tion o f policy, it is appropriate fo r scientists to be involved n ot only early on, b ut also in review ing policy and proposing am endm ents to im prove it. An overview o f the process by w hich policies are developed and im plem ented is shown in Figure 7. 43

45 Policy: Development & im plem entation Requirements Decisions based on evidence Procured through funded Commissioned research Longer term genenc gap filling Blue Skies research Advice provision Government agencies judged on Strategic research Short term focused Relevance, timeliness, quality Figure 7 How science is used to inform and implement environmental policies. The figure shows the different sources of research and how this is funded. M ost environm ental science is p o te n tia lly relevant to policy, it is n ot always obvious if it w ill be relevant im m ediately o r in th e long te rm. Specific findings can have a d irect policy im pact, such as th e observation o f th e A ntarctic ozone hole w hich led to th e developm ent o f th e M ontreal protocol, a specific regulatory to o l. Or in m ore com plex ways, e nvironm ental science supports broader highlevel policy developm ents such as th e aggregation o f knowledge and scientific consensus. An exam ple is th e build up th ro ugh th e IPCC process w hich w ill inform fu tu re clim ate policies and w hich underpins global agreem ents such as th e Kyoto Protocol to th e United Nations Fram ework C onvention on Clim ate Change. The science policy interface is com plex and m ultifaceted. Science findings, reports and publications are only a starting p o in t in providing evidence to policy-m akers; scientists and policy-m akers m ust also w o rk to g e th e r to ensure research outcom es are understood, relevant and achieve m axim um uptake and im pact. Judgem ents o f risk and u nce rta inty com e into play, as w ell as w id e r political drivers. Engaging policy-m akers in science doesn't ju s t mean m aking research results available. It also means helping th em understand th e im plications and w orking w ith th em to decide how to respond, and w h a t additional research, m o n ito rin g or o th e r activities are needed. The in fo rm a tio n flo w needs to be in tw o -d ire ctions. The needs o f policy-m akers should be fram ed in ways w hich th e science co m m unity can respond to - both in te rm s o f specific questions to be posed and addressed and in th e provision o f e ffective 44

46 fu nding mechanisms and fram ew orks fo r dialogue to enable th e necessary research to be specified, delivered and assim ilated into policy developm ents on an ongoing basis. The science to policy process is non-linear and can be unpredictable. New scientific discoveries, such as ocean acidification, call fo r rapid policy d evelopm ent as th e scale and im plications o f th e environm ental change are becom ing apparent. New technological advances, such as th e use o f nano-particles and m icro-plastics in a range o f novel products and processes are having unforeseen consequences in ocean ecosystems and m ay require additional regulation. In some areas th e policy im perative fo r action sets goals fo r a tta in m e n t w hich them selves pose new challenges fo r scientific understanding; fo r exam ple th e MSFD is o ften cited as an exam ple o f w here 'th e policy leads th e science'. This raises a series o f challenges w hich m ust inform, im p licitly and explicitly, th e developm ent o f any e ffe ctive science/policy interface activities. These include: How policy-m akers judge th e va lid ity o f scientific advice: o Dem onstrable im p a rtia lity o r th e opposite, o Strength o f track record o f advice provision, o Scientific standing o f advice giver, o Trust, m utual respect and understanding, Need to distinguish betw een d iffe re n t types o f scientific know ledge and how it m ay be used: o Prior knowledge residing in d iffe re n t repositories w ith d iffe re n t stakeholder in te re s ts - scientific literature, people (expert opinion), a know ledge reservoir, o Knowledge and insight gained th ro ugh discussion (e.g. ICES WG) - co m m unity analysis, o Advice based on scientific know ledge fo r ad hoc questions, o An evidence base incorporating in fo rm a tio n derived fro m data acquired th ro ugh: observations carried o u t as p art o f a m o n ito rin g program m e, observations carried as part o f research program m e, m odel sim ulation(s), integrated data a n d /o r assim ilated into models. The need to consider th e nature o f th e req uirem ent and th e tim escale o f policy responses: o A d hoc requirem ents e.g. em ergency response, o Policy developm ent, o Policy im p lem enta tion, o In te rp re ta tio n and evaluation o f evidence, o R ep ea te d/iterative advice based on recurring requirem ents. Guidelines for policy-makers on using science In 2010, th e UK governm ent's Chief Scientific Adviser produced revised Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy M aking. These address how g overnm ent departm ents should obtain and use scientific analysis and advice in policy-m aking<is). A m ajor concern fo r policy-m akers is th e need to assess risk and uncertainty. The issue was investigated in 2006 by th e fo rm e r House o f Com m ons Science & Technology C om m ittee in its in q uiry Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence-Based Policy M aking<is). 45

47 It has also been considered by th e UK's Parliam entary O ffice o f Science & Technology. This highlighted th e d iffe re n t types o f risk and uncertainty, th e benefits o f public engagem ent, and th e guidance th a t uncertainties should be m ade explicit and th e ir Im plications transparently taken Into account In decision-m aking. A t European Level th e Commission has recently recognised th e need fo r high p ro file leadership th ro u g h th e a p p o in tm e n t o f Professor Anne Glover as th e firs t European Chief Scientific Adviser. Her m andate Is: To provide Independent expert advice on any aspect o f science, technology and Innovation as requested by th e President; Upon a request by th e President, to provide analysis and opinion on m ajor policy proposals being su bm itted to th e College touching upon Issues o f science, technology and Innovation; In p articular th e Chief Scientific Adviser w ill provide a u th o rita tive guidance on In te rp re ta tio n o f scientific evidence In presence o f uncertainty, and w ill be Involved In strategic em ergency planning; To build relationships w ith high-level advisory groups (e.g. European Research Area Board), th e scientific C om m ittees o f th e Commission, th e EU agencies (European M edicine Agency, European Food Safety A u th o rity, th e European Chemicals Agency and th e European Centre fo r Disease Prevention and C ontrol), th e European Group on Ethics In Science and New Technologies; To build relationships w ith sim ilar structures In M em ber States and o th e r countries; To advise on novel science, technology and Innovation Issues arising both In th e co nte xt o f th e EU and In te rn atio nally; to serve as an early w arning conduct p o in t on Issues th a t m ight arise w hen scientific progress entalis e ith e r o p p o rtu n ity o r th re a t fo r th e EU; To com m unicate th e scientific values on w hich specific Commission proposals are based In o rd er to enhance public confidence In science and technology, and In general to p rom ote European culture o f science and technology w id e ly w ith in Europe and abroad; To chair th e President's Science and Technology Advisory C ouncil. 4.1 INCREASING SIZE AN D CO M PLEXITY OF POLICIES There is an increasing num ber o f articles being published by th e m arine science academ ic co m m unity relating to th e scientific requirem ents o f European policies. W ith in this body o f lite ra tu re one can fin d critiques o f policies, calls fo r action and suggestions o f how to im p lem ent specific aspects o f d iffe re n t policies. A criticism o f policies such as th e MSFD relates to how science should be used to assess th e health o f an ecosystem <i7). Unlike th e WFD, w hich indicates fo u r ways in w hich th e condition o f an ecosystem can be addressed, th e MSFD leaves th e d evelopm ent o f assessment criteria and m ethodology up to m em ber states<is). In add itio n to th e issue o f in te rco m p a ra b ility, th e re is also some scepticism to 46

48 w h e th e r th e scientific understanding o f m arine ecosystems and th e ir responses to hum an activities is cu rre n tly su fficient to fu lly im p le m e n t policies such as th e MSFD<i7. A n o th e r area o f debate relates to th e governance structures w hich exist fo r European m arine legislation, nam ely th e concept o f M ulti-level Governance ^9. The nature o f th e m arine e nviro n m e nt is creating an increasing level o f interdependence betw een governm ents operating at d iffe re n t te rrito ria l levels and as a result, th e level o f interdependence betw een governm ents and n o n governm ental organisations is also increasing. It has been suggested th a t as policies m ove away from established institu tio n a l m echanisms a certain level o f am biguity w ill arise (19' 20\ This a m biguity can be seen as discrepancy betw een th e im p lem enta tion o f d iffe re n t policies by an in s titu tio n ^ C O M M U N IC A T IO N OF UNCERTAINTIES AN D RISK The com m unication o f scientific u nce rta inty to policy-m akers can easily lead to m isunderstandings. The problem arises fro m d iffe re n t understandings o f th e te rm "ce rta in ". W hile scientists use the te rm in a scientific and statistical sense, policy-m akers, th e m edia and th e public te n d to have a looser d e fin itio n. W hen presenting th e ir findings, a scientist w ill give an u nce rta inty relating to p ote ntia l errors th a t can result fro m a range o f factors, such as th e accuracy o f th e instrum ents used to collect th e data. It is im p o rta n t th a t evidence is presented to policy-m akers w ith u nce rta inty attached to allow them to make an inform ed decision. But how can this mechanism be im proved? W h a t can be done to ensure th a t scientists present unce rta inty in a w ay th a t policym akers understand and how can p olicymakers be educated to b e tte r understand w h a t u nce rta inty means in scientific term s? Perhaps th e m ost high profile science to policy mechanism is th e IPCC assessment reports. To ensure consistency betw een m u ltip le authors o f th e final report, th e IPCC issues guidance notes such as the Guidance N ote fo r Lead A uthors o f the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatm ent o f U n c e rta in tie s ^. This d ocu m e nt provides th e scientists w ith advice on how to translate scientific u nce rta inty into te rm s th a t w ould be understandable to policy-m akers; one exam ple (shown in Table 5) shows th e te rm in o lo g y to be used to su bstitute th e percentage likelihood o f an event taking place. Table 5: Provides calibrated languagefor describing quantified uncertainty1211. Term V irtu a lly certain Very likely Likely A b out as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Exceptionally unlikely Likelihood of the Outcome % pro bability % pro bability % pro bability 33-66% p ro bability 0-33% pro ba bility 0-10% pro ba bility 0-1% p ro b a b ility Figure 8 is also taken fro m th e IPCC guidance notes and depicts sum m ary statem ents fo r evidence and agreem ent and th e ir relationship to confidence. W hereas Table 5 is able to provide an exact tra n sla tio n fo r num bers to te rm inology, this Figure tries to correlate agreem ent and evidence into a 47

49 "co nfid e nce " scale. There is m ore fle x ib ility in this relationship, w hich is shown by th e shading, b ut it is also recognised th a t confidence should n o t be inte rp re te d as p ro b a b ility and th a t it is n ot th e same o f "statistica l confidence". t c a E a> E < High agreement Limited evidence Medium agreement Limited evidence High agreement Medium evidence Robust evidence Medium agreement Medium evidence Medium agreement Robust evidence Low agreement Limited evidence Low agreement Medium evidence Low agreement Robust evidence Confidence Scale Evidence (type, amount, quality, consistency)* Figure 8: A depiction o f evidence and agreem ent statem ents and th e ir relationship to confidence. Confidence increases tow ards the to p -rig h t corner as suggested by the increasing strength o f shading. Generally, evidence is m ost robust when there are m ultiple, consistent lines o f high quality evidence*211. In European policy, th e W a te r Fram ework D irective requires an estim ate o f th e level o f confidence achieved in classification o f th e status o f a w a te r body. A specific technical approach on achieving and reporting adequate confidence and precision has been addressed in th e Ecological Classification Guidance*3. It indicates how a level o f confidence is recom m ended to be assigned and specifies th a t m o n ito rin g results th a t do n ot include an estim ate o f th e ir errors should n ot be used in classification. In fo rm atio n on confidence and precision in m onitoring results, using th e norm al m ethods by w hich scientists estim ate th e errors and confidence lim its in th e num erical results produced by th e ir m onitoring, w ill help to q uantify th e u nce rta inty fro m errors and gaps in data and allow to estim ate th e level o f confidence as a percentage o f p robability, th a t th e tru e class o f a w a te r body is: (a) As reported; (b) W orse th an reported; or, (c) B etter th an reported. The main recom m endation o f th e guidance is th a t th e estim ates fo r (a), (b) and (c) should always be made. It is recom m ended th a t th e main sources o f u nce rta inty in th e class assigned should be identifie d, w ith p articular reference to m on itoring frequencies and ta xonom ic resolution and how these have been used to achieve adequate confidence. The aim is to reduce errors, w here necessary, using m ore and b e tte r m on itoring and assessment. Also in th e OSPAR e utrophica tion assessments, e ffo rts have recently been m ade to include estim ations o f confidence in th e assignm ent o f e utrophica tion problem areas. In th e 2013 update o f th e Com m on Procedure fo r th e Id entification o f th e E utrophication Status o f th e OSPAR M aritim e 48

50 Area3 confidence o f assessment against area-specific thresholds as w ell as o f representativeness o f m o n ito rin g stations in space and tim e w ill be assessed. 1) Confidence rating o f th e individual assessment param eters w ill be applied to indicate th e re lia b ility o f th e m onitoring data. The confidence is assigned using e ith e r a q u a n tita tive (e.g. fo r th e param eters n utrients, chlorophyll-a) o r a descriptive approach (e.g. fo r th e param eters m acrophytes and m acrozoobenthos). 2) To docum ent th e representativeness in space and tim e o f th e existing m o n ito rin g array a gridded approach can be used w here appropriate. The approach requires an ite ra tive procedure on th e basis o f subdividing space (e.g. stations along transects) and tim e (assessment period under consideration) in grid elem ents and assigning a score to th e m on itoring density in grid elem ents in relation to th e gradients evid ent in th a t space/tim e. The procedure is n o t suitable fo r highly dynam ic environm ents (w here instead o f transects o f fixed stations e.g. high-frequency sam pling fro m autom ated buoys m ight be em ployed), nor fo r m arine areas w here w a te r masses are highly discontinuous and cannot be applied to m o n ito rin g strategies th a t are relying on novel observation tools. In case th e proposed m ethod is n ot suitable fo r certain assessment areas it should be explicitly described how th e m o n ito rin g design addresses th e particular typ olo gy and m ain hydrographical dynamics in th e area, so as to provide evidence on th e representativeness of m o n ito rin g in space and tim e. 4.3 STAKEHOLDER ENGAG EM ENT IN THE M A R IN E AN D M A R IT IM E SECTOR AT EU LEVEL The need fo r urgent e ffo rts to construct a stakeholder dialogue at EU level across th e m arine and m a ritim e policy stakeholder com m unities was recognised in th e An In te grate d M a ritim e Policy fo r the European Union -Com m unication fro m the Commission to the European P arliam ent, the Council, the European Economic and Social C om m ittee and the C om m ittee o f the Regions COM (also know n as th e 'Blue Book'). Am ongst its m any actions, th e Commission co m m itte d to presenting a com prehensive European Strategy fo r M arine and M a ritim e Research in 2008<22); to launch jo in t cross-cutting calls under th e 7th Research Fram ew ork Program me to p ro m o te an integrated approach and im prove understanding o f m aritim e affairs; and to supporting th e creation o f a European m arine science partnership fo r a concerted dialogue betw een th e scientific com m unity, the ind ustry and policy-m akers. In response to th e la tte r co m m itm e nt, one o f th e actions was th e creation o f a European M a ritim e Day. First launched in 2008 and now in its seventh year (Brem en M ay 2014) th e associated high level stakeholder conferences have provided a p la tfo rm fo r dialogue across th e m arine and m aritim e com m unities, policy-m akers and industry, helped to raise th e visibility o f m aritim e sectors and su pport an integrated approach to m aritim e affair. Participants come fro m ports, shipping industries, clusters, environm ental associations, trade unions, scientific and research institutions, education, and local, regional, national and European a uth orities, am ongst others. A t th e OSPAR, Com m on Procedure fo r th e Id entificatio n o f th e E utrophication Status o f th e OSPAR M a ritim e Area h ttp ://w w w.o sp a r.o rg /d o cu m e n ts/d b a se/d e cre cs/a g re e m e n ts/1 3-08e com m on proc eutrophica tion.d oc 49

51 M eeting in Rome a w orkshop on 'An all-embracing stakeholder platform for a holistic Maritime Policy'4 concluded th a t th e re was strong su pport fo r dialogue betw een m aritim e stakeholders, and betw een th em and public a uth orities; th e need to take into account th e diversity o f interests o f stakeholders; and su pport fo r a coordinating group based on th e five pillars o f science, industry, environm ental NGOs, regions, and users o f th e sea. Participants in th e discussion recognised th a t to be successful any such platform (s) should be able to act around specific th e m a tic foci and d em onstrate added value, th e one size fits all' approach was n o t seen as being achievable. In subsequent years th e European M a ritim e days have adopted them es w hich refle ct this - and are increasing focused on th e blue g ro w th agenda. As a now recognised 'b rand' bringing to g e th e r key stakeholders th e European M a ritim e days represent one m echanism th a t th e JPI Oceans co m m u n ity m ig ht build upon in reinforcing cross sectoral, m u ltistakeholder dialogue at th e science/policy interface The com m ission, under FP7, also p ut in place calls fo r co ordin atio n and support actions to fa cilita te stakeholder dialogue across th e m arine and m a ritim e com m unities. The funded projects w hich arose fo r these calls, in particular MARCOM + and EMAR2RES, now both concluded, b rought to g e th e r a range o f interm e dia ry and representative organisations and p latform s them selves consisting o f a range o f m em ber o f stakeholders. The MARCOM+ p ro je ct5, coordinated by ICES, aim ed to support th e m arine and m a ritim e science com m unities to te st m echanisms fo r th e establishm ent o f a European m arine science partnership th a t w ould co n trib u te to developing interactions betw een partners (M em ber States, regional a uthorities, th e research com m unity, industry and o th e r stakeholders). The EMAR2RES project b ro ug ht to g e th e r stakeholders w ith a focus on m aritim e tra n s p o rt6. On 22 M arch 2012 these tw o projects held a final conference e n title d "Fish and Ships". The detailed deliverables, e ffo rts and experiences o f th e consortium m em bers p articipating in these tw o projects provide a valuable resource and source o f lessons th a t should be drawn on to inform th e d evelopm ent o f any fu tu re m a rin e /m a ritim e science to policy and stakeholder engagem ent interfaces. 4.4 STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES ON SCIENCE-POLICY INTERFACES National Funding Agencies The respondents to th e national funding agencies questionnaire gave specific exam ples o f m echanism s w hich exist to help channel advice fro m researchers to policy-m akers. The respondents w ere also asked to explain w hy th e science to policy m echanisms th e y gave as examples w ere effective. The questions asked relating to th e science policy interface can be fo un d in Annex V aritim eaffairs/m aritim edav/en/2009 (proceeding pages 74-79) 5 en.html 6 ar2res.eu/ 50

52 Belgium reported th a t projects o f th e research program m es o f BELSPO are fo llo w e d by a "user co m m itte e " com posed o f pote ntia l users o f th e research outcom es. The objective o f this co m m itte e is to provide an active fo llo w -u p o f th e p roject and to d ete rm ine th e value o f th e research. It carries o u t its role th ro ugh th e exchange and provision o f data and inform a tion, giving advice, suggesting possibilities to valorise th e research, etc. The co m m itte e is com posed o f p ote ntia l users o f the results, such as representatives o f public auth orities at national, regional, European, or international level, social actors, scientists, industrial actors, etc. The co m m itte e is fo rm e d at th e beginning o f a p ro je ct and its com position is proposed by th e researchers during th e p roject proposal stage. Several m eetings and contacts are organised during th e course o f th e p roject betw een th e researchers and th e com m ittee. In Flanders, th e Flanders M arine In stitu te (VLIZ) uses d iffe re n t mechanisms w hich range fro m in fo rm a tio n portal (website), to study and expert groups, conferences, debates and policy inform ing briefs. VLIZ has rece ntly published The Com pendium fo r Coast and Sea w hich contains th e socioeconom ic, ecological and in stitu tio n a l aspects o f th e coast and th e sea in Flanders and Belgium. The C om pendium aims to aggregate objective and scientifically-underpinned in fo rm a tio n and data fro m Flem ish/belgian m arine and m a ritim e research and intends to increase th e accessibility and visibility o f this research. This in itia tive is th e result o f intense cooperation w ith a n e tw o rk o f experts and was coordinated by th e (VLIZ). Chapter 3 o f th e C om pendium provides an overview o f th e existing m echanisms, auth orities and pla tfo rm s fo r th e im p lem enta tion o f research results into m a rin e /m a ritim e policy choices and policy decisions. The respondent fe lt th a t th e Com pendium is effective because it gives fu ll access to in fo rm a tio n about th e socio-econom ic, ecological and in stitu tio n a l aspects o f th e coast and th e sea in Flanders and Belgium. It is a one-stop-shop fo r policymakers to fin d relevant scientific inform a tion. Flanders also publishes annual reports on th e state o f th e e nviro n m e nt (V M M M ilieurapporten MIRA) and on N ature (INBO- N atuur rapporten NARA). The Flemish governm ents d e p a rtm e n t fo r A griculture and Fisheries has published a re p o rt on Fisheries (VIRA). Annual reports on fisheries (landings, value o f landings, fle e t and econom ic o u tp u t) are also published. The Flanders Port Commission (Vlaamse Havencom missie) publishes six-m onthly statistics and annual extensive reports on th e Ports activities on tu rn o ve r, e m p lo ym ent and investm ents. In Ireland th e main channels o f com m unication used by researchers to advise national policy are: Research O utputs (Policy Reports) Focus Groups W orkshops/c onferences Policy-m akers also dire ctly com m ission reports pertaining to p articular policy issues. It is th o u g h t th a t these mechanisms are effective to a p oint b u t th a t im provem ents could be m ade so th a t the dissem ination o f science-to-policy is m ore co-ordinated and stream lined. The Prime M in ister's O ffice in Finland organises 2-4 m eetings a year fo r m arine and m aritim e stakeholders (governm ental offices, NGOs and business and trade organisations). The m eetings are designed to inform and discuss national com m ents on EU initiatives. In Romania M inistries request researchers w ith specific expertise on an ad hoc basis. As an exam ple, th e response cited m o n ito rin g in th e Black Sea w hich is perform ed in Romania by N ational R&D 51

53 In stitu te fo r M arine Sciences "G rigore A n tipa" fro m Constanta. M in istry o f Environm ents provide financial resources to this in stitu te fo r receiving up to date in fo rm a tio n on this issue. Data regarding air q u a lity (low level) are provided by National Agency fo r Environm ent P rotection (ANPM) on regular basis. W hile in Romania th e re is a continuous interactio n betw een R&D organisations (th a t are part o f th e N ational R&D System) and policy-m akers on specific issues. The role o f science w ith in the policy m aking process should be strengthened and science in p u t in policy m aking process should be done on regular basis. In Turkey fisheries advisory group including fisherm en associations, scientists, m inisterial s ta ff and NGOs affect th e fin al m anagem ent decisions m ade by th e M inistry. This is th o u g h t to be effective since all parties take part in th e m eetings and final decisions. Managers o f scientific institu tio n s in Poland cooperate w ith policym akers to seek additional funding. They see this activity in th e scientific sector as a sym ptom o f th e a b ility to survive in an e nviro n m e nt w here m u ltip le sources o f fu nding m ust be pursued. The negative side o f this situation is th a t some research avenues are som etim es stopped before being fu lly explored due change in policy-driven topics. It is th o u g h t th a t these m echanisms w ould be m ore e fficient, accurate and th orough if data access is less restricted. The Portuguese response stated th a t it is accepted th a t m arine knowledge in Portugal is transferred: By interested scientists, using conferences, newspapers o r o th e r sim ilar tools; Using scientists contracted as advisor sta ff to th e d iffe re n t a dm in istratio n offices; th ro u g h high level advisory boards, such as th e N ational Council fo r th e Environm ent and Sustainable D evelopm ent; Through a governm ental body (Portuguese In stitu te fo r th e Sea and Atm osphere - IPMA; w eb link: h ttp s ://w w w.ip m a.p t/e n /in d e x.h tm l). w hich is part o f th e central a dm inistration, and is responsible fo r producing political and technical advice and enviro n m e nt m onitoring. In addition, The Azorean G overnm ent body dedicated to th e m aritim e affairs has also launched an annual conference w here scientists are invited to share th e ir know ledge and achievem ents ("To know th e sea o f th e Azores". In Portuguese: "Conhecer o M ar dos Açores". In th e case o f FCT, th e Scientific Councils, nam ely th e Scientific Council fo r Natural and Environm ental Sciences, provide th e FCT Board w ith strategic advice and recom m endations on developing, im p lem enting and m odifying science and technology support program m es. The scientific councils' advice and recom m endations draw on a range o f perspectives fro m across key stakeholder groups including academ ia, business, th ird sector organisations and G overnm ent and m eets on a regular basis (usually every tw o m onths). It is th e Scientific Councils' re m it to : Advise on FCT's strategic plans fo r research, tra in in g and know ledge exchange, in o rd er to increase Portugal's scientific com petitiveness; Advise FCT on building a m ultidiscip lin ary research com m unity and supporting internationally co m p etitive science in Portugal; Provide an app ro priate e nviro n m e nt fo r te sting new ideas. Flowever, th e respondent stated th a t th e m echanisms are n o t effective or organised at a national level. They believe th a t th e Portuguese G overnm ent should organise an annual conference sim ilar to th e one th a t th e regional g o ve rn m e nt o f th e Azores already organises. A t such a conference, 52

54 scientists w ould share th e pathways leading to th e creation o f knowledge aligned w ith th e m arine and m a ritim e national strategies. The UK response provided several exam ples including: Examples include: UK clim ate change partnership CCIP: M arine clim ate change im pacts p artnership ( MCCIP): The G overnm ent's M arine Science C oordination co m m itte e (MSCC) and its subgroups; Living w ith E nvironm ental Change LWEC: Co-design o f new research program m es e.g. Defra/DECC/NERC fo r A rctic science; Plus consultation responses, a w ide range o f com m ittees, b riefing notes to parlia m e ntarian s. These m echanisms are specific, focused and have a considerable degree o f agreem ent and support. They are th o u g h t to w o rk w ell w hen th e science is done fo r a specific purpose w ith realistic expectations o f w h a t th e science w ill deliver. Scorecards deliver science to policy in fo rm a tio n in a clear and precise w ay and on a tim escale to be usable w hich makes th e m good fo r an aggregation o f indicators However, th e respondent reported th a t this does n ot have so m uch scope fo r strategic in p u t into evidence, th a t has to be handled in d iffe re n t ways th ro ugh th e evidence groups. The response also stated th a t th e com m unication and understanding o f u nce rta inty is necessary to avoid bias. In Norway research program s funded th ro ugh th e Research Council o f N orw ay arrange conferences fo r researchers and policy-m akers, w here th e results fro m new research are presented. In addition research in stitute s publish rep orts w ith an o verview o f relevant research. The N orw egian response also provided portals presenting relevant research including: Environment.no: The W eb site - State o f th e E nvironm ent N orw ay - aims to provide you w ith the latest in fo rm a tio n about th e state and developm ent o f th e environm ent. The service presents environm ental topics in a sim ple and e asy-to-follow w ay and provides access to m ore detailed scientific presentations. On m ost o f th e pages you w ill also fin d fu rth e r in fo rm a tio n about legislation and international agreem ents, environm ental targets, references and relevant links. In addition you m ay dow nload th e latest data sets. MatPortalen.no: The w eb sites present in fo rm a tio n a bout food, health and physical activity to consum ers fro m th e Norwegian health and fo o d a uthorities. The objective o f m atp orta len.n o is to help th e consum ers make enlightened choices. english.vkm.no : The Norwegian Scientific C om m ittee fo r Food Safety (VKM) carries o u t independent risk assessments fo r th e Norwegian Food Safety A u th o rity (M a ttilsyne t) across th e A u th o rity's fie ld o f responsibility as w ell as e nvironm ental risk assessments o f genetically m odified organisms fo r the D irectorate fo r N ature M anagem ent. The Norwegian response stated th a t th e re is always th e need to im prove science to policy m echanisms, b ut th a t w ith in th e fisheries m anagem ent th e re is a q uite e fficien t science to policy m echanism in place. This was confirm ed in a recent evaluation o f th e In stitu te o f M arine Research. 53

55 The national funding agencies w ere also asked if th e re are examples o f European o r international science-to-policy mechanisms o r processes w hich are p articularly effective and could be investigated as case studies. Norway, th e UK and Turkey suggested th a t ICES as a good science-policy mechanism. The Norwegian response elaborated fu rth e r th a t th e system fo r developing scientific advises fo r fish populations th ro u g h ICES WG/EGs and fin a lly advice given by ICES th ro ugh th e Advisory C om m ittee w here selected scientists fro m m em ber countries o f ICES give th e ir scientific approval, is a good exam ple of an e fficie n t science to policy m echanism in Europe. The UK also provided th e IPCC as an independent scientific perspective w hich is peer reviewed. The Portuguese response suggested th a t the p articip a tion o f th e national fu nding agencies in European o r international science-to-policy organisations or C om m ittees is an exam ple o f best practice. These include th e European Science Foundation (ESF), Science Europe (SE), European C ooperation in Science and Technology (COST) and Joint Research Centre (JRC). W hile th e o th e r responses to this question did n ot give specific examples, th e y suggested additional m echanism s th a t exist. As a relatively new EU m em ber, Poland has fo und th e very obligation o f having to adopt EU m arine standards is very effective and th a t these w ould n o t have been im plem ented due to th e associated social costs, w hich are alleviated by th e access to EU funds. The Irish response suggested th a t open access to online research repositories has increased th e in fo rm a tio n available to both researchers and policy-m akers, w hich has provided b e tte r knowledge tra n sfe r across m em ber states. The Estonian respondent stated th e m echanisms w here key experts can participate in m anagem ent/policy m eetings and d ire ctly tra n sfe r th e knowledge and advice are effective. Flowever, th e y reported th a t this does n ot always occur, especially in situations w here science is created by universities, b ut th e co untry is o fficially represented by governm ental d epartm ents w ho do n ot hold scientific excellence. It is th o u g h t th a t in several countries scientific excellence is located in universities and involvem ent o f university scientists in science-to-policy m echanism is o f essential and increasingly im p orta nt. The response fro m Italy suggested th a t im p lem enta tion o f th e new IOC GOOS program m e could be an effective m ethod to establish th e science to policy European link. It was reported th a t th e GOOS Steering C om m ittee is designing an enhanced global sustained ocean observing system over th e next decade, integrating new physical, biogeochem ical, biological observations w hile sustaining present observations. This new concept w ill consider th e political and social issues as main requirem ents o f th e ocean observing system as w ell as th e possibility to sustain present research observations, expand to new variables to serve new requirem ents, and id e n tify regional priorities, capacity, and addressing gaps. The Italian response id e ntifie d lack on off-shore data, poor q uality o f coastal data, no com m on data q uality control and q uality assurance as barriers to im plem enting m arine policies. It was suggested th a t observing infrastructures are lim ite d and th a t th e re is no design fo r th e optim al spatial d istrib u tio n o f infrastructures. The response fro m Denm ark stated th a t th e re is a lack o f data and in fo rm a tio n sharing betw een m inistries responsible fo r each industry sector w ith in each co untry to im p lem ent th e MSFD and a possible MSP, so to coordinate at an international level is challenging and th a t M em be r States do not share sim ilar organisational structures w hich adds to th e com plexity. The response also recognised th a t w h ile th e m echanism s to provide sound, credible and tra n sp a re n t advice on fisheries 54

56 m anagem ent is available in Europe, coordinated th ro ugh ICES, th e resources to deliver th e scientific basis and th e advice are overstretched due to increasing dem ands on th e advisory process w ith respect to tim e and spatial scales to be addressed, and th e delineation o f ecological, econom ical and social consequences o f suggested and im plem ented m anagem ent measures. In com bination w ith above problem s in th e im p lem enta tion o f th e MSFD as e nvironm ental pillar o f th e CFP, and interlinkage to o th e r m aritim e activities, th e re are m ajor challenges ahead in delivering science and advice underpinning European policies. The response fro m Sweden suggested fo u r issues relating to th e im p lem enta tion o f EU m arine and m a ritim e policies. Lack o f basic environm ental and b iotope data, restrictions in te rm s o f distrib u tio n o f depth data, research institu tio n s are n ot fo llo w in g th e Open data directive and a lack o f com m on m etadata sets, and central storage directives Stakeholder Workshop UN-International Organisations, Policy and Regional Conventions One area w here it was fe lt th a t com m unication could be increased betw een scientists and policy m aker is fisheries. The CFP cu rre n tly aims to achieve th e MSY in fisheries to ensure sustainable food security. However, th e re are several scientific issues w ith this concept, such as how to achieve MSY in a m ixed fishery. W ith o u t understanding how to achieve MSY in a m ixed fishery, fo od security is at risk if fishing is below th e MSY w hereas to over fish w ould be in breach o f th e CFP. The aspiration should be to in p u t scientific know ledge into fisheries m anagem ent. There are tools available, such as th e Ocean Health Index, to integrate all th e relevant data to make policy level assessments. However, these to ols lack th e data to underpin effective analysis and th ere are some tools available, such as DIVA, w hich are n ot shared betw een M em ber States. There is an urgent need to explain th e role o f th e oceans sub-surface to policy-m akers, especially deep-ocean and its role as a heat and carbon sink. Some systems, such as OSPAR, have a legal obligation to have science to policy dialogue. However, it was suggested th a t th e modes o f practice in OSPAR could b e n e fit fro m a m ore dynam ic involvem ent. Policy-m akers are n ot seen to be good at asking th e rig ht questions to be addressed by scientists and yet science based policy d evelopm ent is central to good m anagem ent. O ther exam ples o f alm ost legal requirem ent o f science to policy dialogue exist in Australia, w here th e connection betw een the fishing industry and scientists is effective. In Europe, SCARFISH brings fisheries stakeholders to g e th e r to solve problem s and involves experts fro m science and policy. It was recognised th a t political su pport fo r environm ental issues is closely linked to public opinion. It was suggested th a t scientists could utilise m edia o utle ts to encourage public understanding, and th e re fo re political support, o f environm ental issues. To be effective, scientists need to ensure th a t th e ir in fo rm a tio n is presented clearly and accurately. The im portance o f publicising key issues, such as C02 crossing th e 400ppm threshold in th e atm osphere, ensures th a t e nvironm ental concerns rem ain in th e public interest and th e re fo re at th e fo re fro n t o f governm ent decision making. 55

57 It was suggested th a t industry should be involved in th e science-policy cycle since th e developm ent o f new policies may lead to new m arket o pportu nities. For example, industries have em erged to add value to th e data fro m basic m o n ito rin g requirem ents and this p ote ntia l should be considered in the d evelopm ent o f a m o n ito rin g strategy. The key issue is how science-policy m echanisms can connect producers and p ote ntia l users o f data. An exam ple is th e th e COPERNICUS M arine Core Service, w hich covers m o n ito rin g and provides operational forecasting o f th e ocean. Core in fo rm a tio n outp uts o f COPERNICUS are being utilised by industry to develop services and products fo r a range o f end users7. Several lim ita tio n s to effective science-policy m echanisms w ere identifie d by th e stakeholders. It was th o u g h t th a t fo r some environm ental issues th e re is a lack o f scientific understanding and data to inform policy. It was suggested th a t in th e case o f ocean acidification, scientists are still tryin g to understand th e signal-to-noise relationship and th e re fo re th e data is cannot be used to provide advice to policy-m akers. It was also acknowledged th a t environm ental m anagem ent decisions are n o t based solely on scientific advice and w hile this is n ot a fa ilu re o f th e science or th e m echanism, it can lead to ineffective policy decisions. It was suggested th a t this is evident in relation to fisheries m anagem ent. One barrie r th a t exists in science to policy m echanisms is th a t scientists, policy-m akers and public use d iffe re n t 'languages'. It was suggested th a t JPI Oceans could fa cilita te th e com m unication betw een these groups by utilising professionals. Australia already uses 'know ledge brokers' to fa cilita te this intercom m u n ica tion. W hile OSPAR talks to environm ental departm ents, th e JPI could take a broader perspective to engage industry, governm ent and scientists at th e same tim e. It was recognised th a t th e European landscape is fragm ented w ith overlaps betw een d iffe re n t organisations, it is th e re fo re essential th a t th e JPI has a clear message. The JPI needs to do things th a t national m em bers are n ot able to achieve alone; it should address issues th a t require co llaboration betw een M em be r States like fisheries issues. It is also im p o rta n t fo r th e JPI to com m unicate and raise awareness o f w h a t it is doing to fo ste r cooperation w ith organisations th a t could b enefit fro m its efforts. The exam ple given was th a t w ith in GEO th e re is a coordinating m arine task th a t is ignorant o f w h a t JPI is doing o r w ill do. It is hoped th a t th e JPI can com e to IOC as 'good citizen's' representing Europe. It could also insist th a t M em ber States m ake observational data freely available to e xtract as m uch value as possible fro m th e cost o f m on itoring. To achieve its goals o f p ro m o ting th e Blue Economy, JPI could outreach to industry to ensure th a t m arine resources are exploited sustainably. There needs to be a distin ction betw een science research and operational know ledge w hen talking about science-to-policy m echanisms as some organisations, like DG MARE, focus on operational know ledge. It needs to be recognised th a t th e policy side o f th e science-to-policy interface should include m anagers/operators as n ot all decisions are m ade by policy-m akers. W hen designing a 'user p la tfo rm ' w here in fo rm a tio n can be accessed to develop products, it is im p o rta n t to consider w ho w ill be using it and to m ake it as user frie n d ly as possible to m ake best use o f th e data. It is also 7 Examples of the benefits that Copernicus can bring to users in various domains: 56

58 im p o rta n t to bench-m ark data to ensure m axim um usage betw een M em ber States. W hen using the best available technologies it is im p o rta n t to know th e unit cost o f producing data. Web consultation As part o f th e open consultation, stakeholders w ere asked to provide examples o f particularly effective science-policy m echanisms. The In stitu te o f M arine Research (IMR) in N orw ay considers th e ICES system as an exam ple o f good practice w hich offers tw o services, advice and science. ICES uses MOUs w ith clients and m em ber states to com m unicate advice about relevant issues. However, ICES does n ot have any ways fo r funding science. They also fe lt th a t th e ICES system is an effective m ethod fo r filte rin g scientific know ledge to end users as advice is developed by consensus and is a single p oint o f contact. The IMR response considered th a t high level, experienced scientists should com m unicate w ith policy-m akers using 'so ft' scientific language, w hich should be understandable to som eone w ith only basic scientific education. The response also suggested th a t th a t u nce rta inty is n o t com m unicated very w ell to policy users in m ost cases. They also suggested th a t policy-m akers do n o t w a n t to receive uncertainty, th e y need a concise recom m endation, such as th e to ta l allow able catch (TAC). W hen asked how policy-m akers require u nce rta inty to be com m unicated, IMR responded th a t it should n o t be q uantita tive ly. The In stitu to Español de Oceanografía (leo) believes th a t it is extrem ely im p o rta n t to reinforce th e role o f Regional Fisheries O rganisations by providing th e necessary econom ic means and by guarantying c o n tin u ity o f th e regular activities o f th e d iffe re n t w orking groups. They also consider th a t it is im p o rta n t to assure th e proper p articip a tion o f qualified EU scientists in th e regular w o rk o f th e RFOs scientific bodies as w ell as to fa cilita te tra in in g o f scientists to provide th em w ith th e required skills. It is also im p o rta n t to assure th e correct coordination in th e im p lem enta tion o f EU m arine and m a ritim e policies both at th e a dm in istrative and scientific levels. The IEO believes th a t scientific advice fo r policy-m akers should be fu lly funded by governm ental organisations and th a t th e process is tim e consum ing and costly and should be w ell funded by th e national and international organisations. The scientific advice in support EU policies should be 100 % funded by European Commission w ho should provide th e funds to research in stitu tio n s responsible fo r scientific advice th ro u g h suitable m echanisms (e.g. th ro ugh share m anagem ent o f funds involving th e responsible national a u th o ritie s/in stitu tio n s).w h e n scientists com m unicate advice to policy-m akers, th e y should use non scientific language, b ut w ith o u t com prom ising accuracy and o bjectivity. There is a perceived duplication o f science to policy e ffo rts in d iffe re n t M inistries and regional governm ents and th a t th e re is a lack o f instrum ents, m ostly affecting th e coordination betw een d iffe re n t adm inistrations (national and regional), w ith com petences in m arine and m a ritim e issues. The IOC o f UNESCO gave several exam ples o f effective science-policy interfaces and mechanisms including: A R fro m IPCC, th e SOFIA fro m FAO, th e Sum m ary fo r Policy-m akers on Ocean A cidification fro m IOC, IGBP, SCOR, IPBES on b iodiversity and W O A fo r Ocean (coordinated by DOALOS, UNEP and IOC). A t European level th e y suggested OSPAR Status Report and HELCOM reports and also th e MSFD national reports as good examples. They suggest th a t good advice should be able to d etect em erging issues and problem s in tim e to im p lem ent correction measures and decisions m ade by stakeholders. Barriers to effective scientific advice appear to com e fro m : 57

59 D iffe re nt levels and types o f risk tolerance and tim e fram es o f politicians and scientists; C onflicting p rio ritie s and policies, p articularly at a national level; Ineffective e nforcem ent o f obligations at th e national level. The IOC considers th e p ro life ra tio n o f NGOs w ith am b itio n to be influ ential at policy level is creating some duplication and re p e titio n o f messages and d ilu tio n o f m ore legitim ated organisations. This can result in undesirable noise and confusion in th e flo w o f scientific advice. It is th o u g h t th a t science has to be w ell com m unicated, b ut a reciprocal a ttitu d e and intellectual e ffo rt fro m th e audience is expected at policy level. They believe th a t scientific advice should be m ade as sim ple as possible, but n o t sim pler. The IOC also responded th a t science is always presented w ith confidence levels and th a t this indicates th e level o f uncertainty. However, th e IOC also stated th a t policym akers like to have associated u nce rta inty in scientific advice because it grants th em m ore fle x ib ility w hen choosing th e policy response. To this end, u nce rta inty m ust be given and explained to avoid incorrect use o f scientific inform a tion. EFARO responded th a t institute s w hich have a close w orking relationship w ith policy officials, but have strong links w ith th e w id e r research co m m unity are probably m ost successful in translating science into policy has th e y understand both policy needs and th e science. EFARO institute s provide exam ples th a t range fro m being w ith in g overnm ent to executive agencies o r private institutions. They believe th a t th e re is an overlap betw een advisory bodies (e.g. STECF and ICES) th a t provide advice in th e same field. There is also overlap betw een fisheries and environm ental m inistries th a t results in duplication especially in relation to conservation and fisheries. EFARO believes th a t science to policy m echanisms should be funded by a m ixture o f public funds d irectly fro m governm ent, research council fu nding to support m ore underpinning research, and industry fin ding fro m those industries th a t b enefit fro m th e a ppro priate science. The languages used should depend on th e subject and th e audience, it is th o u g h t th a t scientific language does n ot w o rk w ell w ith a lay audience, b ut equally purely non-scientific is n ot adequate to convey rigour. Like th e IOC response, EFARO calls fo r in te llig e n t custom ers and th e d evelopm ent o f understandable scientific language. The Finnish M eteorological In stitu te considers th a t good science advice to policym akers should be clear, easily understandable, tim ely, and comes w ith an action suggestion. They suggest th a t it is th e role o f a scientific expert to condense scientific evidence fo r policym akers. Like EFARO, th e FMI believes th a t th e language used depends on th e know ledge to be transfe rred and th e ta rg e t audience. They also stake th a t th e tw o groups should com m unicate d ire ctly w ith o u t an inte rp re tin g m echanism and th a t th e funding should be part o f th e political decision making budget. The FMI response stated th a t th e y explain, in sim ple term s, th a t th e re is u nce rta inty associated w ith scientific in fo rm a tio n and th a t th e im portance o f u nce rta inty m ust be com m unicated to th e end user. The FP7 p ro je ct Eurom arine suggested th a t th e fo re sight and p rio rity-se ttin g to ols (e.g. expert w orking group) o f th e European M arine Board are good exam ples o f best practices. They also stated th a t th e vision docum ents produced by various co n so rtia /p ro je ct (such as EMBRC, th e netw orks o f Excellence, Eurom arine) are also q uite relevant and useful b o tto m -u p m echanisms fo r inform ing policy-m akers about priorities and recom m endations fro m th e scientific com m unity. SUSFOOD ERA-Net suggested th a t th e best advice is ofte n a quick response to challenges. W hile th ey do n o t believe th a t th e cu rre n t science-policy m echanism s are f it fo r purpose, th e y suggest th a t 58

60 websites, articles and m eetings are th e best m ethods o f com m unication and th a t th e mechanism should be funded th ro u g h com m on calls. O ther advice given on th e subject o f tim eliness, responsiveness and th e com m unication o f u nce rta inty and risk included th e Sclerochronology and Scleroclim atology group at Bangor University w ho stated "keep it sh ort". They also suggest th e policy-m akers fin d evidence w hich supports a pre conceived opinion. Urmas Lips fro m th e Tallinn U niversity o f Technology suggested th a t instead o f o f increasing researchers engagem ent in dissem ination, m ore closer involvem ent o f m edia experts in projects could be a solution. He considered it im p o rta n t to give very concrete advice at th e local level b ut m ore general at th e European level. O ther stakeholders cited th e com m unication betw een GEOHAB and IOC/IPHAB and th e IPCC as exam ples o f good science to policy m echanisms. However, it was noted th a t th e IPCC is to o one w ay (science inform in g policy) b ut th a t it m ay be possible to develop a sim ilar fo rm a t fo r selected m arine topics th a t includes closer links to th e requirem ents o f th e policy-m akers. One stakeholder suggested th a t th e German brochure "m a ritim e success stories" contains in fo rm a tio n on how policy-m akers condense evidence. It was suggested th a t th e re are probably to o m any general science to policy conferences and th a t it w ould be m ore useful to have focused events. SSG (Bangor) supported the view th a t policy-m akers d o n 't like u nce rta inty and th a t u nce rta inty should be com m unicated w ith caution. Eurom arine reported th a t scientist generally do n o t take u nce rta inty into account w hen com m unicating to policy-m akers. The Belgian federal DG Environm ent considered th e com m unication o f u nce rta inty essential, b ut th a t expert jud gem en t is also valuable. The In stitu te o f M arine Research (Norway) believes th a t u nce rta inty is n ot com m unicated very w ell to policy users in m ost cases. They also suggested th a t policy-m akers do n ot w a n t to receive uncertainty, th e y need a concise recom m endation, such as th e to ta l allow able catch (TAC). SSG (Bangor) supported th e view th a t policy-m akers d o n 't like u nce rta inty and th a t u nce rta inty should be com m unicated w ith caution. Eurom arine reported th a t scientist generally do n ot take uncertainty into account w hen com m unicating to policy-m akers. However, th e Finnish M eteorological In stitute (FMI) stated th a t th e y explain, in sim ple term s, th a t th e re is u nce rta inty associated w ith scientific in fo rm a tio n and th a t th e im portance o f u nce rta inty m ust be com m unicated to th e end user. The IOC also responded th a t science is always presented w ith confidence levels and th a t this indicates the level o f uncertainty. However, th e IOC also stated th a t policym akers like to have associated u nce rta inty in scientific advice because it grants th em m ore fle x ib ility w hen choosing th e policy response. To this end, u nce rta inty m ust be given and explained to avoid incorrect use o f scientific inform a tion. W hen asked how policy-m akers require u nce rta inty to be com m unicated, th e In stitu te o f M arine Research (Norway) responded th a t it should n ot be quantita tive ly. The FMI stated th a t m ethod o f com m unication varies fro m one policy m aker to th e next. The Belgian federal DG Environm ent considered th e com m unication o f u nce rta inty essential, b ut th a t expert jud ge m en t is also valuable. 59

61 5. CONCLUDING REMARKS The objective o f this deliverable was to provide a state o f play o f m arine and m aritim e policies p e rtin e n t to JPI Oceans and id e n tify th e requirem ents, as stated by stakeholders, to fu lfil th e ir objectives. The deliverable also aim ed to use stakeholder inputs to id e n tify exam ples o f effective science to policy m echanisms. The outcom e o f th e stakeholder engagem ents has provided several interesting exam ples and some degree o f consistency betw een d iffe re n t groups. This deliverable has provided in fo rm a tio n about d iffe re n t European m arine and m a ritim e legislation. It has provided details o f how d iffe re n t legislation is fo rm e d and im plem ented. It was also im p o rta n t to consult w ith stakeholders to fin d o u t th e perceived barriers to im plem enting th e policies. Several them es w ere expressed which generally suggested th a t th e re is a lack o f integration betw een m arine and m a ritim e activities. It was suggested th a t new technologies, in fo rm a tio n technology and greater data sharing could be th e key to developing tru ly holistic m arine m anagem ent. W hen asked about general science to policy m echanism, stakeholders considered conferences to be p articula rly effective. But as one stakeholder pointed out, conferences need to be focused on a specific to pic, avoid being to o broad and have w ell ta rgeted audiences. It was generally recognised th a t th e re needs to be m ore data sharing and open access to online data repositories. An area w hich divided stakeholder opinions was fisheries. Some stakeholders considered th e science to policy m echanism s to be effective and w ell developed w hereas others fe lt th a t com m unication needs to be increased. The d iffe re n t opinions m ay be caused by th e fa ct th a t th e science-policy interface fo r th e CFP is w ell established in some seabasin regions b ut n ot in others b ut also th a t it was a relatively closed circuit, w here external scientists may encounter d ifficu ltie s to contrib u te w ith innovative im provem ents. For th e WFD and MSFD, th e re are m echanisms in place th a t may provide m ore o p p o rtu n ity to harvest fro m scientific European and national projects, b ut those pathways are not yet su fficiently know n to th e scientific com m unity. For th e CFP th e scientific opinion can also be m ore easily overruled by national p olitically influenced interests th an fo r th e o th e r existing legislation. One organisation w hich was suggested by m u ltip le stakeholders as a p articula rly effective sciencepolicy mechanism is ICES. O ther examples o f effective processes regularly cited included IPCC assessment and th e fo re sight and science/policy activities undertaken by th e European M arine Board.. It was also suggested th a t th e European Union lacks a single focus p oint to engage on an in te rn a tio n a l level in th e science/policy process and it was suggested th a t greater engagem ent w ith th e IOC GOOS program m e could be one e ffe ctive m ethod to establish linkage. The next phase o f this W o rk Package w ill be discussed in deliverable 5.2. The next deliverable w ill fu rth e r investigate th e exam ples o f science to policy m echanisms id e ntifie d here and provide detailed case. As a W o rk Package o f CSA Oceans, th e deliverables are intended to reduce th e tim e fo r JPI Oceans to m ove fro m th e p relim inary to th e operational phase in th re e ways, nam ely: S upporting th e governance structures in its w o rk to establish JPI Oceans; Facilitating th e d e ve lo pm e nt o f a Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) and an Im ple m e ntatio n Plan (IPIan) according to JPI Oceans vision and goals; 60

62 Proposing procedures and to o ls fo r cooperation w hich provide th e basis fo r jo in t tra n s national actions based on variable geom etry. Stakeholder inputs are at th e core o f this deliverable to ensure th a t th e SRIA and th e IPIan are developed in parallel w ith th e opinions o f th e m arine and m a ritim e com m unity. This deliverable has provided examples o f w h a t stakeholders consider best practice w hich w ill be used to develop procedures and to ols fo r cooperation. Together w ith Deliverable 5.2, this re p o rt w ill d ire ctly inform th e co n te n t o f th e SRIA and IPIan in o rd e r to refle ct th e stakeholder com m unity in th e fu tu re actions o f JPI Oceans. 61

63 6. ANNEXES ANNEX I - POLICIES PERTINENT TO JPI OCEANS INTERESTS The fo llo w in g ta b le o f policies have been selected as policies p e rtin e n t to th e interests o f JPI Oceans. Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Integrated Maritime Policy COM(2007) 575 Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union COM (2010) 546 ERA EU Strategy for Marine and Maritime Research, COM(2008) 534 Raw material initiative, COM(2008) 699 Challenges on Raw Materials, COM (2011) 25 An Energy Policy for Europe, COM(2007) 1 Legal obligation w hich needs long-term scientific m o n ito rin g /data related to the identified 11 indicators and the integrated approach as support to policy billion Euro/year econom ic damages in European coastal areas by 2080, high emission scenario) A daptation could significantly reduce the risk to around Euro 1 billion Need fo r 1 m illion scientists it to reach the 3% goal Synergies w ith and betw een M em ber States, regions and m arine and m aritim e research sectors are necessary to address m ajor crossthem atic m arine research challenges m arine and m aritim e institutes and universities ref. ECORYS studies Securing reliable and undistorted access to raw m aterials is increasingly becom ing an im p orta n t fa cto r fo r the EU's com petitiveness. Part o f the solution could be th e sustainable exploitation o f the seabed. Sectors w o rth b illio n /3 0 m ill jobs rely On minerals, some w ith 100% im p ort dependency High High High High High 2020 by 2020 Europe's climate change opportunity, COM(2008) 30 Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, COM (2010) 546 Marine Knowledge 2020, COM (2010) 461 By 2020, 20% renewable energy fro m sea, by 2050 Europe could get up to 50% of its electricity needs from renewable marine sources, ESF MB M arine biotech was globally valued at EUR 2.2 billion by the M arine Industries Global M arket Analysis in By 2009, the global m arket is projected to surpass EUR 2.6 billion. Replace the present fragm ented marine observation system estim ates a benefit o f 300 m illion per annum, approx. 100 m illion fo r science, 56 m illion fo r public authorities and 150 m illion fo r the private sector M edium M edium - High M edium - High 62

64 Integrated Maritime Policy COM (2007) 575 Strategic goals And recommendations for the EU's maritime transport policy until 2018, COM (2009)8 Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative, Innovation Union, COM (2010) 546 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) EU tourism and sectors linked to it is estim ated to generate 10% + o f EUs GPD and 19 m illion jobs, SMEs, im p o rta n t to coastal regions, 370 m illion international tourists in 2008 and w ill increase significantly (WTO). Rising sea levels could bring changes fo r tourism in coastal areas. By 2018, the w orld fle e t could count some 100,000 vessels (500 d w t and m ore) in operation (77,500 vessels in 2008) expected to reach a to ta l capacity o f m ore than 2,100 m illion d w t in 2018 (up from 1,156 m illion d w t in 2008). Europe's m aritim e leadership should be m aintained by quality shipping M edium M edium Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 Food safety and animal health and science based risk m anagem ent M edium COM( 2007) 539 Animal Flealth Strategy Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union COM (2010) 546 Integrated Maritime Policy COM (2007) 575 MSP in the EU, COM (2010) 771 Evaluation of ICZM in EU, COM(2007) 308 Council decision (2010/631/EU) EU Emissions Trading Scheme, COM(2010) 796 On the w hole, professors, researchers and students have poorly developed entrepreneurial m ind-sets in Europe, preferring to be employees rather than employers The increasing demand o f the m aritim e space fo r d iffe re n t econom ic activities on Europe's seas leads to com petition and conflicts between sectors. This com petition fo r th e space hampers th e g row th o f m aritim e economies, as shipping, offshore energy, ports, fisheries, aquaculture and environm ental concerns. ICZM aims to im prove the econom ic and social developm ent o f coastal areas through an integrated m anagem ent o f the activities th a t takes place in these areas, including the m anagem ent o f interface land-sea.. The deterio ra tion o f the coastal zone by human activities and the threaten posed by clim ate change all call fo r an integrated m anagem ent fo r a sustainable developm ent w hile taking appropriate adaptation measures to clim ate change. International scheme fo r the trading o f greenhouse gas emissions. Goal: Cut emissions by 21 % in comparison to M edium M edium M edium M edium 63

65 ANNEX II - POLICY REFERENCE SHEETS The ta ble below Is Intended as a factsheet to com plem ent th e discussion in section 3 o f this report. The key docum ents and w ebsite fo r each policy are provided w ith a list o f Fram ework Program me (FP) projects. The list o f projects is n ot intended to be fu lly com prehensive, b ut gives a sample of w h a t is available. Key Documents Website DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL o f 17 June 2008 establishing a fra m e w o rk fo r co m m unity action in th e fie ld o f m arine environm ental policy (M arine Strategy Fram ew ork D irective) e c.e u ro o a.e u /e n viro n m e n t/w a te r/m a rin e /d ire ctive en.htm STAGES: Science and Technology Advancing Governance o f Good Environm ental Status. FP7: w w w.stagesoroiect.eu ODEMM: O ptions fo r D elivering Ecosystem-Based M arine M anagem ent. FP7: h ttp ://w w w. liv.a c.u k/o d e m m / PERSEUS: P olicy-oriented m arine Environm ental Research in th e Southern European Seas. FP7: h ttp ://w w w.p e rse u s-n e t.e u FP projects (C urrent examples) COMMON SENSE: Cost-Effective Sensors, Interoperable W ith International Existing Ocean Observing Systems, To M e e t Eu Policies Requirem ents. FP7: ECSAFESEAFOOD: P riority environm ental contam inants in seafood: safety assessment, im pact and public perception. FP7: h ttp ://w w w.e csa fe se a fo o d.e u / BENTHIS: Benthic ecosystem fisheries Im pact Study. FP7: h ttp ://w w w.b e n th is.e u FIX03: Fixed Point Open Ocean O bservatories N etw ork. FP7: h ttp ://w w w.fix o 3.e u / SONIC: Suppression O f u nderw ate r Noise Induced by Cavitation. FP7: h ttp ://w w w.s o n ic -p ro ie c t.e u / AQUATRACE: The developm ent o f tools fo r tracing and evaluating th e genetic 64

66 im pact o ffis h fro m aquaculture. FP7: h tto s://a auatra ce.eu EC directly Commissioned projects See M arine Knowledge Gate h tto ://w w w.kg.eurocean.org/ O verview fo r th e Project C oordination Group o f th e MSFD, See http s://circab c.europa.eu/w /brow se/7e4036ec-36b5-43b6-aafe-ce8b6e6d02c0 Progress o f th e EU's Integrated M a ritim e Policy (2012)<3) Concerning th e a doption o f th e Integrated M a ritim e Policy w o rk program m e fo r 2011 and 2012 Key Documents Blue G row th: o p p o rtu n itie s fo r m arine and m a ritim e sustainable g ro w th A European Strategy fo r M arine and M a ritim e Research: A coherent European Research Area fra m e w o rk in support o f a sustainable use o f oceans and seas Website e c.e u ro o a.e u /m a ritim e a ffa irs/o o licv/ FIX03: Fixed Point Open Ocean O bservatories N etw ork. FP7: h tto ://w w w.fixo 3.e u / FP projects (C urrent examples) EUROSUR: Sea Border Surveillance. FP7: h tto ://w w w.seabilla.e u/cm s/ MESA: M a ritim e Europe Strategy Action. FP7: DOLPHIN: D evelopm ent o f Pre-operational Services fo r Highly Innovative M a ritim e Surveillance Capabilities. FP7: h tto ://w w w.gm es-dolohin.e u/ EC directly Commissioned projects DOLPHIN, MARCOM+, NEREIDS, Concerning th e a doption o f th e Integrated M a ritim e Policy w o rk program m e fo r 2011 and

67 Common Fisheries Policy Key Documents Website h ttp ://e u r-le x.e u ro p a.e u /e n /le g is/la te st/chap0410.h tm ec.eurod a.eu/fishe rie s/cfo/ ECOFISHMAN: Ecosystem-based Responsive Fisheries M anagem ent in Europe. FP7: h ttp ://w w w. ecofishm an.com / DIOMFISH: Design and Im plem entation o f O ptim al M anagem ent Systems fo r European Fisheries. FP 7: h ttp ://d io m fis h.c o m / MYFISH: M axim ising yield o f fisheries w h ile balancing ecosystem, econom ic and social concerns. FP 7: h ttp ://w w w.m v fis h p ro ie c t.e u / FP projects (C urrent examples) COFASP: Strengthening cooperation in European research on sustainable e xploita tion o f m arine resources in th e seafood chains- ERANET FP7: BENTHIS: Benthic ecosystem fisheries Im pact Study. FP7: h ttp ://w w w.b e n th is.e u COMMON SENSE: Cost-Effective Sensors, Interoperable W ith International Existing Ocean Observing Systems, To M e e t EU Policies Requirem ents. FP7: COMFISH: S trengthening th e im pact o f fisheries related research through dissem ination, com m unication and techn olo gy transfer. FP7: EC directly Commissioned projects COMMON SENSE, MIDTAL, Socio econom ic effects o f m anagem ent measures o f th e fu tu re CFP, MYFISH, IMAGE, DIOMFISH, MOFISH, RESPONSIBLE, FISHPOPTRACE, ECOFISHMAN, TEMEC 66

68 Integrated Coastal Zone Management Establishing a fra m e w o rk fo r m aritim e spatial planning and integrated coastal*23 Key Documents Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone M anagem ent in th e M editerranean*24 Recom m endation concerning th e im p lem enta tion o f Integrated Coastal Zone M anagem ent in Europe*25 Website e c.e u ro o a.e u /e n viro n m e n t/iczm / IGIT: Integrated geo-spatial in fo rm a tio n technology and its application to resource and environm ental m anagem ent to w ards th e GEOSS. FP7: FP projects (C urrent examples) LAGOONS: Integrated w a te r resources and coastal zone m anagem ent in European lagoons in th e co nte xt o f clim ate change. FP7: h ttp ://la g o o n s.w e b.u a.p t/ PEGASO: People fo r Ecosystem Based Governance in Assessing Sustainable D evelopm ent o f Ocean and Coast. FP7: h ttp ://w w w.p e g a s o p ro ie c t.e u / EC directly Commissioned projects AICZM 2001, BIOFIAB, Coastal m o n ito rin g and m anagem ent (COAST), COASTBASE, COASTMAN, CONSCIENCE, INCAM, INCOFISH, NAME, PEGASO, SPICOSA, STRATEGY, TRANSMASP, Key Documents Council Directive 92/43/EEC o f 21 M ay 1992 on th e conservation o f natural habitats and o f w ild fauna and flo ra Website h ttp ://e c.e u ro p a.e u /e n v iro n m e n t/n a tu re /le g is la tio n /h a b ita ts d ire c tiv e / DIALECT EVOLUTION: Principles o f dialect evolutio n in killer whales. FP7: FP projects (C urrent examples) GEO-HABIT- Geo-acoustic m apping o f benthic habitat d istrib u tio n. FP7: ODEMM: O ptions fo r D elivering Ecosystem-Based M arine M anagem ent. FP7: h ttp ://w w w.liv.a c.u k /o d e m m / EC directly Commissioned projects 67

69 W ater Framework Directive Key Documents Council Directive 92/43/EEC o f 21 M ay 1992 on th e conservation o f natural habitats and o f w ild fauna and flo ra Website h ttp ://e c.e u ro p a.e u /e n v iro n m e n t/n a tu re /le g is la tio n /h a b ita ts d ire c tiv e / QWATER: Bioassay integration under th e European W a te r Fram ework Directive: A step to w ards an ecological approach. FP7: FRESHMON: High Resolution Freshwater M onitoring: FreshM on GMES D ow nstream Services. FP7: h tto ://w w w.fre shm o n.e u / FP projects (C urrent examples) LAGOONS: Integrated w a te r resources and coastal zone m anagem ent in European lagoons in th e co nte xt o f clim ate change. FP7: h ttp ://la g o o n s.w e b.u a.p t/ AQUAWARN: Deployable early w arning p o llu tio n device fo r application in w ater. FP7: L4CW-DEMO: D em onstration o f a novel system to breakdow n hazardous substances in w astew ater stream s into harmless bio -frie n d ly com pounds using m u lti-chro m a tic UV light. FP7: h ttp ://w w w.l4 c w.e u / WATERDISS2.0: Dissem ination and uptake o f FP w a te r research results. FP7: h ttp ://w w w.w a te rd is s.e u / EC directly Commissioned projects See WISE-RTD portal h ttp ://w w w.w is e -rtd.in fo /e n /g u id e /w fd -w a te r-fra m e w o rk -d ire c tiv e ec?show related 68

70 ANNEX III - SCIENCE TO POLICY MECHANISMS The fo llo w in g list provides examples o f how d iffe re n t science to policy m echanism s w ork, th e list is by no means com prehensive but is designed to give a sample o f th e types o f m echanisms th a t exist 26. Events and workshops These can be used to dissem inate research outp uts and gath er stakeholders' views. W o rld M a ritim e Day 2013 External media Facilitators, translators, science communicators H ighlighting cu rrent scientific research th ro ugh public m edia stream s. It can be one o f th e m ost effective ways o f reaching policy-m akers. In th is context, fa cilita to rs can be seen as a 3rd party w hich bridges th e gap betw een science and policy by having an understanding o f th e language differences betw een each group. Press offices European Sea ambassadors Databases Databases can be used to collate examples o f the social, policy and econom ic im pact o f scientific w ork, and can be m ade available online. A base o f case study im pacts can be used to highlight th e im portance o f science-policy interactions. European M arine O bservation and Data N etw o rk (EMODnet) EuroOcean Guidelines Strategic appointments Co-design/ cofunding Horizon scanning/ foresight Guidelines support scientists and policy-m akers by giving exam ples and advice on how to com m unicate effectively. Individuals o r team s are em ployed to give advice on th e im plications o f scientific research on policy or how policy decisions a ffe ct scientific research. Co-design encourages scientists and policy-m akers to w o rk to g e th e r to create policies w hich are b u ilt on scientific evidence and have achievable goals. Horizon scanning a tte m p ts to p redict th e societal needs o f policy and science to p re -e m p t fu tu re requirem ents Science into Policy: Taking part in the process 26 Chief scientific advisor UK Program m e on shelf seas biogeochem istry (Defra and NERC) N avigating th e Future IV 27 69

71 ANNEX IV - RELEVANT SCIENCE- POLICY STRATEGIES, DOCUMENTS AND PROJECTS Navigating the future IV UK marine science strategy National Ocean Strategy Policy framework analysis in the fields relevant to the BONUS programme Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS 3) Making sense of uncertainty: Why uncertainty is part of science Handling uncertainty in science Guide to Citizen Science Sea Level Rise and Variability: A Summary for Policy-makers Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties The Compendium for Coast and Sea Plenty more fish in the sea? A working paper on the legal issues related to fishing beyond maximum sustainable yield: A UK case study European M arine Board Defra M in is try o f D efense (Portugal) BONUS European Union Sense about science The Royal Society UK Environm ental O bservation Fram ew ork GOOS IPCC Flanders M arine In stitu te U niversity o f the W est o f England w w w.m arineboard.eu/sciencefo re sig h t/n a vig a tin g -th e -fu tu re w w w.de fra.g ov.uk/m scc/file s/uk-m arin e - science-strategv-.pdf w e b g a te.e c.e u ro o a.e u /m a ritim e fo ru m /svste m /fi les/n ational Ocean Strategy Portugal en.o df h tto ://w w w. b o n uso orta l.org/file s/2 654/P ublicat ion No. 13.pdf s3d latform.irc.ec.eurod a.eu/en/c/docum ent libr a rv/g e t file?uuid=e50397e3-f2bl b86e69e8553 w w w.senseaboutscience.org/resources.d ho/127 L ro va lso cietv.org/eve nts/2010/u nce rtain tvscience/ w w w.u ke o f.o rg.u k/ w w w.io c- g oos.org/index.php?option=com co nte n t& vie w =categorv& lavout= blog&id=45& ltem id= &lang=en w w w.ip cc.ch /p d f/su p p o rtin g - m a te ria l/uncerta intv-g uidance-note.odf w w w.com pendium coastandsea.be/en/dow nloa ds e p rin ts.u w e.a c.u k / /l/p m f final2% 20% 283 % 29.pdf

72 ANNEX V - NATIONAL FUNDING AGENCIES QUESTIONNAIRE FORM F The questions answered by th e national funding agencies In fo rm F are provided below: 1. Dept responsible fo r Im plem enting 2. Dept responsible fo r m on itoring, assessment and providing scientific advice to su pport EU policies 3. Please explain b riefly w h a t Is th e progress In th e developm ent and Im plem entation o f these policies In yo ur country? 4. Please explain b riefly w h a t Is th e progress In th e developm ent and Im plem entation o f these policies In yo ur country? 5. W hich o th e r national or EU m arine o r m aritim e related policies are being Im plem ented In yo u r country? 6. Please provide an explanation o f how m arine m onitoring, data collection and data m anagem ent are organised, funded and coordinated In yo u r country? 7. Are th e re specific research and m o n ito rin g activities com m issioned or anticipated to support m arine and m a ritim e -rela te d policies and th e ir Im plem entation? 8. Leading g overnm ent d e p a rtm e n t o r organisation responsible fo r representing yo ur co untry In th e fo llo w in g conventions 9. How does yo ur co untry participate In co ordin atio n activities related to regional conventions? Is th e p articip a tion delegated to oth e r national organisations? 10. Are th e re o th e r specific m echanisms In place In yo ur country to help channel advice fro m researchers to policy-m akers e ith e r nationally, on a basin level o r on a European level? 11. Please explain b riefly w hy In yo ur opinion th e above sclence-to-pollcy mechanisms are effective. If you consider th e y are n ot effective, w h a t mechanisms do you th in k w ou ld be m ore helpful? 12. In yo u r opinion, w h a t particular European or International sclence-to-pollcy mechanisms or processes do you regard as particula rly effective and w hich m ight be Investigated as case studies o r examples o f best practice? 13. In yo u r opinion how else m ight th e EU draw on expertise fro m research and Industry to strengthen Its sclence-to-pollcy process? 14. Are th e re know ledge or In fo rm atio n gaps o r o th e r barriers (e.g. lack o f research, lack o f data, lim ite d observing In frastru cture or hum an resources) Im pacting on th e Im plem entation o f th e above m entioned policies? 15. Is th e re unnecessary dup lica tion and overlaps to Inform policy? 16. Could JPI Oceans have a role In overcom ing th e above m entioned gaps and barriers th rough new ways o f cooperation? 17. Please explain b riefly If you provide tra in in g schemes or o th e r guidance to help researchers and policy-m akers address th e sclence-to-pollcy Interface? 18. In yo u r opinion, how can JPI Oceans play a role In fa cilita tin g sclence-to-pollcy? 19. Please use the space below i f you wish to m ake any specific o r general com m ent on the questionnaire. 71

73 REFERENCES 1. JPI_Oceans (2011), "Vision Docum ent: Joint Program m ing Initiative Healthy Seas and Oceans" (JPI Oceans, Brussels). 2. EC (2007), "C om m unication fro m th e Com m ission: An Integrated M a ritim e Policy fo r th e European Union " (European Com m ission, Brussels). 3. EC (2012), "Progress o f th e EU's Integrated M a ritim e Policy" (European Com m ission, Brussels). 4. EC (2013), "M a rin e Strategy Fram ew ork D irective (MSFD) Com m on Im plem entation Strategy (CIS)" (European Com m ission, Brussels). 5. SRU (2006), "The European Commission Proposal fo r a M arine Strategy: Shying European R esponsibility? " (Germ an Advisory Council on th e Environm ent, Berlin). 6. Davis, S.P. [Ed.] (2012), Peer Review o f th e Intercalibration Exercise Phase II, European W a te r Fram ew ork Directive. Final d ra ft report, Joint Research Centre - European Commission, 261 pp. 7. I. Lutchm an, C. Adelle (2008), "EU Fisheries Decision M aking G uide" (Fisheries Secretariat, Stockholm ). 8. DG_Mar t me_affa rs_and_f sher es (2008), "In te rm e d ia te Evaluation o f th e Advisory C om m ittee fo r Fisheries and A quaculture (ACFA) " (DG M a ritim e Affairs and Fisheries, Copenhagen). 9. D. Reyntjens, J. Brown, C. Bowyer (2005), "EU Fisheries Decision M aking G uide" (Institute fo r European Environm ental Policy, London). 10. SCAR-Fish (2013), "Science in su pport o f th e European fisheries and aquaculture policy " (Strategic W o rkin g Group on Fisheries and Aquaculture, Brussels). 11. EC (2007), "An Integrated M a ritim e Policy fo r th e European U nion" (European Commission, Brussels). 12. D. Sarewitz, R. A. Pielke Jr (2007), The neglected heart o f science policy: reconciling supply o f and dem and fo r science. Environm ental Science & Policy 10, E. C. M cnie (2007), Reconciling th e supply o f scientific in fo rm a tio n w ith user dem ands: an analysis o f th e problem and review o f th e literature. Environm ental Science & Policy 10, P. T ett e t al. (2011), in Proceedings o f 2nd ICZM sym posium, A rendal. pp BIS (2010), "The G overnm ent Chief Scientific Adviser's Guidelines on th e Use o f Scientific and Engineering Advice in Policy M aking" (D epartm ent fo r Business, Innovation and Skills, London). 16. House_of_Com m ons (2006), "S cientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy M aking " (House o f Commons, London). 17. A. Borja e t al. (2013), Good Environm ental Status o f m arine ecosystems: W h a t is it and how do w e know w hen w e have attained it? M a rin e P ollution Bulletin 76,

74 18. D. Hering e t al. (2010), The European W a te r Fram ework D irective at th e age o f 10: a critical review o f th e achievem ents w ith recom m endations fo r th e fu tu re. Science o f the to ta l E nvironm ent 408, J. Van Leeuwen, L. van Hoof, J. van Tatenhove (2012), In stitu tional am biguity in im p lem enting th e European Union M arine Strategy Fram ew ork Directive. M a rin e Policy 36, M. Hajer (2003), Policy w ith o u t polity? Policy analysis and th e in stitu tio n a l void. Policy sciences 36, M. M astrandrea e t ai. (2010), Guidance note fo r lead authors o f th e IPCC fifth assessment re p o rt on consistent tre a tm e n t o f uncertainties. In te rg ove rn m ental Panel on Clim ate Change (IPCC). 22. COM (2008), "A European Strategy fo r M arine and M a ritim e Research: A coherent European Research Area fra m e w o rk in support o f a sustainable use o f oceans and seas " (Commission o f th e European C om m unities Brussels). 23. EC (2013), "Establishing a fra m e w o rk fo r m a ritim e spatial planning and integrated coastal" (European Com m ission, Brussels). 24. EU (2009), "P rotocol on Integrated Coastal Zone M anagem ent in th e M editerra n ean" (O fficial Journal o f th e European Union, Brussels). 25. EP (2002), "R ecom m endation concerning th e im p lem en ta tion o f Integrated Coastal Zone M anagem ent in Europe" (European Parliam ent, Brussels). 26. H. Clayton, F. Culshaw (2013), "Science into policy: Taking part in th e process" (Natural E nvironm ent Research Council, Swindon). 27. EMB (2013), "N avigating th e Future IV" (European M arine Board, Ostend). 73