CCB report on MSFD shows poor coordination between Baltic Sea member states

Earlier this morning Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB) launched a detailed report where they reviewed the first phases of Baltic Sea EU member states work on implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).

The report show low or very low ambitions from Member States (MS) to set up clear and relevant targets to reach Good Environmental Status (GES) by 2020. The directive was in part meant to underline existing goals and targets already set in other environmental directives and legislation as well as to strengthen regional cooperation, in the Baltic case through HELCOM. Contrary, it seems the MSFD work so far rather risk to undermine such goals than to underline them. CCBs report shows that in many cases MS simply seem to have ignored the requirements of both HELCOM, the Habitat Directive as well as the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Considering commercial fisheries (Descriptor 3 in the directive) it is especially worrying that indicators describing age and size distribution of stocks of commercial fish as well as evolutionary effects caused by commercial fishing on these stocks (according to EU criteria 3.3) are poorly developed, or in many cases still are missing, by the Baltic Sea MS.

CCB found that the coordination between Baltic Sea MS is poor and argue that managing the Baltic Sea on a country by country basis is not possible and stresses the need to strengthen the coordination function of HELCOM. Furthermore, more joint targets, and indicators for those targets must be developed and confirmed before 2015.There is also criticism aimed at the European Commission (EC) for the delayed and untimely instructions to the MS on the first phases of the implementation of the directive. For some states (e.g. Germany) which were early in the process of developing indicators, this has created difficulties to adjust their work in line with now existing reporting procedures and descriptor divisions. Furthermore, the reporting instructions of the EC have been interpreted differently by the MS and some of them have not reported on time – or at all (e.g. Poland). Naturally, this has made evaluations and comparisons on the ambition levels of different MS to fulfill the objectives of the directive very difficult.

Although the report by CCB only examines four areas of the MSFD, the full review by the European Commission shows largely the same trend and results.