Member State report: United Kingdom / Art3-4
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art. 3(1) Marine waters & Art. 4/2017 Decision: Marine regions, subregions, and subdivisions & Art. 5(2) & Art. 6 Regional cooperation |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Reported by | Cefas |
| Report date | 2013-01-09 |
| Report access | ACSUK_MSFD4Geo_20130109.xml |
Member state marine waters |
"For the purpose of the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, marine waters are defined as follows:
(1) In the North-East Atlantic marine region, “the UK marine strategy area” meaning—(a) the area of sea within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to the UK, and the sea bed and its subsoil in that area of sea; (b) any area of sea within the limits of the UK renewable energy zone and the sea bed and its subsoil in that area of sea; and (c) the sea bed and its subsoil within the limits of any areas designated under section 1(7) of the UK Continental Shelf Act 1964(e) (so far as not falling within the area mentioned in paragraph (b)).
In paragraph (1), “sea”— (i) includes coastal water with the landward boundary as defined by the UK implementation of the Water Framework Directive equivalent to mean high water spring; (ii) does not include any transitional waters.
In relation to paragraph (1b) the following areas have been the subject of UK submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf:
(i) on 31 March 2009, the UK submitted information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured in respect of Hatton Rockall Area. The submission is awaiting consideration by a subcommission of the CLCS. UK is one of four States which have expressed interest in the continental shelf in the Hatton Rockall Area, together with Denmark, Iceland and Ireland. Consultations have been held with these States and the UK remains committed to further negotiations in due course. Ireland and the UK reached agreement in 1988 on a bilateral delimitation of the continental shelf.
(ii) On 19 May 2006, France, Ireland, Spain and the UK jointly submitted information on the limits of the continental shelf appurtenant to the four States that lies beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the territorial seas of these four States are measured in the portion of the continental shelf in the area of the Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay. Negotiations to delimit the area between the four states are ongoing and the UK is not currently applying the MSFD in this area.
(2) In the Mediterranean marine region, British Gibraltar Territorial Waters which is the area of sea, the sea bed and subsoil within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to Gibraltar under British sovereignty and which, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, currently extends to three nautical miles and to the median line in the Bay of Gibraltar.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Region / subregion description |
"Within the UK Marine Strategy area the boundary between the Greater North Sea and the Celtic Seas subregions has been established on the basis of the biogegraphic, oceanographic and biogeographic features, as follows:
(1) in the Western Channel the boundary in UK waters is defined by a hydrographic transition between generally mixed waters (higher tidal bed stress and a shallower wave base) with more variable temperatures (warmer in summer, cooler in winter) in the east and the stratified and more thermally stable waters to the west. Following bilateral discussions with France it has been proposed that the continuation of the boundary should follow the median line between the two jurisdictions to the point where it intersects with the boundary in French waters.
(2) to the North of mainland Scotland the boundary follows the oceanographic transition between the water of the Scottish Continental Shelf which are warmed by the continental shelf current (>8ºC) and the waters of the North Sea which are of more mixed origin. For practical reasons the boundary east of Orkney and Fair Isle follows the 12 nautical mile territorial sea limit. This boundary has been used for the initial implementation of the MSFD. Consultations are ongoing between the UK administrations to determine the final placing of the subregional boundary in this area." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subdivisions |
No formal subdivisions have been defined.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MRUs description (AreaType) |
"For the North-East Atlantic marine region, UK reporting on the elements of Art.8 refers informally to eight biogeographically defined assessment areas, referred to as CP2 Regions, which are compatible with the subregional boundaries defined in UK marine waters. These assessment areas were defined based upon the UK Review of Marine Nature Conservation (2004) , which was later modified following a comprehensive review of the boundaries principally using physical and biological features such as tidal fronts and seabed flora and fauna . The boundary to the east of Orkney and Fair Isle follows the 12 nautical mile territorial sea limit which approximates to the transition between the water of the Scottish Continental Shelf and the North Sea. These assessment areas are used as the basis for reporting on seabed habitats and some species groups and are referred to in reporting on other elements under Article 8.
These areas are as follows:
1. Northern North Sea
2. Southern North Sea
3. Eastern Channel
4. Western Channel and Celtic Sea
5. Irish Sea
6. Minches and West of Scotland
7. Scottish Continental Shelf
8. Atlantic North-West Approaches, Rockall Trough and Faeroe/Shetland Channel
For the Mediterranean marine region, UK reporting on the elements of Art.8 refers to British Gibraltar Territorial Waters.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MRUs |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region/ subregion |
ACS |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 countries involved |
BE, NO, SE,
, FR, IS, DE, PT,
, IE, NL, DK |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 nature of coordination |
"1. There has been a high level of information sharing and joint assessment in the North-East Atlantic through the work of the OSPAR Commission which has repeatedly undertaken integrated environmental assessments.
2. The OSPAR Quality Status Report 2010, together with its underlying assessment reports, provides the primary basis for coordination of national initial assessments across the North East Atlantic OSPAR Contracting Parties / EU Member States. The QSR provides an overarching summary of environmental state across the Region and the five subregions. It provides evidence that OSPAR has provided Contracting Parties / EU Member States a basis to ensure regional and subregional coherence of their initial assessments. Contracting Parties agreed they should aim to refer to the QSR and, when appropriate, the underlying assessments in their national initial assessments.
3. As regards the conclusions of national initial assessments, it was agreed within OSPAR that further coordination should be carried out between relevant Contracting Parties at a sub-regional level. Contracting Parties / EU Member States were requested to share planning information to make this possible.
4. An OSPAR socio-economic analysis is being taken forward and will provide a strong basis for more detailed coordination of the socio-economic element of the MSFD assessments process in the future.
5. No significant differences in National Initial Assessments were identified through sub-regional coordination in the first half of 2012 and no country has flagged major inconsistencies in the conclusions of neighbouring national initial assessments.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 regional coherence |
Partial |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 regional coherence problems |
The timeline and ambitious implementation requirements (implementation of Art.8, 9 and 10, with a step for public consultation) required Member States to interact, to the extent possible, simultaneously within their national administrations (often with several governance levels) and across international boundaries. Lack of time did not permit a detailed coordination of initial assessments across countries. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 countries involved |
BE, NO, SE,
, FR, IS, DE, PT,
, IE, NL, DK |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 nature of coordination |
"1. There has been a high level of sharing of existing methodologies for determining GES and of coordination in further developing them through work of the OSPAR Commission.
2. OSPAR bodies have developed internal ‘Advice documents’ on determining GES and setting targets and indicators for GES the Descriptors (with the exception of D3 and D9) taking account of information available at all relevant levels (EU to national).
3. There has been a collective examination of the emerging GES determinations by countries through the creation of an inventory of emerging national proposals for Descriptors 3,5,7,8,9,10 and 11. This inventory was created in late 2011 and updated in mid 2012. The inventory was analysed to make an assessment of the level of regional coherence and specific actions were identified to improve regional coordination on Article 9 for a number of the GES Descriptors, both before and after the 2012 deadline. For the biodiversity Descriptors (1,2,4 and 6) countries are sharing expertise on common approaches (see Art.10).
4. OSPAR EU Member States have agreed high-level, qualitative statements of GES for Descriptors 10 and 11 that are included in the OSPAR report on regional MSFD coordination published by the OSPAR Commission. The UK has referred to these in its national articulation of Article 9.
5. Analysis of Contracting Parties draft proposals for Articles 8 and 9 has concluded that there is a good degree of coordination and alignment with regard to Descriptors 5, 8, 9 and 10, a fair degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 3 and 11, and a relatively low level of coordination with regard to Descriptor 7. Further analysis of the degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 1,2,4 and 6 is yet to be carried out. 6. The UK has also carried out specific coordination with a number of countries outside the framework of the OSPAR process, including France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 regional coherence |
Partial |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 regional coherence problems |
"The timeline and ambitious implementation requirements (implementation of Art.8, 9 and 10, with a step for public consultation) required Member States to interact, to the extent possible, simultaneously within their national administrations (often with several governance levels) and across international boundaries. Lack of time did not permit a sufficient number of iterations to mutually adjust GES determination in this complex setting.
The methodological framework for applying a coherent ecosystem approach is still under development and this has led to different interpretations in the implementation of this Directive across EU Member States within this evolving context.
Issues that can be addressed in an improved way in the period 2012-2018 have been identified. Additional actions to improve coordination have been identified for all of the GES Descriptors. Descriptor 7 has been identified as an area where coordination is relatively low and this should be a priority for future work.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 countries involved |
BE, NO, SE,
, FR, IS, DE, PT,
, IE, NL, DK |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 nature of coordination |
"1. There has been a moderate level of information sharing on the development of coordinated environmental targets and indicators
2. OSPAR bodies have developed internal ‘Advice documents’ on determining GES and setting targets and indicators for GES the Descriptors (with the exception of D3 and D9) taking account of information available at all relevant levels (EU to national).
3. There has been a collective examination of the emerging national GES targets and indicators through a number of processes.
4. For Descriptors 3,5,7,8,9,10 and 11 an inventory was created to capture emerging national proposals. This inventory was created in late 2011 and updated in mid 2012. The inventory was analysed to make an assessment of the level of regional coherence and specific actions were identified to improve regional coordination on Article 10 for a number of the GES Descriptors both before and after the 2012 deadline.
5. For Descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6 OSPAR has an intensive programme of work led by the Intersessional Correspondence Group on Coordinated Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring (COBAM) to coordinate national approaches to biodiversity targets and indicators, including the on-going development of a proposed set of common OSPAR biodiversity indicators for MSFD.
6. Analysis of Contracting Parties draft proposals for Articles 8 and 9 has concluded that there is a good degree of coordination and alignment with regard to Descriptors 5, 8, 9 and 10, a fair degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 3 and 11, and a relatively low level of coordination with regard to Descriptor 7. Further analysis of the degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 1,2,4 and 6 is yet to be carried out. 6. The UK has also carried out specific coordination with a number of countries outside the framework of the OSPAR process, including France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 regional coherence |
Partial |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 regional coherence problems |
"The timeline and ambitious implementation requirements (implementation of Art.8, 9 and 10, with a step for public consultation) required Member States to interact, to the extent possible, simultaneously within their national administrations (often with several governance levels) and across international boundaries. Lack of time did not permit a sufficient number of iterations to mutually adjust GES targets and indicators in this complex setting.
The methodological framework for applying a coherent ecosystem approach is still under development and this has led to different interpretations in the implementation of this Directive across EU Member States within this evolving context.
Issues that can be addressed in an improved way in the period 2012-2018 have been identified. Additional actions to improve coordination have been identified for all of the GES Descriptors. Descriptor 7 has been identified as an area where coordination is relatively low and this should be a priority for future work.
" |
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art. 3(1) Marine waters & Art. 4/2017 Decision: Marine regions, subregions, and subdivisions & Art. 5(2) & Art. 6 Regional cooperation |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Reported by | Cefas |
| Report date | 2013-01-09 |
| Report access | ANSUK_MSFD4Geo_20130109.xml |
Member state marine waters |
"For the purpose of the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, marine waters are defined as follows:
(1) In the North-East Atlantic marine region, “the UK marine strategy area” meaning—(a) the area of sea within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to the UK, and the sea bed and its subsoil in that area of sea; (b) any area of sea within the limits of the UK renewable energy zone and the sea bed and its subsoil in that area of sea; and (c) the sea bed and its subsoil within the limits of any areas designated under section 1(7) of the UK Continental Shelf Act 1964(e) (so far as not falling within the area mentioned in paragraph (b)).
In paragraph (1), “sea”— (i) includes coastal water with the landward boundary as defined by the UK implementation of the Water Framework Directive equivalent to mean high water spring; (ii) does not include any transitional waters.
In relation to paragraph (1b) the following areas have been the subject of UK submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf:
(i) on 31 March 2009, the UK submitted information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured in respect of Hatton Rockall Area. The submission is awaiting consideration by a subcommission of the CLCS. UK is one of four States which have expressed interest in the continental shelf in the Hatton Rockall Area, together with Denmark, Iceland and Ireland. Consultations have been held with these States and the UK remains committed to further negotiations in due course. Ireland and the UK reached agreement in 1988 on a bilateral delimitation of the continental shelf.
(ii) On 19 May 2006, France, Ireland, Spain and the UK jointly submitted information on the limits of the continental shelf appurtenant to the four States that lies beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the territorial seas of these four States are measured in the portion of the continental shelf in the area of the Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay. Negotiations to delimit the area between the four states are ongoing and the UK is not currently applying the MSFD in this area.
(2) In the Mediterranean marine region, British Gibraltar Territorial Waters which is the area of sea, the sea bed and subsoil within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to Gibraltar under British sovereignty and which, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, currently extends to three nautical miles and to the median line in the Bay of Gibraltar.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Region / subregion description |
"Within the UK Marine Strategy area the boundary between the Greater North Sea and the Celtic Seas subregions has been established on the basis of the biogegraphic, oceanographic and biogeographic features, as follows:
(1) in the Western Channel the boundary in UK waters is defined by a hydrographic transition between generally mixed waters (higher tidal bed stress and a shallower wave base) with more variable temperatures (warmer in summer, cooler in winter) in the east and the stratified and more thermally stable waters to the west. Following bilateral discussions with France it has been proposed that the continuation of the boundary should follow the median line between the two jurisdictions to the point where it intersects with the boundary in French waters.
(2) to the North of mainland Scotland the boundary follows the oceanographic transition between the water of the Scottish Continental Shelf which are warmed by the continental shelf current (>8ºC) and the waters of the North Sea which are of more mixed origin. For practical reasons the boundary east of Orkney and Fair Isle follows the 12 nautical mile territorial sea limit. This boundary has been used for the initial implementation of the MSFD. Consultations are ongoing between the UK administrations to determine the final placing of the subregional boundary in this area." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subdivisions |
No formal subdivisions have been defined.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
MRUs description (AreaType) |
"For the North-East Atlantic marine region, UK reporting on the elements of Art.8 refers informally to eight biogeographically defined assessment areas, referred to as CP2 Regions, which are compatible with the subregional boundaries defined in UK marine waters. These assessment areas were defined based upon the UK Review of Marine Nature Conservation (2004) , which was later modified following a comprehensive review of the boundaries principally using physical and biological features such as tidal fronts and seabed flora and fauna . The boundary to the east of Orkney and Fair Isle follows the 12 nautical mile territorial sea limit which approximates to the transition between the water of the Scottish Continental Shelf and the North Sea. These assessment areas are used as the basis for reporting on seabed habitats and some species groups and are referred to in reporting on other elements under Article 8.
These areas are as follows:
1. Northern North Sea
2. Southern North Sea
3. Eastern Channel
4. Western Channel and Celtic Sea
5. Irish Sea
6. Minches and West of Scotland
7. Scottish Continental Shelf
8. Atlantic North-West Approaches, Rockall Trough and Faeroe/Shetland Channel
For the Mediterranean marine region, UK reporting on the elements of Art.8 refers to British Gibraltar Territorial Waters.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
MRUs |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region/ subregion |
ANS |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 countries involved |
BE, NO, SE,
, FR, IS, DE, PT,
, IE, NL, DK |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 nature of coordination |
"1. There has been a high level of information sharing and joint assessment in the North-East Atlantic through the work of the OSPAR Commission which has repeatedly undertaken integrated environmental assessments.
2. The OSPAR Quality Status Report 2010, together with its underlying assessment reports, provides the primary basis for coordination of national initial assessments across the North East Atlantic OSPAR Contracting Parties / EU Member States. The QSR provides an overarching summary of environmental state across the Region and the five subregions. It provides evidence that OSPAR has provided Contracting Parties / EU Member States a basis to ensure regional and subregional coherence of their initial assessments. Contracting Parties agreed they should aim to refer to the QSR and, when appropriate, the underlying assessments in their national initial assessments.
3. As regards the conclusions of national initial assessments, it was agreed within OSPAR that further coordination should be carried out between relevant Contracting Parties at a sub-regional level. Contracting Parties / EU Member States were requested to share planning information to make this possible.
4. An OSPAR socio-economic analysis is being taken forward and will provide a strong basis for more detailed coordination of the socio-economic element of the MSFD assessments process in the future.
5. No significant differences in National Initial Assessments were identified through sub-regional coordination in the first half of 2012 and no country has flagged major inconsistencies in the conclusions of neighbouring national initial assessments.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 regional coherence |
Partial |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 regional coherence problems |
The timeline and ambitious implementation requirements (implementation of Art.8, 9 and 10, with a step for public consultation) required Member States to interact, to the extent possible, simultaneously within their national administrations (often with several governance levels) and across international boundaries. Lack of time did not permit a detailed coordination of initial assessments across countries. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 countries involved |
BE, NO, SE,
, FR, IS, DE, PT,
, IE, NL, DK |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 nature of coordination |
"1. There has been a high level of sharing of existing methodologies for determining GES and of coordination in further developing them through work of the OSPAR Commission.
2. OSPAR bodies have developed internal ‘Advice documents’ on determining GES and setting targets and indicators for GES the Descriptors (with the exception of D3 and D9) taking account of information available at all relevant levels (EU to national).
3. There has been a collective examination of the emerging GES determinations by countries through the creation of an inventory of emerging national proposals for Descriptors 3,5,7,8,9,10 and 11. This inventory was created in late 2011 and updated in mid 2012. The inventory was analysed to make an assessment of the level of regional coherence and specific actions were identified to improve regional coordination on Article 9 for a number of the GES Descriptors, both before and after the 2012 deadline. For the biodiversity Descriptors (1,2,4 and 6) countries are sharing expertise on common approaches (see Art.10).
4. OSPAR EU Member States have agreed high-level, qualitative statements of GES for Descriptors 10 and 11 that are included in the OSPAR report on regional MSFD coordination published by the OSPAR Commission. The UK has referred to these in its national articulation of Article 9.
5. Analysis of Contracting Parties draft proposals for Articles 8 and 9 has concluded that there is a good degree of coordination and alignment with regard to Descriptors 5, 8, 9 and 10, a fair degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 3 and 11, and a relatively low level of coordination with regard to Descriptor 7. Further analysis of the degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 1,2,4 and 6 is yet to be carried out. 6. The UK has also carried out specific coordination with a number of countries outside the framework of the OSPAR process, including France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 regional coherence |
Partial |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 regional coherence problems |
"The timeline and ambitious implementation requirements (implementation of Art.8, 9 and 10, with a step for public consultation) required Member States to interact, to the extent possible, simultaneously within their national administrations (often with several governance levels) and across international boundaries. Lack of time did not permit a sufficient number of iterations to mutually adjust GES determination in this complex setting.
The methodological framework for applying a coherent ecosystem approach is still under development and this has led to different interpretations in the implementation of this Directive across EU Member States within this evolving context.
Issues that can be addressed in an improved way in the period 2012-2018 have been identified. Additional actions to improve coordination have been identified for all of the GES Descriptors. Descriptor 7 has been identified as an area where coordination is relatively low and this should be a priority for future work.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 countries involved |
BE, NO, SE,
, FR, IS, DE, PT,
, IE, NL, DK |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 nature of coordination |
"1. There has been a moderate level of information sharing on the development of coordinated environmental targets and indicators
2. OSPAR bodies have developed internal ‘Advice documents’ on determining GES and setting targets and indicators for GES the Descriptors (with the exception of D3 and D9) taking account of information available at all relevant levels (EU to national).
3. There has been a collective examination of the emerging national GES targets and indicators through a number of processes.
4. For Descriptors 3,5,7,8,9,10 and 11 an inventory was created to capture emerging national proposals. This inventory was created in late 2011 and updated in mid 2012. The inventory was analysed to make an assessment of the level of regional coherence and specific actions were identified to improve regional coordination on Article 10 for a number of the GES Descriptors both before and after the 2012 deadline.
5. For Descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6 OSPAR has an intensive programme of work led by the Intersessional Correspondence Group on Coordinated Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring (COBAM) to coordinate national approaches to biodiversity targets and indicators, including the on-going development of a proposed set of common OSPAR biodiversity indicators for MSFD.
6. Analysis of Contracting Parties draft proposals for Articles 8 and 9 has concluded that there is a good degree of coordination and alignment with regard to Descriptors 5, 8, 9 and 10, a fair degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 3 and 11, and a relatively low level of coordination with regard to Descriptor 7. Further analysis of the degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 1,2,4 and 6 is yet to be carried out. 6. The UK has also carried out specific coordination with a number of countries outside the framework of the OSPAR process, including France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 regional coherence |
Partial |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 regional coherence problems |
"The timeline and ambitious implementation requirements (implementation of Art.8, 9 and 10, with a step for public consultation) required Member States to interact, to the extent possible, simultaneously within their national administrations (often with several governance levels) and across international boundaries. Lack of time did not permit a sufficient number of iterations to mutually adjust GES targets and indicators in this complex setting.
The methodological framework for applying a coherent ecosystem approach is still under development and this has led to different interpretations in the implementation of this Directive across EU Member States within this evolving context.
Issues that can be addressed in an improved way in the period 2012-2018 have been identified. Additional actions to improve coordination have been identified for all of the GES Descriptors. Descriptor 7 has been identified as an area where coordination is relatively low and this should be a priority for future work.
" |
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art. 3(1) Marine waters & Art. 4/2017 Decision: Marine regions, subregions, and subdivisions & Art. 5(2) & Art. 6 Regional cooperation |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Reported by | Cefas |
| Report date | 2012-11-14 |
| Report access | ACSUK_MSFD4Geo_20121114.xml |
Member state marine waters |
"For the purpose of the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, marine waters are defined as follows:
(1) In the North-East Atlantic marine region, “the UK marine strategy area” meaning—(a) the area of sea within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to the UK, and the sea bed and its subsoil in that area of sea; (b) any area of sea within the limits of the UK renewable energy zone and the sea bed and its subsoil in that area of sea; and (c) the sea bed and its subsoil within the limits of any areas designated under section 1(7) of the UK Continental Shelf Act 1964(e) (so far as not falling within the area mentioned in paragraph (b)).
In paragraph (1), “sea”— (i) includes coastal water with the landward boundary as defined by the UK implementation of the Water Framework Directive equivalent to mean high water spring; (ii) does not include any transitional waters.
In relation to paragraph (1b) the following areas have been the subject of UK submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf:
(i) on 31 March 2009, the UK submitted information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured in respect of Hatton Rockall Area. The submission is awaiting consideration by a subcommission of the CLCS. UK is one of four States which have expressed interest in the continental shelf in the Hatton Rockall Area, together with Denmark, Iceland and Ireland. Consultations have been held with these States and the UK remains committed to further negotiations in due course. Ireland and the UK reached agreement in 1988 on a bilateral delimitation of the continental shelf.
(ii) On 19 May 2006, France, Ireland, Spain and the UK jointly submitted information on the limits of the continental shelf appurtenant to the four States that lies beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the territorial seas of these four States are measured in the portion of the continental shelf in the area of the Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay. Negotiations to delimit the area between the four states are ongoing and the UK is not currently applying the MSFD in this area.
(2) In the Mediterranean marine region, British Gibraltar Territorial Waters which is the area of sea, the sea bed and subsoil within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to Gibraltar under British sovereignty and which, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, currently extends to three nautical miles and to the median line in the Bay of Gibraltar.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Region / subregion description |
"Within the UK Marine Strategy area the boundary between the Greater North Sea and the Celtic Seas subregions has been established on the basis of the biogegraphic, oceanographic and biogeographic features, as follows:
(1) in the Western Channel the boundary in UK waters is defined by a hydrographic transition between generally mixed waters (higher tidal bed stress and a shallower wave base) with more variable temperatures (warmer in summer, cooler in winter) in the east and the stratified and more thermally stable waters to the west. Following bilateral discussions with France it has been proposed that the continuation of the boundary should follow the median line between the two jurisdictions to the point where it intersects with the boundary in French waters.
(2) to the North of mainland Scotland the boundary follows the oceanographic transition between the water of the Scottish Continental Shelf which are warmed by the continental shelf current (>8ºC) and the waters of the North Sea which are of more mixed origin. For practical reasons the boundary east of Orkney and Fair Isle follows the 12 nautical mile territorial sea limit. This boundary has been used for the initial implementation of the MSFD. Consultations are ongoing between the UK administrations to determine the final placing of the subregional boundary in this area." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subdivisions |
No formal subdivisions have been defined.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MRUs description (AreaType) |
"For the North-East Atlantic marine region, UK reporting on the elements of Art.8 refers informally to eight biogeographically defined assessment areas, referred to as CP2 Regions, which are compatible with the subregional boundaries defined in UK marine waters. These assessment areas were defined based upon the UK Review of Marine Nature Conservation (2004) , which was later modified following a comprehensive review of the boundaries principally using physical and biological features such as tidal fronts and seabed flora and fauna . The boundary to the east of Orkney and Fair Isle follows the 12 nautical mile territorial sea limit which approximates to the transition between the water of the Scottish Continental Shelf and the North Sea. These assessment areas are used as the basis for reporting on seabed habitats and some species groups and are referred to in reporting on other elements under Article 8.
These areas are as follows:
1. Northern North Sea
2. Southern North Sea
3. Eastern Channel
4. Western Channel and Celtic Sea
5. Irish Sea
6. Minches and West of Scotland
7. Scottish Continental Shelf
8. Atlantic North-West Approaches, Rockall Trough and Faeroe/Shetland Channel
For the Mediterranean marine region, UK reporting on the elements of Art.8 refers to British Gibraltar Territorial Waters.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MRUs |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region/ subregion |
ACS |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 countries involved |
,
, UK |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 nature of coordination |
"1. There has been a high level of information sharing and joint assessment in the North-East Atlantic through the work of the OSPAR Commission which has repeatedly undertaken integrated environmental assessments.
2. The OSPAR Quality Status Report 2010, together with its underlying assessment reports, provides the primary basis for coordination of national initial assessments across the North East Atlantic OSPAR Contracting Parties / EU Member States. The QSR provides an overarching summary of environmental state across the Region and the five subregions. It provides evidence that OSPAR has provided Contracting Parties / EU Member States a basis to ensure regional and subregional coherence of their initial assessments. Contracting Parties agreed they should aim to refer to the QSR and, when appropriate, the underlying assessments in their national initial assessments.
3. As regards the conclusions of national initial assessments, it was agreed within OSPAR that further coordination should be carried out between relevant Contracting Parties at a sub-regional level. Contracting Parties / EU Member States were requested to share planning information to make this possible.
4. An OSPAR socio-economic analysis is being taken forward and will provide a strong basis for more detailed coordination of the socio-economic element of the MSFD assessments process in the future.
5. No significant differences in National Initial Assessments were identified through sub-regional coordination in the first half of 2012 and no country has flagged major inconsistencies in the conclusions of neighbouring national initial assessments.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 regional coherence |
Partial |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 regional coherence problems |
The timeline and ambitious implementation requirements (implementation of Art.8, 9 and 10, with a step for public consultation) required Member States to interact, to the extent possible, simultaneously within their national administrations (often with several governance levels) and across international boundaries. Lack of time did not permit a detailed coordination of initial assessments across countries. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 countries involved |
,
, UK |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 nature of coordination |
"1. There has been a high level of sharing of existing methodologies for determining GES and of coordination in further developing them through work of the OSPAR Commission.
2. OSPAR bodies have developed internal ‘Advice documents’ on determining GES and setting targets and indicators for GES the Descriptors (with the exception of D3 and D9) taking account of information available at all relevant levels (EU to national).
3. There has been a collective examination of the emerging GES determinations by countries through the creation of an inventory of emerging national proposals for Descriptors 3,5,7,8,9,10 and 11. This inventory was created in late 2011 and updated in mid 2012. The inventory was analysed to make an assessment of the level of regional coherence and specific actions were identified to improve regional coordination on Article 9 for a number of the GES Descriptors, both before and after the 2012 deadline. For the biodiversity Descriptors (1,2,4 and 6) countries are sharing expertise on common approaches (see Art.10).
4. OSPAR EU Member States have agreed high-level, qualitative statements of GES for Descriptors 10 and 11 that are included in the OSPAR report on regional MSFD coordination published by the OSPAR Commission. The UK has referred to these in its national articulation of Article 9.
5. Analysis of Contracting Parties draft proposals for Articles 8 and 9 has concluded that there is a good degree of coordination and alignment with regard to Descriptors 5, 8, 9 and 10, a fair degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 3 and 11, and a relatively low level of coordination with regard to Descriptor 7. Further analysis of the degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 1,2,4 and 6 is yet to be carried out. 6. The UK has also carried out specific coordination with a number of countries outside the framework of the OSPAR process, including France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 regional coherence |
Partial |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 regional coherence problems |
"The timeline and ambitious implementation requirements (implementation of Art.8, 9 and 10, with a step for public consultation) required Member States to interact, to the extent possible, simultaneously within their national administrations (often with several governance levels) and across international boundaries. Lack of time did not permit a sufficient number of iterations to mutually adjust GES determination in this complex setting.
The methodological framework for applying a coherent ecosystem approach is still under development and this has led to different interpretations in the implementation of this Directive across EU Member States within this evolving context.
Issues that can be addressed in an improved way in the period 2012-2018 have been identified. Additional actions to improve coordination have been identified for all of the GES Descriptors. Descriptor 7 has been identified as an area where coordination is relatively low and this should be a priority for future work.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 countries involved |
,
, UK |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 nature of coordination |
"1. There has been a moderate level of information sharing on the development of coordinated environmental targets and indicators
2. OSPAR bodies have developed internal ‘Advice documents’ on determining GES and setting targets and indicators for GES the Descriptors (with the exception of D3 and D9) taking account of information available at all relevant levels (EU to national).
3. There has been a collective examination of the emerging national GES targets and indicators through a number of processes.
4. For Descriptors 3,5,7,8,9,10 and 11 an inventory was created to capture emerging national proposals. This inventory was created in late 2011 and updated in mid 2012. The inventory was analysed to make an assessment of the level of regional coherence and specific actions were identified to improve regional coordination on Article 10 for a number of the GES Descriptors both before and after the 2012 deadline.
5. For Descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6 OSPAR has an intensive programme of work led by the Intersessional Correspondence Group on Coordinated Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring (COBAM) to coordinate national approaches to biodiversity targets and indicators, including the on-going development of a proposed set of common OSPAR biodiversity indicators for MSFD.
6. Analysis of Contracting Parties draft proposals for Articles 8 and 9 has concluded that there is a good degree of coordination and alignment with regard to Descriptors 5, 8, 9 and 10, a fair degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 3 and 11, and a relatively low level of coordination with regard to Descriptor 7. Further analysis of the degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 1,2,4 and 6 is yet to be carried out. 6. The UK has also carried out specific coordination with a number of countries outside the framework of the OSPAR process, including France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 regional coherence |
Partial |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 regional coherence problems |
"The timeline and ambitious implementation requirements (implementation of Art.8, 9 and 10, with a step for public consultation) required Member States to interact, to the extent possible, simultaneously within their national administrations (often with several governance levels) and across international boundaries. Lack of time did not permit a sufficient number of iterations to mutually adjust GES targets and indicators in this complex setting.
The methodological framework for applying a coherent ecosystem approach is still under development and this has led to different interpretations in the implementation of this Directive across EU Member States within this evolving context.
Issues that can be addressed in an improved way in the period 2012-2018 have been identified. Additional actions to improve coordination have been identified for all of the GES Descriptors. Descriptor 7 has been identified as an area where coordination is relatively low and this should be a priority for future work.
" |
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art. 3(1) Marine waters & Art. 4/2017 Decision: Marine regions, subregions, and subdivisions & Art. 5(2) & Art. 6 Regional cooperation |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Reported by | Cefas |
| Report date | 2012-11-14 |
| Report access | ANSUK_MSFD4Geo_20121114.xml |
Member state marine waters |
"For the purpose of the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, marine waters are defined as follows:
(1) In the North-East Atlantic marine region, “the UK marine strategy area” meaning—(a) the area of sea within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to the UK, and the sea bed and its subsoil in that area of sea; (b) any area of sea within the limits of the UK renewable energy zone and the sea bed and its subsoil in that area of sea; and (c) the sea bed and its subsoil within the limits of any areas designated under section 1(7) of the UK Continental Shelf Act 1964(e) (so far as not falling within the area mentioned in paragraph (b)).
In paragraph (1), “sea”— (i) includes coastal water with the landward boundary as defined by the UK implementation of the Water Framework Directive equivalent to mean high water spring; (ii) does not include any transitional waters.
In relation to paragraph (1b) the following areas have been the subject of UK submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf:
(i) on 31 March 2009, the UK submitted information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured in respect of Hatton Rockall Area. The submission is awaiting consideration by a subcommission of the CLCS. UK is one of four States which have expressed interest in the continental shelf in the Hatton Rockall Area, together with Denmark, Iceland and Ireland. Consultations have been held with these States and the UK remains committed to further negotiations in due course. Ireland and the UK reached agreement in 1988 on a bilateral delimitation of the continental shelf.
(ii) On 19 May 2006, France, Ireland, Spain and the UK jointly submitted information on the limits of the continental shelf appurtenant to the four States that lies beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the territorial seas of these four States are measured in the portion of the continental shelf in the area of the Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay. Negotiations to delimit the area between the four states are ongoing and the UK is not currently applying the MSFD in this area.
(2) In the Mediterranean marine region, British Gibraltar Territorial Waters which is the area of sea, the sea bed and subsoil within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to Gibraltar under British sovereignty and which, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, currently extends to three nautical miles and to the median line in the Bay of Gibraltar.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Region / subregion description |
"Within the UK Marine Strategy area the boundary between the Greater North Sea and the Celtic Seas subregions has been established on the basis of the biogegraphic, oceanographic and biogeographic features, as follows:
(1) in the Western Channel the boundary in UK waters is defined by a hydrographic transition between generally mixed waters (higher tidal bed stress and a shallower wave base) with more variable temperatures (warmer in summer, cooler in winter) in the east and the stratified and more thermally stable waters to the west. Following bilateral discussions with France it has been proposed that the continuation of the boundary should follow the median line between the two jurisdictions to the point where it intersects with the boundary in French waters.
(2) to the North of mainland Scotland the boundary follows the oceanographic transition between the water of the Scottish Continental Shelf which are warmed by the continental shelf current (>8ºC) and the waters of the North Sea which are of more mixed origin. For practical reasons the boundary east of Orkney and Fair Isle follows the 12 nautical mile territorial sea limit. This boundary has been used for the initial implementation of the MSFD. Consultations are ongoing between the UK administrations to determine the final placing of the subregional boundary in this area." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subdivisions |
No formal subdivisions have been defined.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
MRUs description (AreaType) |
"For the North-East Atlantic marine region, UK reporting on the elements of Art.8 refers informally to eight biogeographically defined assessment areas, referred to as CP2 Regions, which are compatible with the subregional boundaries defined in UK marine waters. These assessment areas were defined based upon the UK Review of Marine Nature Conservation (2004) , which was later modified following a comprehensive review of the boundaries principally using physical and biological features such as tidal fronts and seabed flora and fauna . The boundary to the east of Orkney and Fair Isle follows the 12 nautical mile territorial sea limit which approximates to the transition between the water of the Scottish Continental Shelf and the North Sea. These assessment areas are used as the basis for reporting on seabed habitats and some species groups and are referred to in reporting on other elements under Article 8.
These areas are as follows:
1. Northern North Sea
2. Southern North Sea
3. Eastern Channel
4. Western Channel and Celtic Sea
5. Irish Sea
6. Minches and West of Scotland
7. Scottish Continental Shelf
8. Atlantic North-West Approaches, Rockall Trough and Faeroe/Shetland Channel
For the Mediterranean marine region, UK reporting on the elements of Art.8 refers to British Gibraltar Territorial Waters.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
MRUs |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Region/ subregion |
ANS |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 countries involved |
,
, UK |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 nature of coordination |
"1. There has been a high level of information sharing and joint assessment in the North-East Atlantic through the work of the OSPAR Commission which has repeatedly undertaken integrated environmental assessments.
2. The OSPAR Quality Status Report 2010, together with its underlying assessment reports, provides the primary basis for coordination of national initial assessments across the North East Atlantic OSPAR Contracting Parties / EU Member States. The QSR provides an overarching summary of environmental state across the Region and the five subregions. It provides evidence that OSPAR has provided Contracting Parties / EU Member States a basis to ensure regional and subregional coherence of their initial assessments. Contracting Parties agreed they should aim to refer to the QSR and, when appropriate, the underlying assessments in their national initial assessments.
3. As regards the conclusions of national initial assessments, it was agreed within OSPAR that further coordination should be carried out between relevant Contracting Parties at a sub-regional level. Contracting Parties / EU Member States were requested to share planning information to make this possible.
4. An OSPAR socio-economic analysis is being taken forward and will provide a strong basis for more detailed coordination of the socio-economic element of the MSFD assessments process in the future.
5. No significant differences in National Initial Assessments were identified through sub-regional coordination in the first half of 2012 and no country has flagged major inconsistencies in the conclusions of neighbouring national initial assessments.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 regional coherence |
Partial |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 8 regional coherence problems |
The timeline and ambitious implementation requirements (implementation of Art.8, 9 and 10, with a step for public consultation) required Member States to interact, to the extent possible, simultaneously within their national administrations (often with several governance levels) and across international boundaries. Lack of time did not permit a detailed coordination of initial assessments across countries. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 countries involved |
,
, UK |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 nature of coordination |
"1. There has been a high level of sharing of existing methodologies for determining GES and of coordination in further developing them through work of the OSPAR Commission.
2. OSPAR bodies have developed internal ‘Advice documents’ on determining GES and setting targets and indicators for GES the Descriptors (with the exception of D3 and D9) taking account of information available at all relevant levels (EU to national).
3. There has been a collective examination of the emerging GES determinations by countries through the creation of an inventory of emerging national proposals for Descriptors 3,5,7,8,9,10 and 11. This inventory was created in late 2011 and updated in mid 2012. The inventory was analysed to make an assessment of the level of regional coherence and specific actions were identified to improve regional coordination on Article 9 for a number of the GES Descriptors, both before and after the 2012 deadline. For the biodiversity Descriptors (1,2,4 and 6) countries are sharing expertise on common approaches (see Art.10).
4. OSPAR EU Member States have agreed high-level, qualitative statements of GES for Descriptors 10 and 11 that are included in the OSPAR report on regional MSFD coordination published by the OSPAR Commission. The UK has referred to these in its national articulation of Article 9.
5. Analysis of Contracting Parties draft proposals for Articles 8 and 9 has concluded that there is a good degree of coordination and alignment with regard to Descriptors 5, 8, 9 and 10, a fair degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 3 and 11, and a relatively low level of coordination with regard to Descriptor 7. Further analysis of the degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 1,2,4 and 6 is yet to be carried out. 6. The UK has also carried out specific coordination with a number of countries outside the framework of the OSPAR process, including France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 regional coherence |
Partial |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 9 regional coherence problems |
"The timeline and ambitious implementation requirements (implementation of Art.8, 9 and 10, with a step for public consultation) required Member States to interact, to the extent possible, simultaneously within their national administrations (often with several governance levels) and across international boundaries. Lack of time did not permit a sufficient number of iterations to mutually adjust GES determination in this complex setting.
The methodological framework for applying a coherent ecosystem approach is still under development and this has led to different interpretations in the implementation of this Directive across EU Member States within this evolving context.
Issues that can be addressed in an improved way in the period 2012-2018 have been identified. Additional actions to improve coordination have been identified for all of the GES Descriptors. Descriptor 7 has been identified as an area where coordination is relatively low and this should be a priority for future work.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 countries involved |
,
, UK |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 nature of coordination |
"1. There has been a moderate level of information sharing on the development of coordinated environmental targets and indicators
2. OSPAR bodies have developed internal ‘Advice documents’ on determining GES and setting targets and indicators for GES the Descriptors (with the exception of D3 and D9) taking account of information available at all relevant levels (EU to national).
3. There has been a collective examination of the emerging national GES targets and indicators through a number of processes.
4. For Descriptors 3,5,7,8,9,10 and 11 an inventory was created to capture emerging national proposals. This inventory was created in late 2011 and updated in mid 2012. The inventory was analysed to make an assessment of the level of regional coherence and specific actions were identified to improve regional coordination on Article 10 for a number of the GES Descriptors both before and after the 2012 deadline.
5. For Descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6 OSPAR has an intensive programme of work led by the Intersessional Correspondence Group on Coordinated Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring (COBAM) to coordinate national approaches to biodiversity targets and indicators, including the on-going development of a proposed set of common OSPAR biodiversity indicators for MSFD.
6. Analysis of Contracting Parties draft proposals for Articles 8 and 9 has concluded that there is a good degree of coordination and alignment with regard to Descriptors 5, 8, 9 and 10, a fair degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 3 and 11, and a relatively low level of coordination with regard to Descriptor 7. Further analysis of the degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 1,2,4 and 6 is yet to be carried out. 6. The UK has also carried out specific coordination with a number of countries outside the framework of the OSPAR process, including France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium.
" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 regional coherence |
Partial |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Art. 10 regional coherence problems |
"The timeline and ambitious implementation requirements (implementation of Art.8, 9 and 10, with a step for public consultation) required Member States to interact, to the extent possible, simultaneously within their national administrations (often with several governance levels) and across international boundaries. Lack of time did not permit a sufficient number of iterations to mutually adjust GES targets and indicators in this complex setting.
The methodological framework for applying a coherent ecosystem approach is still under development and this has led to different interpretations in the implementation of this Directive across EU Member States within this evolving context.
Issues that can be addressed in an improved way in the period 2012-2018 have been identified. Additional actions to improve coordination have been identified for all of the GES Descriptors. Descriptor 7 has been identified as an area where coordination is relatively low and this should be a priority for future work.
" |