Revision of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and … · Web viewConsider the work required in the follow-up of the revised Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and for progressing the Art

GES_17-2017-03

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

Common Implementation Strategy

17th meeting of the

Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES)

10 March 2017

Conference Centre Albert Borschette, Rue Froissart 36, 1040 Brussels (Room 2/B)

Agenda Item: 5c

Document: GES_17-2017-03

Title:Revision of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and Article 8 guidance – follow-up work

Prepared by: EU Commission

Date prepared: 07.03.2017

Background

WG GES 14 agreed that technical guidance on Art. 8 MSFD assessment should be prepared in close conjunction with the revision of COM Decision 2010/477/EU. The state-of-play of the Art. 8 MSFD assessment guidance is reported in document WGGES 17-2017-02 which identifies a number of issues that require further work at EU level. The present document compiles these open issues and outlines how these issues and the work on the Art. 8 MSFD assessment guidance are to be taken forward. This work is associated with the follow-up work needed for the revised GES Decision at either EU level or regional/subregional level.

The WG GES is invited to:

a. Consider the work required in the follow-up of the revised Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and for progressing the Art. 8 MSFD assessment guidance;

b. Request the Commission to initiate discussions with ICES on how to take forward the identified issues with Member States and stakeholders for descriptors 3, 4 and 6;

c. Request the Commission to facilitate, through JRC, further work with Member States and stakeholders on identified issues for descriptors 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 9.

d. Request the Commission to facilitate, through TG Litter and TG Noise, further work with Member States and stakeholders on identified issues for descriptors 10 and 11;

e. Mandate DG GES to further develop, based on contributions from Member States and stakeholders, the relevant parts of Article 8 MSFD assessment guidance.

GES_17-2017-03

Revision of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and Article 8 guidance – follow-up work

The review of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD Annex III, launched by the Commission and Member States in 2014 following a mandate of the MSFD Committee, aimed at improving MSFD implementation and achieving greater consistency and coherence in determining and assessing good environmental status (GES). The results of the review process were captured in descriptor-specific “review manuals” published by JRC and ICES in 2015. In the review process, a number of technical issues were identified which required further work.

The review process resulted in a revised GES Decision and MSFD Annex III, which received positive votes by the MSFD Committee in November 2016. The revised Decision makes provision for specific threshold values and methodological standards to be agreed at Union level, whilst others are to be developed at regional or subregional level, such as through the Regional Sea Conventions. These issues are compiled in Annex 1 to this document.

To accompany the revised GES Decision, WG GES has been tasked, through the Drafting Group GES, to develop guidance on MSFD Article 8 assessments. The guidance is to support the application of Art. 8 MSFD by Member States in a way which is closely linked to the revised GES Decision. The guidance is intended to be developed in a phased process:

- Drafting started in 2016 to summarise approaches for integrating assessment results across scientific indicators and the GES Decision criteria for use by Member States and Regional Sea Conventions in the 2018 update of Art. 8 MSFD assessment. A test version of the guidance was released in February 2017 (GES 17-2017-02).

- In the second phase (from 2017 onwards) the guidance should be further developed to address remaining technical questions and to develop technical guidance on the individual assessments of activities, pressures, impacts and status and how they link up in future assessments.

The state-of-play on the Art. 8 MSFD guidance is reported in GES 17-2017-02. This document identifies outstanding issues, including methodological standards required under the revised Decision, on which approaches either have not yet been agreed by Member States, or have not yet been developed. Descriptor-specific issues that require further work are compiled in Annex 2 to this document.

The aim of the follow-up work is to:

- Start the process necessary to develop the agreements at Union level on elements for assessment, threshold values and methodological standards requested under the revised GES Decision;

- Progressively address technical issues required to improve a coherent and consistent application of Art. 8 MSFD;

- Identify where ongoing work at regional or subregional level (e.g. by the RSCs) is contributing to these needs and where there may be gaps.

The follow-up work resulting from the issues identified in Annex 1 and Annex 2 will be taken forward through:

- DG GES with the overall responsibility for the further development of the Art. 8 MSFD assessment guidance and for developing approaches to cross-cutting issues;

https://circabc.europa.eu/faces/jsp/extension/wai/navigation/container.jsp?FormPrincipal:_idcl=FormPrincipal:_id1&FormPrincipal_SUBMIT=1&id=ea958337-17d6-4921-b1de-b0751ea5d69a&javax.faces.ViewState=j5nWcWUTZZWbdAN5dL21wVyt1lnGsHCaHOxf8GHk12VPQLIttZSmo84xFrcrspcoHCNLSvRsrbXyVIZiK3LFewqh5ACyg0wj3elynk8BeztrEY8OL1oUadx%2FuiK6IfQRgXdbGYfELq1LPdb4kVoAbDq6cOE%3D

GES_17-2017-03

- The RSCs which provide scientific, methodological and experiential support to the WG GES and to Member States;

- TG Litter and TG Noise on the threshold values and methodological standards for D10 and D11;

- JRC and ICES with the function of supporting the WG GES, Member States and stakeholders in the definition of threshold values, methodological standards and addressing identified open issues as specified for D1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in Annex 1 and Annex 2. A work plan for JRC and ICES and a proposal for organising this work together with Member States’ experts is presented in Annexes 3 and 4 to this document.

Member States with the support of JRC and ICES will be requested to prepare, based on the results of the work outlined above, concise and focused contributions to the second phase of development of Art. 8 assessment guidance. DG GES will oversee the drafting process for Art. 8 MSFD assessment guidance.

The MSFD CIS work programme for 2016-2019 for TG Litter includes work on the development of threshold values and on baselines (Annex 5a).TG Litter has planned a workshop on marine litter baselines to take place on 14-15 March 2017 in Brussels (agenda of the workshop can be found in Annex 5b).

The MSFD CIS work programme for 2016-2019 for TG Noise includes work on the development of threshold values and understanding the impact of underwater noise on marine fauna (Annex 6).

Work already undertaken by the RSC as regards to elements to be assessed and threshold values is summarized in Annex 7.

Technical work will be taken forward in 2017 and 2018. Progress will be regularly reported to WG GES for consideration and steering.

The next version of the Art. 8 MSFD assessment guidance, incorporating the results of the technical work, is planned for presentation to WG GES in spring 2018. This allows technical work to mature, to take up experiences of Member States and Regional Sea Conventions in preparation of the 2018 as-sessments and to avoid too many draft versions. In 2018, the next steps for consolidating the guid-ance will be planned taking into account the evaluation results of the 2018 reporting round, remain -ing technical issues and issues at the more detailed level (e.g. data and indicator level) which are cur -rently not addressed.

GES_17-2017-03

Annex 1: Follow-up work resulting from the revised GES Decision

Actions at Union level and regional/subregional level set out in the revised GES Decision. Source: Ex-tracted from the compilation in Annex B of Art. 8 MSFD assessment guidance (GES_17-2017-02).

Criteria List of elements Threshold values Methodological stan-dards

Pressure-related descriptors (primary criteria in bold)

D2C1 Regional/subregionalC2 Regional/subregionalC3 Regional/subregional Regional/subregional

D3

C1 Regional/subregional Union level (MS as-sisted by ICES)

C2 Regional/subregional Union level (MS as-sisted by ICES)

C3 Regional/subregional Regional/subregional Union level (MS as-sisted by ICES)

D5

C1 Regional/subregional Regional/subregional

Where possible at Union level, but at least at regional or subregional level (MS assisted by JRC)

C2 Regional/subregionalC3 Regional/subregionalC4 Regional/subregionalC5 Regional/subregionalC6 Regional/subregionalC7 Regional/subregionalC8 Regional/subregional

D6C1C2C3 Regional/subregional

D7C1C2 Regional/subregional

D8

C1 Regional/subregional Regional/subregionalC2 Regional/subregional Regional/subregional Regional/subregionalC3C4 Regional/subregional

D9 C1 Regional/subregional Regional/subregional

D10

C1 Union levelUnion level (TG Lit-ter)

C2 Union levelC3 Regional/subregional Regional/subregionalC4 Regional/subregional Regional/subregional

D11 C1 Union level Union level TG Noise)C2 Union level

State-related descriptors

D1Birds

C1 Regional/subregional Regional/subregionalC2 Regional/subregional Regional/subregional

Union level (MS as-sisted by JRC/ICES)

C3 Regional/subregional Regional/subregionalC4 Regional/subregional Regional/subregionalC5 Regional/subregional

GES_17-2017-03

Criteria List of elements Threshold values Methodological stan-dards

D1Mammals




D1 Reptiles




D1 Fish




D1 Cephalo-pods




D1 Pelagic habitats C6 Regional/subregional Regional/subregional

D1/D6 Ben-thic habi-tats

C4 Regional/subregional Union level (MS assisted by ICES) Union level (MS as-

sisted by ICES)C5 Regional/subregional Union level (MS assisted by ICES)

D1/D4 Ecosystems, food webs

C1 Regional/subregional Regional/subregionalC2 Regional/subregional Regional/subregionalC3 Regional/subregional Regional/subregionalC4 Regional/subregional Regional/subregional

GES_17-2017-03

Annex 2: Outstanding issues for Article 8 Guidance

Source: Compiled from the “issue boxes” in document in GES_17-2017-02.

Section/ Descriptor

Issue Who to address

Cross-cutting issuesSection 1Introduction

Develop section further by 2018 as a contribution of Member States to a common understanding of the Article 8 MSFD assessment. For the time being, the subsections exemplify the items to be covered and developed by DG GES.

DG GES

Section 2 Over-arching principles and approaches

Develop section further by 2018. Possible topics in addition to those already included are:

Linking indicators with criteria: avoiding assessing a single as-pect more than once, e.g. benthic indicators (cumulative im-pact) and pressure indicators;

How to integrate different geographic scales in the assess-ment?

o Some indicators operate at small assessment scales (e.g. WFD water bodies) while others operate at lar-ger scales. This may require scaling down and up from an agreed regional assessment area. This means that the same assessment result for a big area (e.g. region) is applied to various small assessment units (e.g. basins). Results for smaller areas may need to be ag-gregated together, or assessment results could be provided as a percentage of areas achieving good status.

How to deal with spatially-explicit assessment requirements (e.g. proportion of area subject to pressure).

How to deal with gaps in the integration process: In cases where assessment results for individual scientific indicators or criteria (or components thereof) are not available, how should integration across indicators/criteria take place?

How to deal with assessments for which there is a trend-based outcome but a judgement of status for the criterion has not been made?

Any other common problems and solutions identified in sec-tions 3 and 4.

Compatible presentations.

DG GES

Section 2.2 Section on assessment outputs to be revised and further defined in light of experience through RSC cooperation on additional outputs as part of their assessment products. Assessment outputs will depend on national management needs and EU reporting requirements. Re-porting needs in turn depend on how the Commission intends to as-sess implementation and success of MSFD (e.g. linking status assess-ment with targets and Programmes of Measures) and accordingly to determine the type of, and the level at which, information should be reported under Article 8.

DG GES

GES_17-2017-03

Section/ Descriptor


Issues identified that need to be addressed are: If required, a method to express the change in status (improv-

ing, stable, deteriorating) compared to the previous cycle may need to be developed.

Detail, per descriptor, on temporal aspects of assessments (e.g. whether to use the latest year of data only, or data from the last 6 years), and how to combine temporally if required (e.g. averaging across years).

Further guidance on spatial aggregation of assessments. Whether the same indicator can be used in more than one

Descriptor. How up- or down-scaling should be applied, whether weight-

ing is appropriate (e.g. by size of area, ecological relevance). How to assess, and express, the confidence in the assessment

(based on data quality and gaps in the assessment). How trend-based indicators can be used in integrating assess-

ments (e.g. HELCOM BEAT). How to express confidence or uncertainty in the assessments.

Section 2.5 Options for how the assessment of additional national-level indicators could be taken into account to be further developed, which may be explored through examples.For further discussion and development:

The need to include assessment results derived under existing EU-legislation (WFD, HD, BD) into Regional Assessments (dif-ference between EU-relevant indicators and assessment res-ults and “national” (= other, supplementary) indicators).

Options for combining national and regional assessments: there may be several approaches, according to specific descriptors. To be explored through examples.

Whether a generalised approach can be agreed for combining national and regional assessments or whether this needs a case-by-case decision for each element or criterion.

How reporting of national and regional assessments should be taken forward (issue for WG DIKE).

DG GES

General Worked examples are intended for inclusion in some descriptor-specific sections. These are yet to be developed with support from technical work of the technical groups, JRC and ICES.

Guidance on the spatial aggregation of assessment areas still needs to be developed for each Descriptor section.

DG GES, TG Litter, TG Noise, JRC, ICES

Pressure-related descriptorsD2 The role of, and associated assessment methods for, D2C2 and D2C3

in the assessment of D2 and D1 require further clarification.MS assisted by JRC

D3 Integration methods need to take account of the lack of data for cri-terion D3C3:

The integration method for D3C3 (if more than one indicator is used) still needs to be determined in conjunction with final-ising and operationalising the assessment tools for D3C3

MS assisted by ICES

GES_17-2017-03

Section/ Descriptor


based on forthcoming ICES advice. Other issues:

How short-lived species managed according to the escape-ment strategy are considered in the assessment needs further guidance.

The interplay between (sub)regional/national assessments, e.g. how national stocks included in the list should be reflec-ted in the assessments ((sub)regionally, or only nationally).

How Member States should report the assessment in relation to stocks that are included on the (sub)regional list but not caught by the Member State in question.

D5 Integration approaches: Integration methods are well advanced. The methods

presented at WG GES 15 seem to accommodate both the OS-PAR and HELCOM systems.

There was however no agreement about a common approach nor about the final integration between criteria (groups).

The methods chosen to integrate indicators to criteria level (if required) should take into account, and be coordinated with, the integration approaches to be agreed across criteria. This is because the integration approach chosen at a lower level influences the possible integration approaches at higher levels.

Minimum elements to be considered for D5C1.

In using regional approaches, consideration should be given to progressing towards the grouping of criteria in the Decision according to nutrients, water column and seabed, which deviates from existing assessment frameworks. The use of WFD integration methods in coastal areas based on MSFD criteria and linking WFD coastal areas with MSFD offshore water in the assessment may require further technical clarification. Integration rules exist for the three biological quality components phytoplankton, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. These components do not match the primary criteria. The WFD decision tree does not include methods for integrating chemical parameters (nutrients and oxygen), which are only supporting parameters in WFD assessment - see WFD Guidance No. 23 and latest discussions of nutrient expert group of Ecostat in November 2016, which concluded that such rules still need to be developed.

Outputs contributing to D1 and D6The methodologies for Descriptor 5 criteria to contribute to assessments of pelagic and benthic habitats under Descriptors 1 and 6 need to be developed at Union level. This concerns:

D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 (when used) contribute to the assess-ment of pelagic habitats under Descriptor 1, in terms of the distribution and an estimate of the extent of the area that is subject to eutrophication in the water column;

MS assisted by JRC

GES_17-2017-03

Section/ Descriptor


D5C4, D5C5, D5C6, D5C7 and D5C8 (when used) contribute to the assessment of benthic habitats under Descriptors 1 and 6, in terms of the distribution and an estimate of the extent of the area that is subject to eutrophication on the seabed.

D6 The Member State workshop on the 20–21 April 2016 and subsequent comments by Member States raised several issues concerning clarification of the approach to assessment of benthic habitats. Many of these have already been addressed in the revised COM Dec, some may require further consideration which will be taken forward in the course of further technical work e.g.:

How to take account of the restoration of benthic habitats; Inclusion of qualitative assessments in the integration; Detail of how to estimate the spatial extent of activity-pres-

sures, in the case where pressure data is point-based; Detail/indicative recommendations on how different pressure

layers are integrated; How to aggregate sub-habitat-types to broad habitat types’ How to deal with variation in confidence of maps of modelled

data (EUSeaMap); Whether an assessment of adverse effect from physical dis-

turbance can be reported qualitatively (expert judgement) or quantitatively, see ICES advice on cumulative impact against assessment of BH3 in OSPAR;

How to include and define habitat quality, sensitivity and resi-lience in the assessment

How to use WFD and Habitats Directive assessments.

MS assisted by ICES

D7 Methodological standards for linking WFD assessments with MSFD as-sessments (e.g. related to scales of assessment) may require further development.

MS assisted by JRC

D8 D8C1:o Grouping of substances (which substances and the

method for combining them in one group) to be agreed at Union level.

o Where a Member State or RSC opt for further integration of (groups of) substances to criterion level, this should take account of WFD methodological standards and the need for consistency, and should be agreed at regional or subregional level.

o For improved consistency, the matrices used for monitor-ing under WFD and MSFD should be aligned where ap-propriate, taking into account the purpose of monitoring.

o Should trend-based assessments be included in the presentation of assessment results for D8C1 and if so how can this be achieved?

o What does it mean to use the WFD assessment “where available”. Clarify requirements and limitations to linking WFD assessment areas and results to MSFD offshore wa-ters and assessments.

MS assisted by JRC

GES_17-2017-03

Section/ Descriptor


D8C2: The use of the criterion in the overall assessment of GES for Descriptor 8, and any additional output presentation to this end, shall be agreed at regional or subregional level.

D8C3: The use of the criterion in the assessment of GES for Descriptor 8 requires agreement. This could be taken forward alongside the consideration of D8C4 at regional or subre-gional level. A definition of what constitutes ‘significant’ acute pollution requires agreement at Union level.

D8C4: A definition of what constitutes ‘significant’ cumulative spatial and temporal effects requires agreement. The use of the criterion in the overall assessment of GES for Descriptor 8 requires agreement at Union level.Potential to use dose/concentration addition model to account for combination effects.

D9 Mechanism for regional or subregional cooperation on Descriptor 9, given that OSPAR and HELCOM do not address such health issues related to seafood.

Consideration of integration of results within the same sub-stance (e.g. % of samples that exceed the TV for lead/mer-cury/cadmium etc), or possible within the same species (e.g. % substances exceeding TV in hake).

Should the results consider each sample individually (whether met or exceeded threshold values), or average the concentra-tions for a set of samples (same species/contaminant)? The former risks a huge amount of data that is difficult to inter-pret; the latter risks masking samples with high concentra-tions that would have been unfit for human consumption. An alternative approach would be to summarise, by contamin-ant, the number of samples that have met or exceeded the threshold (species/matrix is not relevant).

Related to the above, additional summary presentation of results, in terms of number or proportion of samples exceed-ing thresholds for each contaminant? This should also express e.g. number of monitoring stations/total number of samples, also possibly standard deviation or 95 percentile of the meas-ured reported concentration.

MS assisted by JRC

D10 The integration methods for Descriptor 10 still need to be de-termined.

The revised COM Dec has provided the scope for the use of criteria in the assessment of Descriptor 10 to be agreed at Union level.

In relation to the integration method for D10C1 and D10C2 at level 2, this includes whether the distribution of litter or mi-cro-litter needs to be integrated with the composition of litter or micro-litter, and whether different matrices need to be in-tegrated.

Further guidance is needed refining the master list of ele-ments for its relevance and practical application in each mat-

TG Litter

GES_17-2017-03

Section/ Descriptor


rix. This includes clarification: if chemicals" are "marine litter" or not and therefore rel-

evant or not for litter monitoring. Monitoring may con-tribute to D8;

of "undefined" litter relevant for litter monitoring since not attributable to source;

that food waste is not included yet and if required in what form it should be included (HELCOM also notes that food waste is not recommended for the ‘beach’ matrix in JRC (2013).

These specifications in relation to and the appropriate-ness of the master list should be developed by Task Group on Marine Litter (TG ML) and agreed at Union level for EU-wide use.

The current set-up and membership of the TG ML should be reviewed to ensure it is appropriate to address the foreseen requirements.

Further consideration of how secondary impact indicators are to be developed at regional level, if there is no trigger through an according EU provision.

Further guidance is needed how the requirements of the re-vised Commission Decision could practically be applied. This guidance should be developed by the TG ML and agreed at Union level, this includes practical application of the assess-ment of microplastics in seabed sediments.

D11 The integration methods for Descriptor 11 still need to be de-termined. The revised COM Dec has provided the scope for the use of the criteria in the assessment of good environ-mental status for Descriptor 11 to be agreed at Union level.

Integration methods for level 1 may be required (e.g. to com-bine results for individual months).

Information on impulsive sounds (step 2, D11C1): In order to be in line with dual criteria in existing noise exposure criteria both source levels (SLs) (sound exposure level, SEL, and 0-peak) should be described rather than optional one or the other.

Measurement and analysis of continuous sound (step 2, D11C2): Recent research from the BIAS project has found that annual average is not a suitable metric for describing continu-ous noise in the sea when measured by noise loggers. A finer temporal resolution (e.g. months) may also be required from a biological perspective. The statistical analysis and modelling also needs further detailed guidance.

For D11C2, how can anthropogenic sound be discriminated from natural sound in the measurements/assessment, as seems to be required from the wording.

Need for the development of impact indicators (for sensitive species).

Establishment of threshold values including how to weight

TG Noise

GES_17-2017-03

Section/ Descriptor


different types of impact and separate effects of temporary impacts such as offshore constructions, and recurring event such as navy exercises and seismic surveys.

State-related descriptorsD1 Species (general)

Integration: The integration approaches presented are based on the ‘spe-

cies approach’ (rather than ‘criteria approach’) as required by the revised COM Dec. Some integration methods for particu-lar integration levels and species types are still to be agreed at Union level, taking into account regional or subregional specificities. This may require further technical work which will be taken forward in due course.

The use of D1C1 in determining the status of a species (where integration methods are not already specified for D3 species or species assessed under the Habitats Directive) needs fur-ther technical consideration.

How the pressure criteria (D2C3, D8C2, C4, D9C1, D10C3-C4, D11C1-C2) and any other pressures not covered by these cri-teria inform the assessment of D1 species in practice.

Where aggregation or down-scaling of assessments is necessary, this is likely to require further testing.

Species groups – consideration of marine otters as a separate spe-cies group.

Harmonisation of assessment/reporting intervals for different dir-ectives, where assessments from other directives are expected to be used in MSFD assessments.

Region-specific approach required for some species (seals, har-bour porpoise) in the Baltic.

Methods for obtaining estimates of abundance, how to calculate confidence intervals, and whether a threshold has been reached only if the lower confidence limit is exceeded, also considering what data are available for the assessment in terms of geograph-ical and temporal coverage.

Applicability of threshold values for bycatch in declining popula-tions.

MS assisted by JRC/ICES

D1 Birds Integration methods: The integration methods for Descriptor 1 (Birds) still need to

be determined, and the revised COM Dec has provided the scope for this to be taken forward and agreed at Union level, taking into account regional or subregional specificities.

For the North-East-Atlantic and the Baltic Sea this can be fur-ther developed with the help of expert recommendation from the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Expert Group on Seabirds (JWGBIRD).


D1 Mammals

Integration methods: The integration method for Descriptor 1 (Mammals) at level 4

still needs to be determined, and the revised COM Dec has provided the scope for this to be taken forward and agreed at Union level, taking into account regional or subregional spe-


GES_17-2017-03

Section/ Descriptor


cificities. BALTIC BOOST project’s forthcoming report about challenges

and possible solutions for the Habitats Directive and MSFD as-sessments of marine mammals in the Baltic Sea may provide useful contribution to this.

D1 Reptiles Integration methods: The integration method for Descriptor 1 (Reptiles) at level 4

still needs to be determined, and the revised COM Dec has provided the scope for this to be taken forward and agreed at Union level, taking into account regional or subregional spe-cificities.


D1 Fish Integration methods: The integration methods for Descriptor 1 (Fish) still need to

be determined for species that are not covered by the Habit-ats Directive or commercially exploited, and the revised COM Dec has provided the scope for this to be taken forward and agreed at Union level, taking into account regional or subre-gional specificities.

How should species be allocated to species groups where differ-ent life stages use different habitats (e.g. Solea solea juveniles are coastal and adults are demersal-shelf).


D1 Cephalo-pods

Integration methods: The integration methods for Descriptor 1 (Cephalopods) still

need to be determined, and the revised COM Dec has provided the scope for this to be taken forward and agreed at Union level, taking into account regional or subregional spe-cificities.

Catchability of cephalopods in trawl surveys is highly variable and indicators based on these data are likely to be very highly vari-able.


D1 Pelagic habitats

The integration methods for Descriptor 1 (Pelagic Habitats) require further discussion to reach a proposal. Further consideration of the presentation of assessment outputs is required.

MS assisted by ICES

D1/D6 Benthic habitats

The integration methods for Descriptor 1 (Benthic Habitats)/D6 sea-floor integrity proposed above are in line with the revised COM Dec. However, the Member States Workshop break-out group on habitats concluded that detailed approaches to integration and links between the different elements required further development, and further work was required to propose integration methods, for example:

There was neither consensus nor agreed method to integrate cumulative pressures’ effects on the state of habitats, in par-ticular considering the overlapping (extent) of pressures and possible synergistic or antagonist effects (intensities) on dam-ages to the state.

The main physical pressure actually assessed is abrasion by bottom-trawling fisheries, but the method (and relevance) to integrate all physical pressure sub-types still needs to be fur-ther developed.

Further work on Benthic Habitats assessments and integration

MS assisted by ICES

GES_17-2017-03

Section/ Descriptor


approaches may be taken forward further in due course. This may include:

Table linking broad habitat types and information of their oc-currence in the different sea regions, and alignment with Natura 2000 types, HELCOM HUB types etc.

Proposal for an integration method: The extent and condition of each broad habitat type or other habitat type is assessed, combining indicators evaluating the spatial extent and/or in-tensity of physical and other pressures and the habitat condi-tion related to various pressures. The extent of habitat loss and the extent of habitat in poor condition can be expressed as the proportion of the total extent of the habitat type or an equivalent value.

Further guidance about how the HD habitats and EUNIS habit-ats can be linked; and guidance of the assessment of threatened or rare habitats.

Addressing spatial aspects, and how to deal with point samples of habitats in relation to D6C5 which should be ex-pressed as an estimate of the proportion and extent of ad-verse effects per habitat type.

How to align the Habitats Directive and MSFD assessments? Sensitivity/resilience might be different of certain habitat types with one broad habitat type — would threshold values be the same across subtypes of the broad habitat type, or might they vary?.

How the link to other pressures can be implemented in prac-tice.

D4 The integration methods for Descriptor 4 require further dis-cussion to reach a proposal.

Several issues raised that require further consideration: Setting trophic guilds as the final level of integration for

D4C1/D4C3/D4C4 is not relevant from a scientific point of view considering that an assessment of food webs as a whole is needed for each criteria. All the trophic guilds as-sessed under one criteria should be considered together to determine the GES of this criteria;

How to incorporate indicators encompassing several trophic guilds in criteria D4C1, D4C3 and D4C4, that are currently being developed (e.g. OSPAR indicators FW3, FW9);

For the assessment of food webs, GES would in the long run be with multi-trophic guilds indicator(s) (food web modelling). Under an ecosystem approach, food webs as-sessment encompasses trophic functions such as com-petition, predation and recycling. Therefore, an aggrega-tion based on biological components (either trophic guilds or habitats/species) reduces the assessment of eco-system functioning (e.g. fluxes, biomass quantities, omni-vory).

MS assisted by ICES

GES_17-2017-03

Section/ Descriptor


Incorporation of information on whole food web struc-ture and functioning.

Use of D4C4, in addition to supporting D4C2. Consideration of integration of criteria to trophic guild.

GES_17-2017-03

Annex 3: Roadmap for JRC

At the 16th meeting of the WG GES (06/12/2016), the Commission presented the follow-up work resulting from the issues identified in Annex 1 of document GES_16-2016-03. JRC was to support Member States to take forward the work on threshold values, methodological standards and other identified open issues as specified in that document in relation to D1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and in accordance with the revised GES Decision. This document proposes the way forward for the work to be undertaken by JRC in close collaboration with Member States and Regional Sea Conventions and ICES.

Taking up from the draft roadmap presented by JRC at that meeting (WGGES-16-2016-5e_JRC.pptx), specification of steps to follow has been further refined, taking into account that the work described below will be carried out in parallel, at this stage, for 3 pilot descriptors (1, 2 and 5), with work on the other descriptors assigned to JRC (7, 8, 9 and 10) to be started in the second quarter of 2017. In relation to D1, D2 and D5, during the first half of 2017, JRC will:

1. Collect relevant documents with methodological standards and threshold values for MSFD Art. 9, from the following sources:

o Art. 9 reporting (2012)o Regional Sea Conventionso Scientific literatureo Research Projects outcomeso Member States (current developments in the frame of 2018 reporting, and only where

such developments are already available)2. Compile a list of gaps and outstanding issues in relation to art. 9 (sources: in depth assessment

of art. 9 submissions, COM DEC review work, Follow-up list of issues included in annex 1 & 2 of this document, Art. 8 guidance appendix 1 & 2);

3. Generate an inventory of methodological standards for the GES determination which will be maintained in the MFSD Competence Centre (mcc.jrc.ec.europa.eu);

4. Analyse the information above to identify commonalities and best practices in the available methods and the potential to be applied at a Union level. This process also includes the identific-ation of gaps in the stage of the development of the methods (including regional approaches) and potential solutions. The overall aim is to end up with suggestions that will support a coher-ent and comparable implementation of Art. 9 at the Union level, as well as concrete examples on the determination of GES and threshold setting;

5. The progress and the outcomes of the work described above will be developed into a 1 st draft guidance and shared with the WG GES, invited experts from the MS, the RSC and ICES (if/where applicable);

6. Agreement on a template structure (maybe common to all descriptors) to facilitate the synthesis of the previous work.

Timetable:

In relation to step 1, already ongoing, JRC would like to ask for the active participation of Regional Sea Conventions and Member States, to provide relevant documents reporting achievements from

GES_17-2017-03

the individual working groups, but also any source of organized information (tabular and/or GIS compilation) in relation to available and/or endorsed methods, threshold levels and reference values for individual regions or sub-regions. An invitation will be issued at the WG GES 17 to provide such information within a proposed delay of 3 weeks. The collected material will be shared with ICES for possible integration. At the same time and with the same delay, an invitation will be issued to provide the names of national experts contributing to the process in its second phase.

Steps 2 to 4 will be completed without intermediate consultation with WG GES or Member States, but in close contact with ICES.

1st draft output and templates (steps 5 and 6) will be shared by email with WG GES (and appointed MS experts, if any) by the end of May with feedback due by the beginning of July.

Further steps in the second half of 2017 (subject to revision, based on outcome of the previous phase):

7. 2nd draft of guidance for Descriptors 1, 2 and 5, in correspondence with MS, ICES and RSC ex-perts, based on input received by July 7th;

8. Descriptor specific workshops, to iron out outstanding issues;9. Agreement on a final guidance (possibly end of 2017 for pilot Descriptors 1, 2 and 5).

In relation to point 7, the structure of the guidance will be based on the agreed template. JRC will incorporate WG GES feedback in the 2nd draft and propose the agenda of the workshop(s) by 8th of September: the proposal might be to organize a Workshop (step 8) back-to-back with the 18 th WG GES meeting (22 September, proposal subject to revision based on results) but final format (1 vs. multiple workshops) will be decided based on the achieved results, and nature of issues still outstanding.

GES_17-2017-03

Annex 4: Roadmap for ICES

Member states will be facilitated by ICES (working with JRC) on the following issues.

Follow-up work resulting from the revised GES Decision

Criteria Threshold values Methodological standards

D3C1 Union level (MS assisted by ICES)C2 Union level (MS assisted by ICES)C3 Union level (MS assisted by ICES)

D1/D6 Benthic habitats C4 Union level (MS assisted by ICES) Union level (MS assisted by ICES)C5 Union level (MS assisted by ICES)

Outstanding issues for Article 8 Guidance

Descriptor IssueD3 Integration methods need to take account of the lack of data for criterion D3C3:

The integration method for D3C3 (if more than one indicator is used) still needs to be determ-ined in conjunction with finalising and operationalising the assessment tools for D3C3 based on forthcoming ICES advice.

Other issues: How short-lived species managed according to the escapement strategy are considered in the

assessment needs further guidance. The interplay between (sub)regional/national assessments, e.g. how national stocks included

in the list should be reflected in the assessments ((sub)regionally, or only nationally). How Member States should report the assessment in relation to stocks that are included on

the (sub)regional list but not caught by the Member State in question.D6 The Member State workshop on the 20–21 April 2016 and subsequent comments by Member

States raised several issues concerning clarification of the approach to assessment of benthic habitats. Many of these have already been addressed in the revised COM Dec, some may require further consideration which will be taken forward in the course of further technical work e.g.: How to take account of the restoration of benthic habitats; Inclusion of qualitative assessments in the integration; Detail of how to estimate the spatial extent of activity-pressures, in the case where pressure

data is point-based; Detail/indicative recommendations on how different pressure layers are integrated; How to aggregate sub-habitat-types to broad habitat types’ How to deal with variation in confidence of maps of modelled data (EUSeaMap); Whether an assessment of adverse effect from physical disturbance can be reported qualitat-

ively (expert judgement) or quantitatively, see ICES advice on cumulative impact against as-sessment of BH3 in OSPAR;

How to include and define habitat quality, sensitivity and resilience in the assessment How to use WFD and Habitats Directive assessments.

D4 The integration methods for Descriptor 4 require further discussion to reach a proposal.Several issues raised that require further consideration: Setting trophic guilds as the final level of integration for D4C1/D4C3/D4C4 is not relevant from

a scientific point of view considering that an assessment of food webs as a whole is needed for each criteria. All the trophic guilds assessed under one criteria should be considered together to determine the GES of this criteria;

How to incorporate indicators encompassing several trophic guilds in criteria D4C1, D4C3 and D4C4, that are currently being developed (e.g. OSPAR indicators FW3, FW9);

For the assessment of food webs, GES would in the long run be with multi-trophic guilds indic-

GES_17-2017-03

Descriptor Issueator(s) (food web modelling). Under an ecosystem approach, food webs assessment encom-passes trophic functions such as competition, predation and recycling. Therefore, an aggrega-tion based on biological components (either trophic guilds or habitats/species) reduces the as-sessment of ecosystem functioning (e.g. fluxes, biomass quantities, omnivory).

Incorporation of information on whole food web structure and functioning. Use of D4C4, in addition to supporting D4C2. Consideration of integration of criteria to trophic guild.

D1 Pelagic habitats

The integration methods for Descriptor 1 (Pelagic Habitats) require further discussion to reach a proposal. Further consideration of the presentation of assessment outputs is required.

The work will be carried out through the EU/ICES administrative agreement via requests to ICES process. Note that all proposed ICES workshops are fully open, thus participants can come from all member states. ICES proposes to address these questions in the following manner:

D3

Work is requested to aid the revised decision and improve guidance for article 8.

Step 1.

With regards to methodological standards for the revised decision, ICES will release new advice on D3c3 in spring 2017, which will show progress. ICES has developed and is now implementing stock assessment methods for “data limited” stocks which use length based methods for the stock assess -ments. Both methods, D3c3 and data limited, require reference points (de facto threshold values). ICES will seek to link these two initiatives to implement effective methodological standards for D3c3 assessments of all stocks and stock assessments for data limited stocks.

ICES suggest this be done through an international workshop (5 days quarter 4, 2017) on develop-ment of thresholds for D3.3. The workshop will reconcile D3c3 approaches with data poor ap-proaches and suggest length based thresholds through simulations and modelling. Output- a work-shop report which will be peer reviewed.

[As an aside: ICES has an internal process examining how short-lived species, which are managed ac -cording to the escapement strategy, are considered in an MSFD assessment. The workshop (WKM-SYREF5) will take place in the autumn at ICES HQ. This will be published in 2017.]

Step 2.

With regards to Article 8 Guidance the integration between D3C3, with the other criteria and the data limited approaches need to be addressed. ICES proposes a process of consultation and a work -shop.

The consultation (ICES technical service in quarter 1 and 2, 2018) will scope with DGMARE, DGENV, other managers and stakeholders as to potential approaches and thresholds for an integrated GES decision approach for stocks and regions/subregions for a combined D3 assessment. This consulta-tion will also cover potential approaches for constructing national lists of commercial stocks for D3. Output- a peer reviewed report.

Step 3.

This will lead to a science-driven international workshop (4 day quarter 3, 2018) on guidance on in-tegration of D3C3 per stock and the development of GES assessment for D3. This will provide guid-

GES_17-2017-03

ance on various options of integration. Also explore guidance for creation national lists. Output- a peer reviewed report.

Step 4

In light of the consultation, and the two workshops ICES will publish advice (quarter 4, 2018) on methodological standards and thresholds for D3c3, and recommendations for an integrated (by stock and by region/subregion) and national lists for GES assessment of D3. Output- Advice

D1/D6 benthic habitat

Work is requested to aid the revised decision and improve guidance for article eight. Methodological standards and thresholds need to be determined and further clarification is required of the approach to assessment of benthic habitats. ICES will publish advice on approaches for a trade-off analysis between benthic impact and catch in the summer of 2017.

Step 1

An international workshop (5 days quarter 2, 2018) on threshold values and methodological standards exploring spatial up-scaling and down-scaling of GES thresholds. The will use data from a wider range of habitats to parameterise the models. Scenarios will be investigated to assess the incorporation of recovery trends and explore spatial heterogeneity/fragmentation of habitat. Output- workshop report which will be internationally peer reviewed.

Step 2

An international workshop (4 days quarter 4, 2018) on GES trade-offs; where the scenarios explored in the earlier workshop will be used to explore the trade-off between ecological functional loss against landed catch and value. Output- workshop report which will be internationally peer reviewed.

Step 3

A stakeholder dialogue (1 day quarter 4, 2018) on the findings of the two previous workshops. Output- stakeholder statement about the proposed approaches.

Step 4.

This will lead to ICES advice on GES thresholds and the challenges of accounting for scale and recovery which will be informed by the two workshops. Output- Advice

D4 food webs- Moving beyond single guild metrics for Article 8.

Most of the questions raised relate to aggregating guild metrics or the use of multi-trophic level indicators. The objective of further work is to create a proposal for the next generation of D4 indicators and their use within the MSFD revised decision.

Step 1.

An international workshop (4 days in quarter 4, 2017) with the objective of reviewing methods to determine thresholds for cross-guild/ integrated trophic level indicators. As monitoring forms the

GES_17-2017-03

basis of most member state contributions to D4, the setting of thresholds needs to be based on scientific understanding. Output- workshop report which will be internationally peer reviewed.

Step 2.

An EU focused workshop (3 days quarter 3, 2018) on how to use aggregate thresholds (across guilds) and bring decisions on integrated foodweb assessments into the MSFD article 8 process. Output - ICES advice on methodological standards for determining thresholds for foodweb indicators (guilds, cross-guilds and integrated metrics).

D1 pelagic habitat

An international workshop (3 days in quarter 1, 2018) with the objective of reviewing current definitions of GES for pelagic habitats, methodological standards and operational indicators used across the EU, RSCs and the North Atlantic. ICES will seek co-sponsorship with PICES (Pacific ICES) to ensure that knowledge and experience from the North Pacific is brought into the analysis. The workshop report will be peer reviewed by international experts. Output – ICES advice on suitable approaches to assess GES of pelagic habitats

The proposed time line is shown below.

GES_17-2017-03

Proposed Time Line for ICES contribution

2017 2018Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4

D3 commercial fish & shellfish WK D3C3 consultation consultation WK GES D3 Advice D3C3 + GES D3

WK GES trade-offsD1 benthic habitat /D6 WK thresholds Advice threshold + GES

Stakeholder dialogue

WK thresholds integrated WK implementationD4 foodwebs indicators Advice

WK methodological D1 Pelagic habitat standards & GES Advice

22

GES_17-2017-03

Annex 5: TG Litter

a. Extract from MSFD CIS Work Programme 2016-2019

Tasks Indicative timeline OutputWork on the development of threshold values as provided for under the re-vised GES Decision

2018 TG Litter advice

Develop baselines for quantities of litter and quantities in marine compartments including biota

2017 TG litter report and recom-mendations

Further develop/update mon-itoring guidance, including harmonised protocols for as-sessments

2018 2018 TG litter report and recom-mendations

23

GES_17-2017-03

b. Draft agenda of Marine Litter Baselines workshop

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERAL

Joint Research CentreDirectorate - Sustainable ResourcesWater and Marine Resources Unit

21.2.2017Workshop

Marine Litter Baselines

14.-15. March 2017

Meeting venue: DG ENV, Meeting Room 0/A, Avenue de Beaulieu 5, 1160-Brussels, Belgium

DRAFT AGENDA

Tuesday, March 14th

9:00 WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OPENINGMichel Sponar, DG ENV

9:15 INTRODUCTION AND POLICY BACKGROUNDMSFD + EU PLASTICS STRATEGY

M.Papadoyannakis, DG ENV9:45 MARINE LITTER BASELINES ROADMAP

WORK PLANNING AND TIMELINE

Georg Hanke, JRC10:15 BASELINE SCOPE AND DEFINITION

Anna Addamo, JRC + all10:45 Coffee-break11:45 MARINE LITTER DATA AVAILABILITY

COVERAGE + QUALITY

Anna Addamo, Daniel Gonzalez + all BEACH LITTER (MACRO + MESO + MICRO) FLOATING LITTER (MACRO + MESO + MICRO)

13:00 LUNCH14:30 MARINE LITTER DATA AVAILABILITY – CONTINUED

COVERAGE + QUALITY

Anna Addamo + all SEAFLOOR LITTER (MACRO + MESO + MICRO) INGESTION/ENTANGLEMENT

ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION

16:00 Coffee-break16:15 GEOGRAPHICAL AND TEMPORAL SCALES OF ML BASELINES

Presentation + Discussion17:15 ML ITEM SPECIFIC BASELINES

Presentation + Discussion18:00 END

24

GES_17-2017-03

Wednesday, March 15th

9:00 ML BASELINES SETTINGPresentation + Discussion

IMPLICATIONS OF ML BASELINES CALCULATION OF BASELINES REFERENCE DATES IMPLEMENTATION OF BASELINE SETTING APPROACHES REGIONAL SEA CONVENTION EXPERIENCES WITH ML BASELINES SETTINGDISCUSSION AND SHORT PRESENTATIONS

All

10:45 Coffee-break11:00 ML BASELINE SETTING - CONTINUED

Presentation + Discussion11:30 OUTBREAK GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Working groups of 5-7 participants

HINDRANCES IN ML BASELINE SETTING

SOLUTIONS AND WAYS FORWARDAll

13:00 LUNCH14:30 CONCLUSIONS

Identification of agreed messages and needsAll

15:15 WORK ITEMS AND PROCESSOrganisation of collaborative approach for baseline concept development and testingAll

16:00 NEXT STEPSWho does what, whenDG ENV + JRC

16:30 END

25

GES_17-2017-03

Annex 6: TG Noise

a. Extract from MSFD CIS Work Programme 2016-2019

Timelines and deliverables Tasks Indicative timeline Output

Work on the development of threshold values as provided for under the revised GES Decision

2018 TG Noise advice

Further work on the understanding of the impact of underwater noise on marine fauna

Advice on the use of the data obtained by monitoring programmes to characterise the potential impact to marine fauna

2016-2017 Workshop (2016) & TG noise advice for further work on pressure indicator, in particular with regard to key species

Review TG Noise monitoring guidance

2018 Updated guidance

26

GES_17-2017-03

Annex 7: Regional Sea Convention indicators

Table 1. Overview of work already undertaken as regards threshold values and methodological stand-ards by the RSC (For HELCOM: from overview of core indicators to be used in "State of the Baltic Sea" report to be compiled in the HOLAS II project by mid-2017; for OSPAR: modified from OSPAR work on regionally coherent and coordinated determinations of Good Environmental Status (GES); for Black Sea: information from Roof report on MSFD Common Indicators for Bulgaria and Romania (Feb. 2017); for Barcelona Convention: from Draft of Common Indicators factsheets for Biodiversity (EO1), NIS (EO2) and Fisheries (EO3) and from Integrated monitoring and assessment programme of the Mediterranean Sea and coast and related assessment criteria UN Environment/MAP Athens, Greece (2017)).

Descriptor Criterion RSC Indicator Threshold valuesD2 D2C1 OSPAR YES

HELCOM YES YESBlack Sea YES NO

D2C2 OSPAR YESBlack Sea YES YESBarcelona YES

D2C3 OSPAR YESBlack Sea YES YES

D3 D3C1 OSPAR YESBlack Sea YES YESBarcelona YES

D3C2 OSPAR No indicatorsBlack Sea YES NOBarcelona YES

D3C3 OSPAR YESBlack Sea tbd tbd

D5 D5C1 OSPAR YES PARTLYHELCOM YES YESBlack Sea YES YESBarcelona YES

D5C2 OSPAR YES PARTLYHELCOM YES YESBlack Sea YES YESBarcelona YES

D5C3 OSPAR YES PARTLYHELCOM YES PARTLYBlack Sea tbd tbd

D5C4 OSPAR No indicatorHELCOM YES YESBlack Sea YES tbd

27

GES_17-2017-03

D5C5 OSPAR YES PARTLYHELCOM YES YESBlack Sea YES YES

D5C6 OSPAR YES PARTLYHELCOM YES YES (national)Black Sea YES YES

D5C7 OSPAR YES PARTLYHELCOM YES YES (national)Black Sea YES YES

D5C8 OSPAR YES PARTLYHELCOM YES YES (national)Black Sea tbd tbd

D6 D6C1 OSPAR YES PARTLYBlack Sea tbd tbd



D7 D7C1 OSPAR YES naBlack Sea tbd naBarcelona YES

D7C2 OSPAR YES naBlack Sea tbd naBarcelona YES

D8 D8C1 OSPAR YESHELCOM YES YESBlack Sea YES YESBarcelona YES

D8C2 OSPAR YESHELCOM YES YESBlack Sea tbd tbdBarcelona YES

D8C3 OSPAR No indicatorHELCOM YES YESBlack Sea tbd tbd

D8C4 OSPAR No indicatorHELCOM YES YESBlack Sea tbd tbdBarcelona YES

D9 D9C1 OSPAR No indicatorBlack Sea YES YESBarcelona YES

D10 D10C1 OSPAR YES

28

GES_17-2017-03

Black Sea tbd tbdBarcelona YES

D10C2 OSPAR YESBlack Sea tbd tbdBarcelona YES

D10C3 OSPAR YES NOBlack Sea tbd tbdBarcelona YES

D10C4 OSPAR No indicatorBlack Sea tbd tbdBarcelona YES

D11 D11C1 OSPAR YES PARTLYBlack Sea tbd tbdBarcelona YES

D11C2 OSPAR YESBlack Sea tbd tbdBarcelona YES

29

GES_17-2017-03

Descriptor Criterion RSC Indicator Threshold valuesD1 birds D1C1 OSPAR YES NO

Black Sea tbd tbdBarcelona YES

D1C2 OSPAR YES YESHELCOM YES YESBlack Sea tbd tbdBarcelona YES

D1C3 OSPAR YES YESBlack Sea tbd tbdBarcelona YES

D1C4 OSPAR YES YESBlack Sea tbd tbdBarcelona YES

D1C5 OSPARBlack Sea tbd tbd

D1 Mam-mals

D1C1 OSPAR YES NO

Black Sea YES tbdBarcelona YES

D1C2 OSPAR YES YESHELCOM YES YESBlack Sea YES tbdBarcelona YES

D1C3 OSPAR YES YESHELCOM YES YESBlack Sea tbd tbdBarcelona YES

D1C4 OSPAR YES NOHELCOM YES YESBlack Sea YES tbdBarcelona YES

D1C5 OSPAR No indicatorBlack Sea tbd tbd

D1 Reptiles D1C1 OSPAR No indicatorBarcelona YES

D1C2 OSPAR No indicatorBarcelona YES



D1C5 OSPAR No indicator

30

GES_17-2017-03

D1 Fish D1C1 OSPAR YES NOBlack Sea YES tbd

D1C2 OSPAR YES YESHELCOM YES YESBlack Sea YES tbd

D1C3 OSPAR YES YESBlack Sea YES tbd

D1C4 OSPAR YES YESBlack Sea YES tbd

D1C5 OSPARBlack Sea tbd tbd

D1 Cephalo-pods

D1C1 OSPAR No indicator

D1C2 OSPAR No indicatorD1C3 OSPAR No indicatorD1C4 OSPAR No indicatorD1C5 OSPAR No indicator

D1 Pelagic habitats

D1C6 OSPAR YES NOBlack Sea YES YES

D1&6 Benthic hab-itats

D6C4 OSPAR YES NO

HELCOM YES PARTLYBlack Sea YES YESBarcelona YES

D6C5 OSPAR YES NOHELCOM YES PARTLYBlack Sea YESBarcelona YES

D4 D4C1 OSPAR YES YESHELCOM YES NOBlack Sea tbd tbd

D4C2 OSPAR YES NOBlack Sea tbd tbd

D4C3 OSPAR YES NOHELCOM YES PARTLYBlack Sea tbd tbd

D4C4 OSPAR YES NOHELCOM YES PARTLYBlack Sea tbd tbd

31

Documents

Revision of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and … · Web viewConsider the work required in the follow-up of the revised Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and for progressing the Art