L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2016-17
L 111
Offentligt

Bilag 3

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

AIN AIMS OF A REVISED

ECISION

& A

NNEX

III

RAMEWORK

IRECTIVE

ACKGROUND

FOR THE

ARINE

TRATEGY

The goal of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD

–

Directive 2008/56/EC) is the

protection and conservation of Europe's marine environment to achieve good environmental

status (GES) by 2020. It requires Member States to draw up a marine strategy, implement it

and eventually report upon it. The marine strategy is split over two phases. The preparation

phase of the strategy required Member States to assess the environmental status of their

marine waters, to determine what is considered to be good environmental status (GES), to

establish environmental targets and related indicators that are needed to achieve GES (2012),

and finally to establish monitoring programmes to provide the necessary data and information

to assess progress towards GES and the targets (2014). The second phase concerns the

development of a programme of measures to achieve good environmental status (2015) and

their eventual implementation (2016).

The Directive's definition of 'good environmental status' is rather high level, but it lists in an

annex eleven descriptors providing more specific objectives (Annex I) and another annex

(Annex III) lists indicative characteristics, pressures and impacts to be taken into account by

Member States in their determination of GES. The Directive (Article 9.3) also empowers the

Commission to detail the technical criteria and methodological standards that are to be used

to assess the extent to which good environmental status is being achieved. These were

embodied in Commission decision (Decision 2010/447/EU).

Member States are also required to work together at a regional or sub-regional level to ensure

a consistent determination of good environmental status. Member States' marine strategies

are to be updated every six years. This means that Member States will have to update their

initial assessment, their determination of GES and their environmental targets in 2018, when

the second cycle of implementation of the MSFD will start.

HY THIS REVISION

Based on the Member States' reports in 2012, the Commission had to "assess whether, in the

case of each Member State, the elements notified constitute an appropriate framework to

meet the requirements of this Directive…" (Article 12). The result of this assessment

(2014

)

shows that more efforts are urgently needed if the Union's marine waters are to be in good

environmental status by 2020. The Commission's report identified that while Member States

generally applied the 2010 Decision, their determination of good environmental status varied

considerably both within regions or sub-regions and across the EU. Existing EU legislation

(e.g. Habitats Directive) and regional sea convention standards (e.g. on eutrophication) were

not systematically integrated into their strategies. A consistent determination of good

environmental status, as required by the Directive, has thus not been achieved. Moreover,

Member States' determination of their good environmental status often remained general,

making it difficult or impossible to assess whether it has been achieved or not. Part of the

problem lies in the fact that the 2010 Decision could not set out the criteria and

methodological standards in enough detail for certain descriptors, notably those for

biodiversity (D1), non-indigenous species (D2), food webs (D4), sea-floor integrity (D6),

COM(2014) 97 final

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

hydrographical changes (D7), litter (D10) and underwater noise (D11). This was already

recognised in recital 4 of the Decision, which asks for its revision as soon as possible after the

Commission's assessment required under Article 12 of the MSFD.

Given these shortcomings and to ensure that the next cycle of implementation of the MSFD

(2018 and beyond) yields greater benefits, the 2014 report concludes

inter alia

that the 2010

Decision needs to be revised, strengthened and improved, while Annex III of the Directive

needs to be reviewed and if necessary revised. The latter was proposed since, the link

between Annex I of the MSFD listing the 11 descriptors and Annex III was not clear, as

already identified in a Commission staff working paper from 2011. The report also identified

what needs to be achieved: criteria and methodological standards that are "clearer, simpler,

more concise, more coherent and comparable".

The revision of the Decision and of Annex III aims at addressing the technical shortcomings

identified during the first phase of implementation and at ensuring coherence with other EU

legislation and regional approaches, where appropriate. The overall objective remains the

adequate implementation of the MSFD in order to achieve its 2020 goals. This review

process therefore provided the opportunity to align the Directive's Annex III with its Annex I

and the GES decision simultaneously.

BJECTIVES OF THE

EVISION

The revision of the Commission Decision and MSFD Annex III aims to clarify the criteria for

Good Environmental Status (GES), methodological standards and specifications and

standardised methods for monitoring and assessment. It allows also for making the

relationship between Annex I and Annex III more coherent by amending the latter.

The draft legal text for the Decision follows the mandate that was given for this review

process and in particular by providing legal provisions that are simpler, clearer and self-

explanatory. Their formulation is coherent with other EU frameworks and in their absence

explicitly provide for regional cooperation. It finally introduces minimum requirements and

lists of elements, criteria and other parameters per descriptor.

The revision of MSFD Annex III is needed to complement the revision of the Commission

Decision. Annex III forms a key part of the implementation of Articles 8, 9 and 10, where it

provides indicative lists of features and characteristics of the marine environment and of

pressures and impacts upon it. However, its relationship to the Annex I descriptors and to the

GES criteria was not made explicit in the Directive or in the 2010 Commission Decision. The

2011 Commission Staff Working Paper

, however, established relationships between the

three elements, but could provide only a partial answer due to their inherent content. The

present revision therefore offers an opportunity to further clarify these relationships and thus

support future implementation by, for example, explicitly linking the elements of Annex III

to the Annex I descriptors, and the structure of Annex III to the assessments under Article 8of

MSFD.

Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2011)1255.pdf

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

PPROACH AND PROCESS

The review work started at a technical level with Member States (at working group and

committee level) in 2013. The MSFD Regulatory Committee outlined a Roadmap

for this

review with three main steps: a technical and scientific review by end 2014; a consultation

and discussion phase by mid-2015; and finalisation of review process by end 2015.

This review process kicked off through the Common Implementation Strategy of the MSFD.

It was led by the GES working group (WG GES), with technical support from the Joint

Research Centre (JRC) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES).

The

outline of a “manual” for the technical phase of the review of Commission Decision

2010/477/EU was developed between November 2013 and March 2014. The aim of the

manual was to guide the preparatory process and ensure a similar approach for all

descriptors.. It was proposed to prepare one manual per descriptor with a common structure

for all descriptors to ensure coherence.

In addition to direct expert consultation on all descriptors, several workshops have been

organised either by the JRC or by ICES on specific descriptors. These workshops brought

together experts from the relevant ICES and JRC expert networks including Member State

and Regional Sea Convention

experts, to review the draft manuals in light of the Decision

(2010/477/EU) and suggest ways to improve the scientific guidance on the determination and

assessment of GES. This work started in July 2014 and was finalised in September 2015. The

results of the technical review process are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of outcomes of technical review process

Criteria

2010

Decision

2014-15

technical

review

Unchanged 16

Changed 10

Deleted 3

(criteria 1.4, 1.7, 4.2)

Added 2:

D1 species group diversity

D3 size distribution - pressure

Total = 28

Indicators

(primary + secondary)

Unchanged 23

Changed 24

Deleted 9

(indicators 1.3.2, 1.5.2, 1.6.3,

1.7.1, 2.2.1, 3.3.2, 6.1.1, 9.1.2,

10.1.3)

Added 13:

For D1 species group diversity

For D2.1 new introductions

For D3.3 selectivity pattern (+3)

For D3.3 size distribution - state

For D3.3 genetic effects (+1)

For D5.2 plankton shifts

For D5.3 benthic invertebrates

For D6.1 extent of pressure

For D8.2 acute pollution impacts

Total = 56 (+4)

Indicators

(secondary)

(3.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.3.4)

(3.1.2, 3.2.2

5.1.2, 5.2.2, 5.2.3,

5.2.4, 5.2.5, 5.3.1,

5.3.3)

Regional Sea Conventions participate informally in the MSFD common implementation strategy and are seen

as important contributors in view of the regional cooperation emphasis engrained in the Directive.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Member States and stakeholders were consulted on the technical phase of the review,

including the manuals for each GES descriptor and Annex III between May and August 2015,

followed by other specific workshops for three descriptors. On the basis of the feedback to

this consultation and the outcomes of these workshops, the Commission services prepared a

proposal for a revised GES Decision and MSFD Annex III.

ENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE REVISED

ECISION

The general underlying principles for the Commission's proposal for a revised decision are

the following:

Use available EU standards, where appropriate: To make the determination of good

environmental status more effective, this Decision takes into account existing Union

legislation, such as the Water Framework Directive and the Common Fisheries Policy

and others. Such cross-references will not only facilitate Member States' assessments

under Directive 2008/56/EC, particularly by enabling assessments for other purposes

to be used also for the MSFD and thereby reducing administrative burden, but should

also ensure greater consistency and comparability at Union level and between EU

policies.

Where EU standards are not available, Member States should use or develop suitable

standards for the region or subregion: Where this Decision does not set details at

Union level for methodological standards, specifications and standardised methods for

monitoring and assessment, provision is made for Member States to use the ones

agreed at international, regional or sub-regional level or to develop jointly such

standards. This, in particular, recognises the ongoing work of the Regional Sea

Conventions, as provided under Article 6 of Directive 2008/56/EC, but can allow for

use of other regional mechanisms, such as Regional Fisheries Management

Organisations (RFMOs). These processes to develop regional/subregional standards

are essential to ensure coherence and compatibility in determination and assessment

of GES.

The Decision provides for elements for assessment and reference levels to be established

at (sub)regional level for a number of descriptors/criteria (where these are not specified at

Union level). This should draw directly upon existing and ongoing work within, for

example, the Regional Sea Conventions (common/core indicator processes) or bilaterally

in some subregions. Whilst this work should ideally be in place for use in the 2018 Article

8 assessments, it can be expected that not all can be achieved in this timescale.

Assessment elements: where possible, the elements for assessment for each descriptor

have been more clearly specified (and linked to the generic elements of the proposed

Annex III revision). In some cases these refer to already existing EU lists (e.g.

hazardous substances), or, alternately, provide for Member States to draw up suitable

lists for the region or subregion, as part of the process of developing

regional/subregional coherence in the implementation process. When appropriate,

there is provision for a deselection procedure for EU lists (provided there is a suitable

justification) to allow for the regional variation in their relevance, including use of

risk-based approaches. For example, the low risk from certain hazardous substances in

the offshore environment can be used to justify their non-assessment.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Combine the 'criteria' and 'indicators' of the 2010 Decision: since the term 'indicators'

is already used in the Directive

in relation to Article 10 ("…establish a comprehensive

set of environmental targets and associated indicators..") it is considered appropriate

to eliminate this term from the Commission decision for use in the context of

determining GES to avoid confusion or misinterpretation in the future implementation

process. The new decision refers only to criteria for assessing the extent to which

good environmental status is being achieved, with the text for each criterion

effectively encompassing what was previously expressed as an indicator. The overall

effect of this approach to combine criteria and indicators is to reduce the number

necessary from 85 (29 criteria and 56 indicators) to 45 (including other

rationalisations).

Criterion definition includes reference levels: for each criterion, the new Decision

includes a reference level, where available, that allows a quantitative assessment of

whether good environmental status is achieved. Where these are not available at EU

level, there is provision for Member States to develop and agree such reference levels

at the regional or subregional level; this is particularly relevant to reflect the differing

ecological characteristics of each region and subregion. In two cases (for descriptors

10 on litter and 11 on noise) it is recommended that reference levels are established at

EU level. For several criteria (for descriptors 2, 6, 7), it is proposed to not have

reference levels, but rather to use these criteria in the assessments of habitats under

descriptor 1 and 6, where reference levels are established.

Appropriate spatial scales: Assessment of whether GES has been achieved is

intrinsically linked to the scale of assessments. Following the experiences of the 2012

initial assessments, in which highly varied approaches to this issue were adopted by

Member States, and technical work under WG GES, a generic approach to the

application of suitable scales for assessment is proposed. This is a so-called 'nested

approach' in which the MSFD regions and subregions can be subdivided into smaller

areas as needed, depending on the descriptor. The finest scale for assessment is the

water body level of the Water Framework Directive, thus allowing direct reuse of

WFD assessments for certain topics (e.g. eutrophication). Whilst these generic scales

are provided in the new Decision, the actual areas to be used are left for Member

States to define; this is already well advanced in the HELCOM and OSPAR areas. An

important aspect of the proposed approach is to link the scales used for assessments of

pressures and impacts to those used for assessments of biodiversity, to help ensure a

more coherent approach between the descriptors.

Possibility of primary and secondary criteria: in the 2010 Commission Decision

descriptor 3 on commercially exploited fish and shellfish included both primary and

secondary indicators, the latter to be used if analytical assessments yielding the

requested values of primary indicators (fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass)

were not available. In the current proposal, more descriptors include secondary

criteria. While primary criteria should be used to ensure consistency across the Union,

flexibility is introduced with regard to secondary criteria, which can either be

alternative (if there is a lack of data for primary criteria) or complementary (only

performed whenever they are considered relevant).

Application rules for criteria: to ensure that assessments are consistent between

Member States for each topic, it is important that the criteria are applied in defined

ways, particularly where several criteria are to be used to assess whether GES has

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

been achieved, or where multiple substances or species need to be assessed. Where

appropriate, the approaches used in other policies (e.g. WFD, Habitats Directive) have

been followed.

Consistency in terms and structure across criteria: the terminology used has been

reviewed and harmonised both across the criteria and with the terminology of the

Directive. This has aimed to minimise the use of synonym terms (e.g. terms reflecting

degraded states, such as adversely affected, adversely altered, impacted, degraded,

changed, deteriorated). The structure of the text has also been reviewed in order to be

consistent and include the same level of information, where available, across all

criteria.

UMMARY OF THE PROPOSALS

Annex A to this note provides a list of the original criteria and indicators (as amended by the

technical review process) and how each has been used in the proposed new Decision.

Annex B to this note provides a framework for the relationship of the proposed criteria to the

Article 8(1a and 1b) assessments, to the proposed new Annex III elements (Table 1 and Table

2a), and to the Annex I descriptors.

•

Revised Text for GES Decision

The new decision text includes definitions of the key terms used in the proposal (i.e. criteria,

methodological standards, specification, reference levels, etc.), general principles (regarding

the use of the criteria and methodological standards and what Member states should do in

their absence) and a review clause.

•

Annex to revised GES Decision

The Annex to the Decision is structured in three parts. To support a more integrated approach

of assessment between the descriptors, the pressure-based descriptors for MSFD Article 8(1b)

are addressed first (Part A), as the outcomes of these assessments, particularly the scale

(footprint) of impacts on the different ecosystem components, should be used to inform the

assessments of those components for the state-based descriptors under Article 8(1a) (Part B).

Part C lays down the spatial aspects of these assessments.

Part A of the Annex concerns the assessment of predominant pressures and impacts under

point (B) of Art. 8(1) of MSFD. It comprises of criteria to be used in relation to the

assessment of pressures and impacts. In particular, it includes Descriptors 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 2, 3,

6, 7 (follows same order of pressures as proposed for revised MSFD Annex III: substances,

litter and energy; biological pressures; physical pressures). Descriptors 3, 6, and 7 are

included here from pressure and impact perspective (D3 extraction of fish, including

incidental bycatch; D6 physical damage (including from fisheries) and D6 physical loss and

associated hydrographical changes D7).

Part B of the Annex concerns the assessment of essential features and characteristics and

current environmental status of marine waters under point (A) of Art. 8(1) of MSFD. It

includes criteria to be used in relation to the assessment of ecosystem state characteristics and

contribute to the assessment of Descriptors 1, 4 and 6, split into the following themes: i)

Birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods, ii) Pelagic and benthic habitats and iii)

Ecosystems, including food webs.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

ETAILS PER DESCRIPTOR

The following text provides briefly the rationale underpinning the revised proposals per

descriptor.

Descriptor 5

–

Eutrophication

a. Follows closely the proposed approach from the D5 JRC workshop in September

2015. The criterion on nutrient ratios is however omitted due to lack of reliable

linkage to eutrophication effects;

b. Aims to directly use assessments of relevant WFD quality elements for coastal waters,

to maximise links to WFD and avoid reassessments for MSFD;

c. Reference levels, where not already defined in EU Decisions, to be agreed within the

region/subregion, making use of RSC work (beyond coastal waters, and for non-

biological elements within coastal waters).

Descriptor 8

–

Contaminants

a. Follows closely the existing obligations within 12nm under WFD, to maximise links

to WFD and avoid reassessments for MSFD; changes to matrix used and deselection

of substances not considered relevant are already addressed in WFD mechanisms;

b. Within 12nm, makes provision to accommodate additional substances where relevant,

such as from RSC;

c. Beyond 12nm, Member States can use a risk-based approach to deselect substances

(such as those from land-based sources that are in very low concentrations), but

otherwise should follow the same standards as are used inside 12nm;

d. Criterion on biological effects (D8C2) is retained due to a clear need to relate inputs

of hazardous substances to identifiable effects on biota; however, specific details

should be defined by Member States in recognition of the lack of Union-wide

approaches;

e. Criteria related to acute pollution events are retained, in recognition of the importance

of such issues to the public, but MSFD-specific efforts are minimised by making full

use of existing EMSA processes.

Descriptor 9

–

Contaminants in seafood

a. Follows closely the existing obligations of EU food regulations regarding

contaminants in food for consumption;

b. Provides for flexibility for Member States to deselect contaminants or add additional

contaminants, on the basis of risk;

c. Makes a link between any contaminated seafood and its source (if within marine

waters), via fishing locations or D8 assessment areas, as appropriate. This is the added

benefit of MSFD, whereby any problem areas could be addressed through measures.

Descriptor 10 - Litter

a. Follows closely the current Decision (with modifications from technical review),

keeping the quantification of litter and of micro-litter separate to reflect Member

States consultation comments;

b. The two current indicators on litter are combined into a single criterion, as their only

difference was the matrix (beach versus water surface or seabed);

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

c. The criteria for litter and micro-litter currently lack reference levels; provision is

included to define these at EU level as such levels are likely to be linked to socio-

economic issues rather than to harm to the environment which could be more

appropriately set at regional level;

d. Assessing litter in animals has been split into a criterion for ingestion (reflecting a

quantification of litter) and an entanglement criterion (reflecting an impact on

animals).

Descriptor 11

–

Energy including underwater noise

a. Follows closely the advice from the technical review (TG Noise);

b. The current absence of reference levels for the two criteria should be addressed at EU

level, or regionally linked to different regional species. It may be necessary to use

precautionary levels in the first instance;

c. An impact criterion has not been recommended by the technical review process,

leaving a gap in the Decision.

Descriptor 2

–

Non-indigenous species (NIS)

a. The challenges of quantifying NIS (as a pressure) and its effects on species groups

and habitat types (its impacts), coupled with the impracticality in most cases of being

able to reduce these pressures and impacts, has led to proposing these criteria as

secondary. This will leave discretion for Member States to address these criteria in

cases where it is considered feasible and useful;

b. As widely acknowledged, the prime focus should be on the prevention of new

introductions; a single primary criterion is therefore proposed to address this. As also

reflected in the current Decision, setting limits on the rate of new introductions is best

considered as an environmental target, rather than a determination of GES.

Descriptor 3

–

Commercially-exploited fish and shellfish

a. This descriptor is placed in Part A (pressures and impacts) as the effects of fishing

need to be assessed on the fish stocks themselves, on incidental by-catch and on the

seabed;

b. The three criteria for assessing each stock from the current Decision are retained;

fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass assessments are specifically linked to

those under CFP (with the expectation that their assessment will fulfil both policy

needs);

c. The third criterion (age and size distribution) is retained, but awaits ICES advice on

how it should best be assessed;

d. Assessment of these three criteria will address the needs of D3, but can also be used

to contribute to assessments of fish groups under D1;

e. A fourth criterion is introduced to reflect mortality rates on non-commercial species

(incidental by-catch); data and assessments should be closely linked with CFP

processes, and outcomes fed into D1 assessments;

f. Physical disturbance of the seabed from fishing activities is considered as part of the

physical disturbance criterion (under D6).

Descriptor 6

–

seafloor integrity (physical disturbance and physical loss aspects)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

a. The criteria from the current decision and proposals from the technical review have

been adapted to propose criteria which specifically address physical disturbance and

physical loss (each as a pressure and as impact on habitats);

b. Assessment of these criteria should be fed into the assessments of habitat for species

(under D1) and benthic habitats/sea-floor integrity (D1/D6) and are not in themselves

intended to be the assessment for D6;

c. The primary criteria require focus on the extent of physical disturbance/damage to and

loss of seafloor, each then assessed in relation to the broad habitat types. For

disturbance, there is need to integrate spatial datasets on disturbance with ground-

truth sampling to assess biological condition;

d. There are secondary criteria to consider damage to habitats of birds, mammals,

reptiles and fish and for assessment of age/size distribution of benthic species; both

would be used only where considered relevant.

Descriptor 7

–

Hydrographical changes

a. The criteria for this descriptor have been focused on changes associated with

infrastructure developments either on the coast or offshore, avoiding previous wider

interpretations on the scope of the descriptor; as such, the criteria are closely linked to

physical loss of seabed substrate/habitat as a consequence of infrastructural changes

under D6;

b. The majority of hydrographical changes are expected to be at coastal locations, for

which the data and assessments from WFD should be used; takes into account

offshore infrastructure developments;

c. The criteria are proposed as secondary, because the main impacts of infrastructural

changes are loss of habitat (assessed with D6 criteria) and the associated

hydrographical changes are typically of limited spatial extent, excepting in some

coastal areas.

Descriptor 1 - Birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods

a. Follows closely the approach proposed at the JRC D1 workshop in September 2015,

by assessing a set of species groups. For each of these, representative species would

be selected according to the criteria developed at the workshop. It is expected that

species already assessed under the Birds and Habitats Directives and by RSCs would

be selected for this purpose;

b. Where species selected are also assessed for the Birds and Habitats Directives, the

assessments should fulfil the needs of both the MSFD and the nature directives,

through using the same criteria and data and consequent assessments;

c. Improved regional coherence is sought through development of reference levels at

(sub)regional level and assessment at appropriate ecological scales (rather than using

national boundaries). This should accommodate the ongoing work within the RSC or

bilaterally in some subregions. For commercial species, this is already addressed

under Descriptor 3 using CFP assessments;

d. The criteria for assessment are directly correlated to those used for assessment under

the Birds and Habitats

Directives or, for commercial fish, to those used under D3, to

help maximise the reuse of assessments.

Excepting the 'future prospects' criterion of the Habitats Directive, which is not used under MSFD because

none of the other descriptors adopt criteria which encompass such forward looking perspectives.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Descriptors 1 and 6

–

Pelagic habitats and Benthic habitats/seafloor integrity

a. For benthic habitats, the needs of both descriptors should be addressed through a

single set of assessments of benthic broad habitat types

; their assessment can be

supported via the use of sub-types, such as habitats under the Habitats Directive or

RSCs, particularly to validate spatial data on impacts;

b. The focus for benthic habitats is on assessment of the spatial extent of habitat loss and

of habitat impacted. For the latter, the criterion for assessing habitat

disturbance/damage under D6 above should be used in conjunction with impact

assessments under other descriptors (notably D5, D7 and, where used, D2);

c. The reference level for the extent of habitat to be in good condition is drawn from

IUCN guidance for Red List assessments of ecosystems, which is also used by

HELCOM

. The reference levels available for extent of habitat loss (IUCN, OSPAR)

are not considered appropriate for application to broad habitat types; an alternative

value is proposed;

d. For pelagic habitats, a single criterion on habitat condition is proposed; its assessment

should draw upon impact assessments under D5 and, where used, D2.

Descriptors 1 and 4

–

Ecosystems, including food webs

a. Follows closely the proposal of the technical review to use (at least) three trophic

guilds and the proposed changes to the criteria. The criterion on species diversity,

proposed by the JRC D1 workshop), has been coupled to the food-web criteria, to

respect both the need to assess biodiversity under D1 and to assess diversity under

D4;

b. In view of the more limited state of advancement of these criteria, two of the four are

secondary criteria and their implementation, including setting of reference levels, can

be expected to need further development.

The term 'broad habitat type' has been used in preference to 'habitat group' and the previously-used term

'predominant habitat'. A specific list of these is provided (from the JRC D1 workshop) and directly correlated

to EUNIS level 2 classes (awaits latest coding).

Values are not provided under the Habitats Directive.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Annex A:

List of criteria and indicators in Decision 2010/477/EC, how these were modified by the technical review process and their use in the proposed

new Decision.

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

5.1 Nutrients levels

enrichment

5.1.1 Nutrients concentration in the

water column

5.1.2 Nutrient ratios (silica, nitrogen

and phosphorus), where appropriate

5.2 Direct

enrichment

effects

nutrient

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

Decision

Sort

old

Code

old

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

status

Comments

5.1

Criterion -

unchanged

Indicator -

unchanged

Indicator -

unchanged

Criterion -

unchanged

Indicator -

unchanged

Indicator

changed

nutrient and organic

matter enrichment

nutrient and organic

matter enrichment

nutrient and organic

matter enrichment

nutrient and organic

matter enrichment

nutrient and organic

matter enrichment

nutrient and organic

matter enrichment

5.1.1 Nutrients concentrations in

the

water

column

(DIN, TN, DIP, TP) do not exceed levels

which lead to eutrophication effects

5.1.2 Nutrient ratios (silica, nitrogen and

phosphorus), where appropriate

Delete

5.1.1

5.1.2

5,2

5.2.1

D5C1

Primary

Delete

5.2.1 Chlorophyll concentration in

water column

5.2.2 Water transparency related to

increase in suspended algae, where

relevant

5.2.4 Species shift in floristic

composition such as diatom to

flagellate ratio, benthic to pelagic

shifts, as well as bBloom events of

nuisance/toxic algal blooms (e.g.

cyanobacteria) caused by human

activities

5.2.5 Pelagic phytoplankton species

shift

5.3 Indirect

enrichment

effects

nutrient

D5C2

5.2.1 Chlorophyll [a] concentration in water

column

5.2.2 Water transparency related to increase in

suspended algae

Primary

5.2.2

D5C3

Secondary

5.2.4

Indicator

changed

nutrient and organic

matter enrichment

D5C4

5.2.4 Bloom events of nuisance/toxic algal

blooms (e.g. cyanobacteria) caused by human

activities

Secondary

5,3

5.2.3

Indicator

new

nutrient and organic

matter enrichment

nutrient and organic

matter enrichment

nutrient and organic

matter enrichment

D5C5

5.2.5

Pelagic

composition

shift

phytoplankton

species

Secondary

Delete

Criterion -

unchanged

Indicator -

unchanged

5.2.3 Abundance of opportunistic

macroalgae

D5C6

5.2.3 Abundance of opportunistic macroalgae

Primary

Coastal

Waters only

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Sort

old

Code

old

5.3.1

5.3.2

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

5.3.1 Abundance of perrenial

seaweeds and seagrasses (e.g.

fucoids, eelgrass and Neptune grass)

adversely impacted by decrease in

water transparency

5.3.2 Dissolved oxygen, i.e. changes

due to increased organic matter

decomposition and size of the area

concerned

5.3.3 Changes in abundance or

composition of benthic invertebrates

due to increased organic matter

decomposition

8.1 Concentration of contaminants

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

Decision

Proposed

status

Comments

Indicator -

unchanged

nutrient and organic

matter enrichment

D5C7

5.3.1 Abundance of perrenial seaweeds and

seagrasses (e.g. fucoids, eelgrass and Neptune

grass) adversely impacted by decrease in

water transparency

5.3.2 Dissolved oxygen, i.e. changes due to

increased organic matter decomposition and

size of the area concerned

5.3.3 Changes in abundance or composition of

benthic invertebrates due to increased organic

matter decomposition

Primary

Coastal

Waters only

Indicator -

unchanged

nutrient and organic

matter enrichment

D5C8

Primary

Indicator

new

nutrient and organic

matter enrichment

D5C9

Secondary

8,1

Criterion -

unchanged

hazardous substances

8.1.1

GES is achieved when Good Chemical

Status, and Good Ecological Status for the

RBSP,

achieved

under

WFD.

For additional substances adopted within a

(sub)region,

concentrations

of the

contaminants and their trends measured in

the relevant matrix (such as biota, sediment

and water) in a way that ensures

comparability with the assessments under

Directive 2000/60/EC

shall not exceed the

levels agreed at international level for the

marine region or subregion

Delete

8.1.1

Concentration

the

contaminants

and their trends

mentioned above,

measured

in the

relevant matrix (such as biota,

sediment and water) in a way that

ensures comparability with the

assessments

under

Directive

2000/60/EC

Indicator

changed

hazardous substances

D8C1

Primary

8,2

8.2 Effects of contaminants

Criterion -

unchanged

hazardous substances

Delete

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Sort

old

Code

old

8.2.1

8.2.2

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

8.2.1 Levels of pollution effects on

ecosystem components concerned,

having regard to the selected

biological processes and taxonomic

groups where a cause/effect

relationship has been established

and needs to be monitored

Contaminant-related adverse effects

on biological responses at or below

individual level in the target species

in the region, sub-region or

subdivision concerned

8.2.2

8.1.2

Occurrence, origin

source

(where

possible),

spatial/geographical

extent

significant acute pollution events

caused by crude oil and similar

compounds

(e.g. slicks from oil and

oil products) and their impact on

biota physically affected by this

pollution

8.2.2

Occurrence, origin (where

possible), extent of significant acute

pollution events (e.g. slicks from oil

and oil products) and their

Significance of the

impact on biota

physically affected by this

acute

pollution

events caused by crude oil

and similar compounds

9.1 Levels, number and frequency of

Concentration of

contaminants

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

Decision

Proposed

status

Comments

Indicator

changed

hazardous substances

D8C2

8.2.1 Contaminant-related adverse effects on

biological responses at or below individual

level

(i.e. sublethal effects)

in the target

species

specified

in the region

or,

sub-region

or subdivision concerned

Primary

Indicator

new

acute

events

pollution

D8C3

8.1.2 Occurrence, source (where possible),

spatial/geographical extent of significant

acute pollution events

[link to EMSA

reporting]

caused by crude oil and similar

compounds

Primary

Indicator

changed

acute

events

pollution

D8C4

8.2.2 Significance of the impact on biota

affected by acute pollution events caused by

crude oil and similar compounds

Primary

9,1

Criterion

changed

hazardous substances

in seafood

Delete

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Sort

old

Code

old

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

Decision

Proposed

status

Comments

9.1.1

9.1.1 Actual levels of contaminants

that have been detected and number

contaminants

which

have

exceeded maximum regulatory levels

Indicator

changed

hazardous substances

in seafood

D9C1

9.1.1 Actual levels of contaminants that have

been detected

the elements [level of

contaminants in edible tissues (muscle, liver,

roe, flesh, soft parts as appropriate)] of the

matrix [seafood, including fish, crustaceans,

molluscs, echinoderms, seaweed and other

marine plants, caught or harvested in the

wild], does not exceed the maximum levels

laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No

1881/2006

Primary

9.1.2

9.1.2 Frequency of regulatory levels

being exceeded

10.1 Characteristics

Properties and

quantities

of litter in the marine and

coastal environment

10.1.1 Trends in the amount of litter,

including micro-litter,

washed ashore

and/or deposited on coastlines,

including analysis of its composition,

spatial distribution and, where

possible

if feasible, pathway and

source

10.1.2 Trends in the amount of litter,

including micro-litter,

in the water

column (including floating at

the

surface

layer)

and deposited on the

sea-floor, including analysis of its

composition, spatial distribution and,

where possible,

if feasible, pathay

and

source

Indicator

deleted

Criterion

changed

hazardous substances

in seafood

litter

Delete

10,1

10.1.1 Trends in the amount,

composition and

spatial distribution

of litter, including micro-

litter, washed ashore and/or deposited on

coastlines,

floating in the surface layer and

deposited on the sea-floor [is at a level that

does not cause harm to the coastal and

marine environment [or other pollution

effects]]

including analysis of its composition,

spatial distribution and, if feasible, pathway

and source

10.1.2 Trends in the amount of litter, including

micro-litter, floating in the surface layerand

deposited on the sea-floor, including analysis

of its composition, spatial distribution and, if

feasible, pathay and source

Delete

10.1.1

Indicator

changed

litter

D10C1

Primary

Merge

only

difference is

matrix

10.1.2

Indicator

changed

litter

Delete

Merge

only

difference is

matrix

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Sort

old

Code

old

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

10.1.3 Trends in amount, distribution

and, where possible, composition of

micro-particles (in particular micro-

plastics)

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

Decision

Proposed

status

Comments

10.1.3

Indicator

deleted

litter

D10C2

D10C3

10.1.3 Trends in amount, distribution and,

where possible, composition of micro-

particles, in particular micro-plastics,

in the

relevant matrices [is at a level that does not

cause harm to the coastal and marine

environment [or other pollution effects]]

10.2.1 Trends in the amount of litter

[including micro-particles]

ingested and/or

number of entanglement incidents by marine

animals

[is at levels that do not adversely

impact populations of species within a

(sub)region]

Primary

consultation

wants

retain

Primary

10,2

10.2 Impacts of litter on marine life

10.2.1 Trends in the amount and

composition of litter ingested

and/or

number of entanglement incidents

marine

animals (e.g. stomach

analysis)

11.1 Distribution in time and place of

loud, low and mid frequency

impulsive sounds

11.1.1

The proportion

of days and

their distribution within a calendar

year, over

geographical locations

whose shape and

areas

are to be

of a

determined surface, as well as

and

their spatial distribution, in which

either

the

monopole

energy

anthropogenic sound sources exceed

levels that are likely to entail

significant impact on marine animals

measured as Sound Exposure Level

(in

units of

dB re 1!Pa

s), or

the zero

as peak

monopole source

sound

Criterion -

unchanged

litter

10.2.1 Trends in the amount of litter ingested

and/or

The

number of entanglement

incidents by

marine animals

[is at levels

that do not adversely impact populations of

species within a (sub)region]

Delete

100

10.2.1

Indicator

changed

litter

D10C4

Primary

101

11,1

Criterion -

unchanged

underwater noise

11.1.1 The proportion of days, and their

distribution within a calendar year, over

geographical locations whose shape and areas

are to be determined and their spatial

distribution, in which either the monopole

energy source level

(in units of dB re 1!Pa

s),

or the zero to peak monopole source level (in

units of dB re 1!Pa m)

of impulsive

anthropogenic sound sources, measured over

the frequency band 10 Hz to 10 kHz

exceeds a

value that is likely to entail significant impact

on marine mammals and other animals

Delete

102

11.1.1

Indicator

changed

underwater noise

D11C1

Primary

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Sort

old

Code

old

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

pressure level (in

units of

dB re

1!Pa

peak

impulsive

anthropogenic sound sources

at one

metre, measured over the frequency

band 10 Hz to 10 kHz

11.2 Continuous

sound

low

frequency

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

Decision

Proposed

status

Comments

103

11,2

Criterion -

unchanged

underwater noise

Delete

104

11.2.1

2,1

11.2.1 Trends in the

annual average

of the squared sound pressure

associated with

ambient noise level

within

each of two third

the 1/3

octave bands,

one centered at

and

the other at

125 Hz (centre

frequency) (,

expressed as a level in

decibels, in units of dB

re 1!Pa

RMS:

average noise level in these octave

bands over a year)

, either

measured

directly at

by observation stations,

and/or

inferred from a

with the use

of models if appropriate

used to

interpolate between or extrapolate

from measurements at observation

stations

2.1

Abundance

and

state

cCharacterisation of non-indigenous

species, in particular invasive species

in terms of pressure to the

ecosystem

2.1.1 Trends in human-mediated new

introductions in the wild of non-

indigenous species, notably in risk

areas, in relation to the main vectors

and pathways

Indicator

changed

underwater noise

D11C2

11.2.1 Trends in the annual average

levels of

continuous low frquency sound

of the

squared sound pressure associated with

ambient noise

each of two

'third

octave'

bands, one centered at 63 Hz and the other at

125 Hz, expressed as a level in decibels, in

units of dB re 1!Pa, either measured directly

at observation stations, or inferred from a

method used to interpolate between or

extrapolate

from

measurements

observation stations

Primary

Criterion

changed

NIS

Delete

Indicator

new

NIS

D2C1

2.1.1 Trends in human-mediated new

introductions in the wild of non-indigenous

species, notably in risk areas, in relation to

the main vectors and pathways

Primary

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Sort

old

Code

old

2.1.1

2,2

2.2.1

2.2.2

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

2.1.2

2.1.1 Trends in

number,

abundance/biomass,

temporal

occurrence, and spatial distribution

in the wild of non-indigenous species,

particularly invasive non-indigenous

species, notably in risk areas, in

relation to the main vectors and

pathways of spreading of such

species

2.2 Environmental iImpact of invasive

non-indigenous species

2.2.1 Ratio between invasive non-

indigenous species and native species

in some well studied taxonomic

groups (e.g. fish, macroalgae,

molluscs) that may provide a

measure of change in species

composition (e.g. further to the

displacement of native species)

2.2.2

2.2.1 Environmental impacts

non-indigenous invasive species at

the level of species, habitats and

structural and functional elements of

the

ecosystem, where feasible

3.1 Level of pressure of the fishing

activity

3.1.1 Fishing mortality (F)

3.1.2

Ratio between catch and

biomass index ('catch/biomass ratio')

3.2 Reproductive capacity of the

stock

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

Decision

Proposed

status

Comments

Indicator

changed

NIS

D2C2

2.1.2 Trends in number, abundance/biomass,

temporal occurrence, and spatial distribution

of non-indigenous species,

particularly of

invasive species contributing significantly to

impacts on particular species groups or habitat

types

Secondary

Criterion

changed

NIS

Delete

Indicator

deleted

NIS

Delete

Indicator

changed

NIS

D2C3

2.2.1 Environmental impact of non-indigenous

species on structural and functional elements

of the ecosystem, where feasible

species

groups or habitat types

Secondary

3,1

Criterion -

unchanged

Indicator -

unchanged

Indicator -

unchanged

Criterion -

unchanged

extraction of fish and

other species

extraction of fish and

other species

extraction of fish and

other species

extraction of fish and

other species

Delete

3.1.1

3.1.2

3,2

D3C1

3.1.1 Fishing mortality (F)

3.1.2 Ratio between catch and biomass index

('catch/biomass ratio')

Primary

Delete

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Sort

old

Code

old

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

3.2.1 Spawning stock biomass (SSB)

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

Decision

Proposed

status

Comments

3.2.1

Indicator -

unchanged

Indicator -

unchanged

extraction of fish and

other species

extraction of fish and

other species

extraction of fish and

other species

extraction of fish and

other species

extraction of fish and

other species

D3C2

3.2.1 Spawning stock biomass (SSB)

Primary

3.2.2

3,3

3.2.2 Biomass indices

3.3 Population age

distribution

[state]

and

size

D3C3

3.2.2 Biomass indices

3.3 Population age and size distribution

[state]

[3.3.1] Size distribution of the species (state):

[3.3.1a] 3.3.1 Proportion of fish larger than

mean size of first sexual maturation

[3.3.1b] 3.3.3 95th percentile of the fish length

distribution observed in research vessel

surveys

Delete

Primary

Indicator

Criterion -

unchanged

Indicator

new

[3.3.1] Size distribution of the species

(state):

3.3.1

[3.3.1a]

3.3.1 Proportion of fish

larger than mean size of first sexual

maturation

[3.3.1b]

3.3.3 95th % percentile of

the fish length distribution observed

in research vessel surveys

3.3 Population age

distribution [pressure]

and

size

Indicator -

unchanged

Indicator

3.3.3

Indicator -

unchanged

Criterion

new

Indicator

new

extraction of fish and

other species

extraction of fish and

other species

extraction of fish and

other species

Indicator

ICES

identify

ONE

these

ICES

identify

ONE

these

[3.3.2] Selectivity pattern of the fishery

exploiting the species (pressure)

[3.3.2a] Length (or age depending on data

availability) at first capture (length/age at

which 50% of fish are vulnerable to/retained

by the gear)

[3.3.2b] Proportion of fish in the catch larger

than size at which 50% is mature

Delete

[3.3.2] Selectivity pattern of the

fishery exploiting the species

(pressure)

[3.3.2a] Length (or age depending on

data avaialability) at first capture

(length/age at which 50% of fish are

vulnerable to/retained by the gear)

[3.3.2b] Proportion of fish in the

catch larger than size at which 50% is

mature

[3.3.2c] Mean length in the catch

Indicator

new

extraction of fish and

other species

Indicator

new

extraction of fish and

other species

Indicator

new

extraction of fish and

other species

[3.3.2c] Mean length in the catch

Indicator

ICES

identify

ONE

these

ICES

identify

ONE

these

ICES

identify

ONE

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Sort

old

Code

old

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

Decision

Proposed

status

Comments

these

3.3.2 Mean max. length across all

species found in research vessel

surveys

[3.3.3] Genetic effects of exploitation

of the species (state):

[3.3.3a]

3.3.4 Size at first sexual

maturation, which may reflect the

extent of undesirable genetic effects

of exploitation

[3.3.3b] Length at which half of the

(femaile) population are mature (50%

of total length - TL50)

3.3.2

Indicator

deleted

Indicator

new

extraction of fish and

other species

extraction of fish and

other species

extraction of fish and

other species

[3.3.3] Genetic effects of exploitation of the

species (state):

[3.3.3a] 3.3.4 Size at first sexual maturation

Delete

Indicator

3.3.4

Indicator -

unchanged

Indicator

new

extraction of fish and

other species

extraction of fish and

other species

[3.3.3b] Length at which half of the (femaile)

population are mature (50% of total length -

TL50)

D3D4

By-catch levels

Indicator

ICES

identify

ONE

these

ICES

identify

ONE

these

New

criterion

6.1 Physical dDamage

to the sea-

floor,

having regard to

both

pressure(s) on, and sensitivity of,

habitats

substrate characteristics

6.1.1 Type, abundance, biomass and

areal extent of relevant biogenic

substrate

[6.1.3] Extent of pressure(s) on the

sea-floor

(single,

multiple,

cumulative)

Primary

6,1

Criterion

changed

physical damage

Delete

6.1.1

Indicator

deleted

Indicator

new

physical damage

6.1.1

6.1.3 Cumulative extent

physical

distrubance or damage to

pressure(s) on the

sea-floor (single, multiple, cumulative)

6.1.2 Extent of the sea-floor significantly

affected by

physical disturbance or damage

pressures

human activities for

habitats of

different

highly mobile species

substrate types

(including biogenic)

Delete

physical damage

D6C1

Primary

physical damage

D6C2

Secondary

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Sort

old

Code

old

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

Decision

Proposed

status

Comments

6.1.2

6.1.2 Extent of the sea-floor bed

significantly affected by human

activities for different substrate types

(including biogenic)

Indicator

changed

physical damage

D6C3

6.1.2 Extent of the sea-floor significantly

affected (species

composition and their

relative

abundance

the

benthic

communities, including the presence of a

particularly sensitive or fragile species or

species providing a key function)

physical

disturbance or damage pressures

human

activities for

the

different

habitat

substrate

types (including biogenic)

Primary

6,2

6.2

Structural and functional

condition of benthic community

Criterion

changed

physical damage

6.2.1

The species composition and their

relative

abundance

the

benthic

communities, including the

presence of a

particularly

sensitive or fragile

species

providing a key function,

reflect

structural and functional conditions which are

largely free from anthropogenically-induced

physical disturbance

6.2.2 Multi-metric indexes assessing benthic

condition and functionality

Delete

6.2.1

6.2.1 Presence of

particularly

sensitive/tolerant species

providing a

key function

Indicator

changed

physical damage

Delete

6.2.2

6.2.3

6.2.2 Multi-metric indexes assessing

benthic condition and functionality,

such as species diversity and

richness, proportion of opportunistic

to sensitive species

6.2.3 Proportion of biomass or

numbers of individuals in the

macrobenthos above some specified

length/size

6.2.4 Parameters describing the

characteristics (shape, slope and

intercept) of the size spectrum of the

benthic community

Indicator

changed

physical damage

Delete

Indicator -

unchanged

physical damage

6.2.3 Proportion of biomass or numbers of

individuals in the macrobenthos above some

specified length/size

6.2.4 Parameters describing the characteristics

(shape, slope and intercept) of the size

and age

structure of specified species

spectrum of the

benthic community

should reflect that of a

(near) natural habitat in the absence of

physical disturbance

Delete

6.2.4

Indicator -

unchanged

physical damage

D6C4

Secondary

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Sort

old

Code

old

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

Decision

Proposed

status

Comments

physical loss

D6C5

6.1.1

6.1.4 Cumulative extent

physical loss

of or change to

pressure(s) on the

natural

sea-

floor

habitat

(single, multiple, cumulative)

6.1.2

6.1.5

Extent of the sea-floor

physically

lost or changed

significantly affected by

due

human activities for

the

different

habitat

substrate types (including biogenic)

Primary

physical loss

D6C6

Primary

7,1

7.2.2

7.1.1

7,2

7.1 Spatial characterisation of

permanent alterations

7.2.2 Changes in habitats

that affect

the ecosystem,

in particular the

functions provided (e.g. spawning,

breeding and feeding areas and

migration routes of fish, birds and

mammals),

due

altered

hydrographical conditions

7.1.1 Extent of area/volume affected

by permanent alterations

7.2

Impact

hydrographical changes

permanent

Criterion -

unchanged

physical loss

7.2.2 Cumulative

changes

the

habitats that

affect the ecosystem, in particular the

functions provided (e.g. spawning, breeding

and feeding areas and migration routes of fish,

birds and mammals), due to

permanent

alteration

ed hydrographical conditions,

particular highly mobile species

7.1.1 Extent of area/volume

OF PELAGIC

HABITATS

affected by permanent alterations

Delete

Indicator

changed

physical loss

D7C1

Secondary

Indicator

changed

physical loss

Delete

Criterion -

unchanged

7.2.1

7.2.1 Spatial extent of habitats

affected by permanent alteration

Indicator -

unchanged

physical loss

D7C2

7.2.1 Spatial extent

Total proportion

each

benthic

habitats

type which has been adversely

affected

(physical

and

hydrological

characteristics and associated biological

communities) due to

by permanent alteration

of hydrographical conditions (e.g. changes in

wave action, currents, salinity, temperature,

oxygen)

Secondary

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Sort

old

Code

old

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

Decision

Proposed

status

Comments

1,1

1.1 Species

geographic

distribution

Criterion

changed

species groups

D1C1

1.1 Species geographic distributional

range

and, where relevant, pattern

Secondary

Primary:

birds of BD,

mammals,

reptiles of

1.1.1

1.1.2

1.1.1 Distributional range

1.1.2 Distributional pattern within

the latter, where appropriate

relevant

1.1.3 Area covered by species (for

sessile/benthic

species),

where

relevant

1.2 Population size

1.2.1 Population abundance and/or

biomass, as appropriate

Indicator -

unchanged

Indicator

changed

Indicator

changed

species groups

1.1.1 Distributional range

1.1.2 Distributional pattern, where relevant

Indicator

species groups

Indicator

1.1.3

species groups

1.1.3 Area covered by species, where relevant

1.2 Population

biomass)

size

(abundance

and/or

Indicator

1,2

1.2.1

Criterion -

unchanged

Indicator -

unchanged

species groups

D1C2

Primary

Indicator

All species

1.2.1 Population abundance and/or biomass,

as appropriate

1.3 Population

characteristics

condition

demographic

1,3

1.3 Population condition

Criterion -

unchanged

species groups

D1C3

Secondary

Part

Population

for

(mammales,

reptiles)

1.3.1

Population

demographic

characteristics (e.g. body size or age

class structure, sex ratio, fecundity

rates, survival/mortality rates)

1.3.2 Population genetic structure

Indicator -

unchanged

Indicator

deleted

species groups

1.3.1 Population demographic characteristics

(e.g. body size or age class structure, sex ratio,

fecundity rates, survival/mortality rates)

1.3.2 Population genetic structure

Indicator

1.3.2

species groups

Indicator

species groups

D1C4

Habitat for the species

Secondary

Primary for

(mammanle

s, reptiles)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Sort

old

Code

old

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

1.4 Habitat distribution

1.4.1

1.5.1

Distributional range

1.4.2

1.5.2

Distributional pattern

1.5 Habitat

geographic distribution

and

extent

1.5.1

1.5.3

Habitat

extent (area and

volume)

1.5.2 Habitat volume, where relevant

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

1.4 Habitat distribution

1.5.1 Distributional range

1.5.2 Distributional pattern

Decision

Proposed

status

Comments

1,4

1.4.1

1.4.2

Criterion

deleted

pelagic and benthic

habitats

pelagic and benthic

habitats

pelagic and benthic

habitats

pelagic and benthic

habitats

pelagic and benthic

habitats

pelagic and benthic

habitats

pelagic and benthic

habitats

pelagic and benthic

habitats

pelagic and benthic

habitats

pelagic and benthic

habitats

ecosystems, including

food webs

ecosystems, including

food webs

Delete

Indicator

Indicator -

unchanged

Indicator -

unchanged

Criterion

changed

Indicator

changed

Indicator

deleted

1,5

D1C5

1.5 Habitat geographic distribution and extent

and, where relevant, distribution

1.5.3 Habitat extent (area and volume)

Primary

1.5.1

1.5.2

Indicator

Delete

1,6

1.6 Habitat condition

1.6.1 Condition of typical species and

communities

1.6.2 Relative abundance and/or

biomass, as appropriate

1.6.3 Physical, hydrological

chemical condition

1.7 Ecosystem structure

1.7.1 Composition & relative

proportions of component habitats

and species

and

Criterion -

unchanged

Indicator -

unchanged

Indicator -

unchanged

Indicator

deleted

Criterion

deleted

Indicator

deleted

D1C6

1.6 Habitat condition,

including its biotic

(species composition and relative abundance)

and abiotic structure, and its functions

1.6.1 Condition

communities

typical

species

and

Primary

1.6.1

1.6.2

Indicator

1.6.2 Relative abundance and/or biomass, as

appropriate

1.6.3 Physical, hydrological and chemical

condition

1.6.3

Indicator

Retain,

relevant e.g.

for oxygen

depletion

1,7

1.7.1

Delete

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Sort

old

Code

old

4,3

4.3.1

4.2.1

4,2

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

4.3

4.1 Food web structure -

Abundance/biomass

of, and size

distribution

within

of key trophic

guilds

groups/species

4.3.1 Abundance/biomass

of trophic

guilds

trends of functionally

important selected groups/species

4.2.1 Large fish (by weight)

Size

distribution within trophic guilds

4.2 Proportion of selected species at

the top of food webs

1.4 Mobile

composition

species

community

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

Decision

Proposed

status

Comments

Criterion

changed

ecosystems, including

food webs

Delete

Indicator

changed

Indicator

changed

Criterion

deleted

Criterion

new

ecosystems, including

food webs

ecosystems, including

food webs

ecosystems, including

food webs

species groups

100

101

102

103

D4C1

D4C2

4.3.1 Abundance/ biomass of trophic guilds

4.2.1 Size distribution within trophic guilds

Primary

Secondary

Delete

D4C3

1.4 Mobile species community composition

and relative abundance of the species group

Primary

4,1

4.1.1

1.4.1

Relative

abundance

community elements (e.g. relative

abundance of species; relative

abundance of large/small individuals;

relative

abundance

sensitive/resilient individuals)

4.1

4.2 Food web function -

Productivity (production per unit

biomass) of key species or trophic

groups

guilds

4.1.1 Performance of key predator

species using their production per

unit biomass (pProductivity

of trophic

guilds)

Criterion - unchanged

Criterion - changed

Criterion - deleted

Criterion - new

Indicator - unchanged

Indicator

new

species groups

104

Delete

Criterion

changed

ecosystems, including

food webs

105

Delete

Indicator

changed

ecosystems, including

food webs

106

107

D4C4

4.1.1 Productivity of trophic guilds

Primary criterion

Secondary criterion

Other scientific indicator (Art. 9.1)

Delete

Total

Secondary

106

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Sort

old

Code

old

JRC-ICES Technical Review (2014-

2015, including Sept. 2015 JRC

workshops)

Proposed

TEXT

DELETIONS,

CHANGES and ADDITIONS

Indicator - changed

Indicator - deleted

Indicator - new

Criteria total

Indicator total

Total

Tech Review

status

Assessment topic

Sort

new

Code

new

Proposed

criteria

new

Proposed

MODIFICATION

(NOT proposed final wording)

Decision

Proposed

status

Comments

100

Pressure

Impact

State

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Annex B:

Framework for application of the proposed criteria in relation to the Annex I descriptors and to the assessments needed for Article 8.

Relevant descriptors

Primary

criterion

Secondary criterion

D8, D9

Substances, litter and energy

Nutrients

and Hazardous

organic matter

substances

- Input of nutrients

- Input of organic

matter

D5C1

Concentrations of

nutrients (DIN, TN,

DIP, TP)

- Input of hazardous

- acute pollution

events

D8C1 Contaminants

environment

D8C3

Acute

pollution

events

D9C1 Contaminants

in seafood

D10

D11

Underwater

noise

- Input of sound

- Input of other

forms of energy

D11C1

Impulsive

sound

D11C2

Continuous

sound

Annex III Table 2a

Press

Pressu

ure

them

Biological

NIS

Non-

indigenous

species

D2C1 New

introduction

s of NIS

D2C2 Extent

of NIS

D1, D6

Microbial

pathogens

- Input of

microbial

pathogens

D3, D1, D4, D6

Litter

Other

biological

- Disturbance

Genetic

modification

- Cultivation

Extraction of

species

- Extraction of

wild species

D1, D6

Physical

damage

- Disturbance or

damage

seabed

D6C1 Extent of

physical

disturbance or

damage

D1, D6, D7

Hydrological

changes

- Changes to

hydrology

- Input of water

- Extract water

Physical loss

- Change of

seabed

- Extraction of

seabed

Relevant descriptors

Annex III Table 1

- Input of litter

D10C1 Litter in

environment

D10C2

Micro-

litter

D10C3 Litter in

animals

State

criteria

Theme

Ecosystem

elements

Pressure

criteria

D3C1 Fishing

mortality (F)

D6C5 Extent of

physical loss

D1C1

Species

distribution

Pelagic habitats Species

Species

groups

birds,

mammals,

reptiles, fish,

cephalopods

D1C2

Population size

D1C3 Population

demographics

D1C4 Habitat for

the species

D8C2 Contaminant-

effects

D8C4 Effects of

acute pollution

D10C4

Entanglement of

animals

Effects

D2C3

Impact

NIS

Effects

D3C2 Stock

biomass

D3C4 Bycatch

D3C3

Age/size

structure

Effects (e.g.

behavioural,

migration)

Effects

habitats

D5C2 Chlorophyll a

D5C3

Water

transparency

D5C4 Algal blooms

D5C5 Phytoplankton

Effects

habitats

See

damage

Phys.

D6C2 Extent of

habitat affected

D7C1 Extent of

habitat affected

Effects

habitats

Pelagic

habitat

groups

including

biological

communities

D1C6 Condition

habitat

(biotic, abiotic,

functional)

D1C5 Habitat

extent

D1C6 Habitat

condition

(biotic, abiotic,

functional)

D8C2

Contaminant-

effects

D8C4 Effects of

acute pollution

Effects

D2C3

Impact

NIS

Water

quality

Benthic habitats

Benthic

habitat

groups

including

biological

communities

(macrophytes,

bottom fauna)

D6C6 Extent

of lost

WFD

Waters:

D5C6

Opportunistic

macroalgae

D5C7

Perennial

macrophytes

All

waters:

D5C8

Oxygen

D5C9 Benthic fauna

D5C3 Transparency

D8C2

Contaminant-

effects

D8C4 Effects of

acute pollution

Effects

D2C3

Impact

NIS

Effects on

shellfish

quality

Effects

D3C2

Stock

biomass

D3C3 Age/size

structure

D3C4 By-catch

D6C3 Extent

habitat

affected

D6C4 Size and

age structure

of species

D7C2 Extent

habitat

affected

Effects

Physical

Chemical

D5C8 Oxygen

D4C1 Abundance

D4C2

Size

D4C3

Species

composition

D4C4 Productivity

D5C2 Chlorophyll a

Ecosystems

Biological

Functions

Effects

Ecosystem elements: Annex

III Table 1, Art. 8.1a

Pressures and impacts: Annex

III table 2, Art. 8(1b)

State criteria and indicators

Impact criteria and indicators

Pressure criteria and indicators

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Ref. Ares(2015)5898895 - 16/12/2015

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

This is the text on which the Marine Strategy Regulatory Committee gave a positive

opinion on 10 November 2016.

It is still a draft text as it has not yet been through the scrutiny of the European

Parliament and Council.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels,

XXX

[…](2016)

XXX

draft

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) …/…

XXX

laying down criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of

marine waters and specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and

assessment, and repealing Decision 2010/477/EU

(Text with EEA relevance)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) …/…

XXX

laying down criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of

marine waters and specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and

assessment, and repealing Decision 2010/477/EU

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17

June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine

environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)

, and in particular Articles 9(3)

and 11(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

Commission Decision 2010/477/EU

established criteria to be used by the Member

States to determine the good environmental status of their marine waters and to guide

their assessments of that status in the first implementation cycle of Directive

2008/56/EC.

Decision 2010/477/EU acknowledged that additional scientific and technical progress

was required to support the development or revision of those criteria for some

qualitative descriptors, as well as further development of methodological standards in

close coordination with the establishment of monitoring programmes. In addition, that

Decision stated that it would be appropriate to carry out its revision as soon as possible

after the completion of the assessment required under Article 12 of Directive

2008/56/EC, in time to support a successful update of marine strategies that are due by

2018, pursuant to Article 17 of Directive 2008/56/EC.

In 2012, on the basis of the initial assessment of their marine waters made pursuant to

Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC, Member States reported on the environmental

status of their marine waters and notified to the Commission their determination of

good environmental status and their environmental targets in accordance with Articles

9(2) and 10(2) of Directive 2008/56/EC, respectively. The Commission's assessment

of those Member State reports, undertaken in accordance with Article 12 of Directive

2008/56/EC, highlighted that more efforts were urgently needed if Member States are

to reach good environmental status by 2020. The results showed the necessity to

significantly improve the quality and coherence of the determination of good

environmental status by the Member States. In addition, the assessment recognised

OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19.

Commission Decision 2010/477/EU of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on

good environmental status of marine waters (OJ L 232, 2.9.2010, p. 14).

Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - The first phase of

implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) - The European

Commission's assessment and guidance (COM(2014)097 final, 20.2.2014).

(2)

(3)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

that regional cooperation must be at the very heart of the implementation of Directive

2008/56/EC. It also emphasised the need for Member States to more systematically

build upon standards stemming from Union legislation or, where they do not exist,

upon standards set by Regional Sea Conventions or other international agreements.

(4)

To ensure that the second cycle of implementation of the marine strategies of the

Member States further contributes to the achievement of the objectives of Directive

2008/56/EC and yields more consistent determinations of good environmental status,

the Commission recommended in its report on the first phase of implementation that,

at Union level, the Commission services and Member States collaborate to revise,

strengthen and improve Decision 2010/477/EU, aiming at a clearer, simpler, more

concise, more coherent and comparable set of good environmental status criteria and

methodological standards and, at the same time, review Annex III of Directive

2008/56/EC, and if necessary revise it, and develop specific guidance to ensure a more

coherent and consistent approach for assessments in the next implementation cycle.

On the basis of those conclusions, the review process started in 2013 when a roadmap,

consisting of several phases (technical and scientific, consultation, and decision-

making), was endorsed by the Regulatory Committee established under Article 25(1)

of Directive 2008/56/EC. During this process, the Commission consulted all interested

parties, including Regional Sea Conventions.

In order to facilitate future updates of the initial assessment of Member States' marine

waters and their determination of good environmental status, and to ensure greater

coherence in implementation of Directive 2008/56/EC across the Union, it is necessary

to clarify, revise or introduce criteria, methodological standards, specifications and

standardised methods to be used by Member States, compared to the elements

currently set out in Decision 2010/477/EU. As a result, the number of criteria that

Member States need to monitor and assess should be reduced, applying a risk-based

approach to those which are retained in order to allow Member States to focus their

efforts on the main anthropogenic pressures affecting their waters. Finally, the criteria

and their use should be further specified, including providing for threshold values or

the setting thereof, thereby allowing for the extent to which good environmental status

is achieved to be measured across the Union's marine waters.

In accordance with the commitment taken by the Commission when adopting its

Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Better regulation for better

results

—

An EU agenda

, this Decision should ensure coherence with other Union

legislation. To ensure greater consistency and comparability at Union level of Member

States' determinations of good environmental status and avoid unnecessary overlaps, it

is appropriate to take into account relevant existing standards and methods for

monitoring and assessment laid down in Union legislation, including

ouncil

Directive 92/43/EEC

, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the

Council

, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006

, Council Regulation (EC) No

(5)

(6)

(7)

COM(2015) 215 final.

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna

and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7).

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a

framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1).

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain

contaminants in foodstuffs (OJ L 364, 20.12.2006, p. 5).

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

1967/2006

, Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

and

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(8)

For each of the qualitative descriptors listed in Annex I to Directive 2008/56/EC, and

on the basis of the indicative lists in Annex III to that Directive, it is necessary to

define the criteria, including the criteria elements and, where appropriate, the threshold

values, to be used. Threshold values are intended to contribute to Member States'

determination of a set of characteristics for good environmental status and inform their

assessment of the extent to which good environmental status is being achieved. It is

also necessary to set out methodological standards, including the geographic scales for

assessment and how the criteria should be used. Those criteria and methodological

standards are to ensure consistency and allow for comparison, between marine regions

or subregions, of assessments of the extent to which good environmental status is

being achieved.

To ensure comparability between the details of any updates by the Member States

following the reviews of certain elements of their marine strategies, sent under Article

17(3) of Directive 2008/56/EC, specifications and standardised methods for

monitoring and assessment should be defined, taking into account existing

specifications and standards at Union or international level, including regional or

subregional level.

Member States should apply the criteria, methodological standards, specifications and

standardised methods for monitoring and assessment laid down in this Decision in

combination with the ecosystem elements, anthropogenic pressures and human

activities listed in the indicative lists of Annex III to Directive 2008/56/EC and by

reference to the initial assessment made pursuant to Article 8(1) of that Directive,

when determining a set of characteristics for good environmental status in accordance

with Article 9(1) of that Directive, and when establishing coordinated monitoring

programmes under Article 11 of that Directive.

In order to establish a clear link between the determination of a set of characteristics

for good environmental status and the assessment of progress towards its achievement,

it is appropriate to organise the criteria and methodological standards on the basis of

the qualitative descriptors laid down in Annex I to Directive 2008/56/EC, taking into

account the indicative lists of ecosystem elements, anthropogenic pressures and human

activities laid down in Annex III to that Directive. Some of those criteria and

methodological standards relate in particular to the assessment of environmental status

or of predominant pressures and impacts under points (a) or (b) of Article 8(1) of

Directive 2008/56/EC, respectively.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning management measures for

the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, amending Regulation (EEC)

No 2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 (OJ L 409, 30.12.2006, p. 11).

Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on

environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently replacing

Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 84.).

Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the

conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7).

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on

the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No

1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council

Decision 2004/585/EC (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22).

(9)

(10)

(11)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

(12)

In cases where no threshold values are laid down, Member States should establish

threshold values through Union, regional or subregional cooperation, for instance by

referring to existing values or developing new ones in the framework of the Regional

Sea Conventions. In cases where threshold values should be established through

cooperation at Union level (for the descriptors on marine litter, underwater noise and

seabed integrity), this will be done in the framework of the Common Implementation

Strategy set up by the Member States and the Commission for the purposes of

Directive 2008/56/EC. Once established through Union, regional or subregional

cooperation, these threshold values will only become part of Member States' sets of

characteristics for good environmental status when they are sent to the Commission as

part of Member States' reporting under Article 17(3) of Directive 2008/56/EC. Until

such threshold values are established through Union, regional or subregional

cooperation, Member States should be able to use national threshold values,

directional trends or pressure-based threshold values as proxies.

Threshold values should reflect, where appropriate, the quality level that reflects the

significance of an adverse effect for a criterion and should be set in relation to a

reference condition. Threshold values should be consistent with Union legislation and

set at appropriate geographic scales to reflect the different biotic and abiotic

characteristics of the regions, subregions and subdivisions. This means that even if the

process to establish threshold values takes place at Union level, this may result in the

setting of different threshold values, which are specific to a region, subregion or

subdivision. Threshold values should also be set on the basis of the precautionary

principle, reflecting the potential risks to the marine environment. The setting of

threshold values should accommodate the dynamic nature of marine ecosystems and

their elements, which can change in space and time through hydrological and climatic

variation, predator-prey relationships and other environmental factors. Threshold

values should also reflect the fact that marine ecosystems may recover, if deteriorated,

to a state that reflects prevailing physiographic, geographic, climatic and biological

conditions, rather than return to a specific state of the past.

In accordance with Article 1(3) of Directive 2008/56/EC, the collective pressure of

human activities needs to be kept within levels compatible with the achievement of

good environmental status, ensuring that the capacity of marine ecosystems to respond

to human-induced changes is not compromised. This may entail, where appropriate,

that threshold values for certain pressures and their environmental impacts are not

necessarily achieved in all areas of Member States' marine waters, provided that this

does not compromise the achievement of the objectives of Directive 2008/56/EC,

while enabling the sustainable use of marine goods and services.

It is necessary to lay down threshold values which will be part of the set of

characteristics used by Member States in their determination of good environmental

status in accordance with Article 9(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC, and the extent to

which the threshold values are to be achieved. Threshold values therefore do not, by

themselves, constitute Member States' determinations of good environmental status.

Member States should express the extent to which good environmental status is being

achieved as the proportion of their marine waters over which the threshold values have

been achieved or as the proportion of criteria elements (species, contaminants, etc.)

that have achieved the threshold values. When assessing the status of their marine

waters in accordance with Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC, Member States

should express any change in status as improving, stable or deteriorating compared to

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

the previous reporting period, in view of the often slow response of the marine

environment to change.

(17)

Where threshold values, set in accordance with this Decision, are not met for a

particular criterion, Member States should consider taking appropriate measures or

carrying out further research or investigation.

Where Member States are required to cooperate at regional or subregional level, they

should use, where practical and appropriate, existing regional institutional cooperation

structures, including those under Regional Sea Conventions, as provided under

Article 6 of Directive 2008/56/EC. Similarly, in the absence of specific criteria,

methodological standards, including for integration of the criteria, specifications and

standardised methods for monitoring and assessment, Member States should build

upon, where practical and appropriate, those developed at international, regional or

subregional level, for instance those agreed in the framework of the Regional Sea

Conventions, or other international mechanisms. Otherwise, Member States may

choose to coordinate amongst themselves within the region or subregion, where

relevant. In addition, a Member State may also decide, on the basis of the specificities

of its marine waters, to consider additional elements not laid down in this Decision

and not dealt with at international, regional or subregional level, or to consider

applying elements of this Decision to its transitional waters, as defined in Article 2(6)

of Directive 2000/60/EC, in support of the implementation of Directive 2008/56/EC.

Member States should have sufficient flexibility, under specified conditions, to focus

on the predominant pressures and their environmental impacts on the different

ecosystem elements in each region or subregion in order to monitor and assess their

marine waters in an efficient and effective manner and to facilitate prioritisation of

actions to be taken to achieve good environmental status. For that purpose, firstly,

Member States should be able to consider that some of the criteria are not appropriate

to apply, provided this is justified. Secondly, Member States should have the

possibility to decide not to use certain criteria elements or to select additional elements

or to focus on certain matrices or areas of their marine waters, provided that this is

based on a risk assessment in relation to the pressures and their impacts. Finally, a

distinction should be introduced between primary and secondary criteria. While

primary criteria should be used to ensure consistency across the Union, flexibility

should be granted with regard to secondary criteria. The use of a secondary criterion

should be decided by Member States, where necessary, to complement a primary

criterion or when, for a particular criterion, the marine environment is at risk of not

achieving or not maintaining good environmental status.

Criteria, including threshold values, methodological standards, specifications and

standardised methods for monitoring and assessment should be based on the best

available science. However, additional scientific and technical progress is still required

to support the further development of some of them, and should be used as the

knowledge and understanding become available.

Decision 2010/477/EU should therefore be repealed.

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the

Regulatory Committee,

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Subject-matter

This Decision lays down:

(a)

criteria and methodological standards to be used by Member States

when

determining a set of characteristics for good environmental status in accordance with

Article 9(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC, on the basis of Annexes I and III and by

reference to the initial assessment made pursuant to Article 8(1) of that Directive, to

assess the extent to which good environmental status is being achieved, in

accordance with Article 9(3) of that Directive;

specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment, to be used

by Member States when establishing coordinated monitoring programmes under

Article 11

of Directive 2008/56/EC,

in accordance with Article 11(4) of that

Directive;

a timeline for the establishment of threshold values, lists of criteria elements and

methodological standards through Union, regional or subregional cooperation;

a notification requirement for criteria elements, threshold values and methodological

standards.

Article 2

Definitions

For the purposes of this Decision, the definitions laid down in Article 3 of Directive

2008/56/EC shall apply.

The following definitions shall also apply:

(1)

(2)

(3)

'subregions' means the subregions listed in Article 4(2) of Directive 2008/56/EC;

'subdivisions' means subdivisions as referred to in Article 4(2) of Directive

2008/56/EC;

'invasive non-indigenous species' means 'invasive alien species' within the meaning

of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of

the Council

;

'criteria elements' means constituent elements of an ecosystem, particularly its

biological elements (species, habitats and their communities), or aspects of pressures

on the marine environment (biological, physical, substances, litter and energy),

which are assessed under each criterion;

'threshold value' means a value or range of values that allows for an assessment of

the quality level achieved for a particular criterion, thereby contributing to the

assessment of the extent to which good environmental status is being achieved.

(b)

(c)

(d)

(4)

(5)

Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on

the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317,

4.11.2014, p. 35).

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Article 3

Use of criteria, methodological standards, specifications and standardised methods

Member States shall use primary criteria and associated methodological standards,

specifications and standardised methods laid down in the Annex to implement this

Decision. However, on the basis of the initial assessment or its subsequent updates

carried out in accordance with Articles 8 and 17(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC,

Member States may consider, in justified circumstances, that it is not appropriate to

use one or more of the primary criteria. In such cases, Member States shall provide

the Commission with a justification in the framework of the notification made

pursuant to Article 9(2) or 17(3) of Directive 2008/56/EC.

Pursuant to the obligation of regional cooperation laid down in Articles 5 and 6 of

Directive 2008/56/EC, a Member State shall inform other Member States sharing the

same marine region or subregion before it decides not to use a primary criterion in

accordance with the first subparagraph.

Secondary criteria and associated methodological standards, specifications and

standardised methods laid down in the Annex shall be used to complement a primary

criterion or when the marine environment is at risk of not achieving or not

maintaining good environmental status for that particular criterion. The use of a

secondary criterion shall be decided by each Member State, except where otherwise

specified in the Annex.

Where this Decision does not set criteria, methodological standards, specifications or

standardised methods for monitoring and assessment, including for spatial and

temporal aggregation of data, Member States shall build upon, where practical and

appropriate, those developed at international, regional or subregional level, such as

those agreed in the relevant Regional Sea Conventions.

Until Union, international, regional or subregional lists of criteria elements,

methodological standards, and specifications and standardised methods for

monitoring and assessment are established, Member States may use those established

at national level, provided that regional cooperation is pursued as laid down in

Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 2008/56/EC.

Article 4

Setting of threshold values through Union, regional or subregional cooperation

Where Member States are required under this Decision to establish threshold values

through Union, regional or subregional cooperation, those values shall:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

be part of the set of characteristics used by Member States in their

determination of good environmental status;

be consistent with Union legislation;

where appropriate, distinguish the quality level that reflects the significance of

an adverse effect for a criterion and be set in relation to a reference condition;

be set at appropriate geographic scales of assessment to reflect the different

biotic and abiotic characteristics of the regions, subregions and subdivisions;

be set on the basis of the precautionary principle, reflecting the potential risks

to the marine environment;

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

be consistent across different criteria when they relate to the same ecosystem

element;

make use of best available science;

be based on long time-series data, where available, to help determine the most

appropriate value;

reflect natural ecosystem dynamics, including predator-prey relationships and

hydrological and climatic variation, also acknowledging that the ecosystem or

parts thereof may recover, if deteriorated, to a state that reflects prevailing

physiographic, geographic, climatic and biological conditions, rather than

return to a specific state of the past;

be consistent, where practical and appropriate, with relevant values set under

regional institutional cooperation structures, including those agreed in the

Regional Sea Conventions.

(j)

Until Member States have established threshold values through Union, regional or

subregional cooperation as required under this Decision, they may use any of the

following to express the extent to which good environmental status is being

achieved:

(a)

(b)

(c)

national threshold values, provided the obligation of regional cooperation laid

down in Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 2008/56/EC is complied with;

directional trends of the values;

pressure-based threshold values as proxies.

These shall follow, where possible, the principles set out in points (a) to (i) of

paragraph 1.

Where threshold values, including those established by Member States in accordance

with this Decision, are not met for a particular criterion to the extent which that

Member State has determined as constituting good environmental status in

accordance with Article 9(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC, Member States shall consider,

as appropriate, whether measures should be taken under Article 13 of that Directive

or whether further research or investigation should be carried out.

Threshold values established by Member States in accordance with this Decision

may be periodically reviewed in the light of scientific and technical progress and

amended, where necessary, in time for the reviews provided for in Article 17(2)(a) of

Directive 2008/56/EC.

Article 5

Timeline

Where this Decision provides for Member States to establish threshold values, lists

of criteria elements or methodological standards through Union, regional or

subregional cooperation, Member States shall endeavour to do so within the time-

limit set for the first review of their initial assessment and determination of good

environmental status in accordance with Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC

(15 July 2018).

Where Member States are not able to establish threshold values, lists of criteria

elements or methodological standards through Union, regional or subregional

cooperation within the time-limit laid down in paragraph 1, they shall establish these

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

as soon as possible thereafter, on condition that they provide, by 15 October 2018,

justification to the Commission in the notification made pursuant to Article 9(2) or

17(3) of Directive 2008/56/EC.

Article 6

Notification

Each Member State shall send to the Commission, as part of the notification made pursuant to

Article 17(3) of Directive 2008/56/EC, those criteria elements, threshold values and

methodological standards established through Union, regional or subregional cooperation in

accordance with this Decision, that it decides to use as part of its set of characteristics for

determining good environmental status under Article 9(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC.

Article 7

Repeal

Decision 2010/477/EU is hereby repealed.

References to Decision 2010/477/EU shall be construed as references to this Decision.

Article 8

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in

the

Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels,

For the Commission

The President

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

ANNEX

Criteria and methodological standards for good environmental status of marine waters,

relevant to the qualitative descriptors in Annex I to Directive 2008/56/EC, and

to the indicative lists set out in Annex III to that Directive, and specifications

and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment

This Annex is structured in two parts:

–

under Part I are laid down the criteria and methodological standards for

determination of good environmental status under Article 9(3) of Directive

2008/56/EC, and specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and

assessment under Article 11(4) of that Directive, to be used by Member States in

relation to the assessment of predominant pressures and impacts under Article

8(1)(b) of Directive 2008/56/EC,

under Part II are laid down criteria and methodological standards for determination

of good environmental status under Article 9(3) of Directive 2008/56/EC, and

specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment, to be used

by Member States in relation to the assessment of environmental status under Article

8(1)(a) of Directive 2008/56/EC.

–

ART

–

RITERIA

METHODOLOGICAL STANDARDS

SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDISED

METHODS FOR THE MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF PREDOMINANT PRESSURES AND

IMPACTS UNDER POINT

(

)

RTICLE

8(1)

IRECTIVE

2008/56/EC

Part I considers the descriptors

linked to the relevant anthropogenic pressures: biological

pressures (Descriptors 2 and 3), physical pressures (Descriptors 6 and 7) and substances, litter

and energy (Descriptors 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11), as listed in Annex III to Directive 2008/56/EC.

When this Decision refers to a 'descriptor', this refers to the relevant qualitative descriptors for

determining good environmental status, as indicated under the numbered points in Annex I to Directive

2008/56/EC.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Descriptor 2

–

Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystems

Relevant pressure: Input or spread of non-indigenous species

Criteria, including criteria elements, and methodological standards

Criteria elements

Criteria

D2C1

–

Primary:

The number of non-indigenous species which are newly

introduced via human activity into the wild, per assessment

period (6 years), measured from the reference year as

reported for the initial assessment under Article 8(1) of

Directive 2008/56/EC, is minimised and where possible

reduced to zero.

Member States shall establish the threshold value for the

number of new introductions of non-indigenous species,

through regional or subregional cooperation.

Methodological standards

Scale of assessment:

Subdivisions of the region or subregion, divided where

needed by national boundaries.

Use of criteria:

The extent to which good environmental status has been

achieved shall be expressed for each area assessed as

follows:

the number of non-indigenous species newly

introduced via human activity, in the 6-year

assessment period and a list of those species.

Scale of assessment:

As used for assessment of the corresponding species

groups or broad habitat types under Descriptors 1 and 6.

Use of criteria:

Criterion D2C2 (quantification of non-indigenous species)

shall be expressed per species assessed and shall

contribute to the assessment of criterion D2C3 (adverse

effects of non-indigenous species).

Criterion D2C3 shall provide the proportion per species

group and extent per broad habitat type assessed which is

Newly-introduced non-indigenous

species.

Established non-indigenous species,

particularly invasive non-indigenous

species, which include relevant species

on the list of invasive alien species of

Union concern adopted in accordance

with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU)

No 1143/2014 and species which are

relevant for use under criterion D2C3.

Member States shall establish that list

through regional or subregional

cooperation.

D2C2

–

Secondary:

Abundance and spatial distribution of established non-

indigenous species, particularly of invasive species,

contributing significantly to adverse effects on particular

species groups or broad habitat types.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Criteria elements

Species groups and broad habitat types

that are at risk from non-indigenous

species, selected from those used for

Descriptors 1 and 6.

Member States shall establish that list

through regional or subregional

cooperation.

Criteria

D2C3

–

Secondary:

Proportion of the species group or spatial extent of the broad

habitat type which is adversely altered due to non-indigenous

species, particularly invasive non-indigenous species.

Member States shall establish the threshold values for the

adverse alteration to species groups and broad habitat types

due to non-indigenous species, through regional or

subregional cooperation.

Methodological standards

adversely altered, and thus contribute to their assessments

under Descriptors 1 and 6.

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment

'Newly-introduced' non-indigenous species shall be understood as those which were not known to be present in the area in the previous

assessment period.

'Established' non-indigenous species shall be understood as those which were known to be present in the area in the previous assessment

period.

For D2C1: where it is not clear whether the new arrival of non-indigenous species is due to human activity or natural dispersal from

neighbouring areas, the introduction shall be counted under D2C1.

For D2C2: when species occurrence and abundance is seasonally variable (e.g. plankton), monitoring shall be undertaken at appropriate times

of year.

Monitoring programmes shall be linked to those for Descriptors 1, 4, 5 and 6, where possible, as they typically use the same sampling

methods and it is more practical to monitor non-indigenous species as part of broader biodiversity monitoring, except where sampling needs to

focus on main vectors and risk areas for new introductions.

–

D2C1: the number of species per assessment area which have been newly introduced in the assessment period (6 years),

D2C2: abundance (number of individuals, biomass in tonnes (t) or extent in square kilometres (km

)) per non-indigenous species,

Units of measurement for the criteria:

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

–

D2C3: the proportion of the species group (ratio of indigenous species to non-indigenous species, as number of species and/or their

abundance within the group) or the spatial extent of the broad habitat type (in square kilometres (km

)) which is adversely altered.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Descriptor 3

–

Populations of all commercially-exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size

distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock

Relevant pressure: Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species, including target and non-target species

Criteria, including criteria elements, and methodological standards

Criteria elements

Criteria

D3C1

–

Primary:

The

Fishing mortality

rate of populations of commercially-

exploited species is at or below levels which can produce the

maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Appropriate scientific

bodies shall be consulted in accordance with Article 26 of

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Commercially-exploited fish and

shellfish.

Member States shall establish through

regional or subregional cooperation a

list of commercially-exploited fish and

shellfish, according to the criteria laid

down under 'specifications'.

D3C2

–

Primary:

The

Spawning Stock Biomass

of populations of commercially-

exploited species are above biomass levels capable of

producing maximum sustainable yield. Appropriate scientific

bodies shall be consulted in accordance with Article 26 of

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

D3C3

2,15

–

Primary:

The age and size distribution of individuals in the populations

of commercially-exploited species is indicative of a healthy

population. This shall include a high proportion of old/large

individuals and limited adverse effects of exploitation on

genetic diversity.

Member States shall establish threshold values through

regional or subregional cooperation for each population of

species in accordance with scientific advice obtained pursuant

Methodological standards

Scale of assessment:

Populations of each species are assessed at ecologically-

relevant scales within each region or subregion, as

established by appropriate scientific bodies as referred to in

Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, based on

specified aggregations of International Council for the

Exploration of the Sea (ICES) areas, General Fisheries

Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) geographical

sub-areas and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)

fishing areas for the Macaronesian biogeographic region.

Use of criteria:

The extent to which good environmental status has been

achieved shall be expressed for each area assessed as

follows:

(a) the populations assessed, the values achieved for each

criterion and whether the levels for D3C1 and D3C2

and the threshold values for D3C3 have been

achieved, and the overall status of the population on

the basis of criteria integration rules agreed at Union

level;

(b) the populations of commercially-exploited species in

the assessment area which were not assessed.

D3C2 and D3C3 are state-based criteria for commercially-exploited fish and shellfish but are shown under Part I for clarity reasons.

D3C3 may not be available for use for the 2018 review of the initial assessment and determination of good environmental status under Article 17(2)(a) of Directive

2008/56/EC.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Criteria elements

Criteria

to Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Methodological standards

The outcomes of these population assessments shall also

contribute to the assessments under Descriptors 1 and 6, if

the species are relevant for assessment of particular species

groups and benthic habitat types.

Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, non-commercially-exploited species (incidental by-catches) as a result of fishing activities, is addressed under

criterion D1C1.

Physical disturbance to the seabed, including effects on benthic communities, as a result of fishing activities, are addressed by the criteria under

Descriptor 6 (particularly criteria D6C2 and D6C3) and are to be fed into the assessments of benthic habitat types under Descriptors 1 and 6.

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment

A list of commercially-exploited species for application of the criteria in each assessment area shall be established by Member States through

regional or subregional cooperation and updated for each 6-year assessment period, taking into account Council Regulation (EC) No

199/2008

and the following:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

all stocks that are managed under Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013;

the species for which fishing opportunities (total allowable catches and quotas) are set by Council under Article 43(3) of the Treaty on

the Functioning of the European Union;

the species for which minimum conservation reference sizes are set under Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006;

the species under multiannual plans according to Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013;

the species under national management plans according to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006;

any important species on a regional or national scale for small-scale/local coastal fisheries.

For the purposes of this Decision, commercially-exploited species which are non-indigenous in each assessment area shall be excluded from

the list and thus not contribute to achievement of good environmental status for Descriptor 3.

Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the

fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 60, 5.3.2008, p. 1).

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishes rules on the collection and management, in the framework of multi-annual programmes, of

biological, technical, environmental and socio-economic data concerning the fisheries sector which shall be used for monitoring under

Descriptor 3.

The term 'populations' shall be understood as the term 'stocks' within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

For D3C1 and D3C2, the following shall apply:

(a)

for stocks managed under a multiannual plan according to Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, in situations of mixed fisheries,

the target fishing mortality and the biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield shall be in accordance with the

relevant multiannual plan;

for the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea regions, appropriate proxies may be used.

For D3C1: if quantitative assessments yielding values for

Fishing mortality

are not available due to inadequacies in the available data,

other variables such as the ratio between catch and biomass index ('catch/biomass ratio') may be used as an alternative method. In such

cases, an appropriate method for trend analysis shall be adopted (e.g. the current value can be compared against the long-term historical

average);

For D3C2: the threshold value used shall be in accordance with Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. If quantitative

assessments yielding values for

Spawning Stock Biomass

are not available due to inadequacies in the available data, biomass-related

indices such as catch per unit effort or survey abundance indices may be used as an alternative method. In such cases, an appropriate

method for trend analysis shall be adopted (e.g. the current value can be compared against the long-term historical average);

D3C3 shall reflect that healthy populations of species are characterised by a high proportion of old, large individuals. The relevant

properties are the following:

(i) size distribution of individuals in the population, expressed as:

–

the proportion of fish larger than mean size of first sexual maturation, or

the 95

percentile of the fish-length distribution of each population, as observed in research vessel or other surveys;

(b)

(a)

The following methods for assessment shall be used:

(b)

(c)

(ii) genetic effects of exploitation of the species, such as size at first sexual maturation, where appropriate and feasible.

Other expressions of the relevant properties may be used following further scientific and technical development of this criterion.

Units of measurement for the criteria:

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

–

D3C1: annualised fishing mortality rate,

D3C2: biomass in tonnes (t) or number of individuals per species, except where other indices are used under point 5(b),

D3C3: under point 5(c): for (i), first indent: proportion (percentage) or numbers, for (i), second indent: length in centimetres (cm), and

for (ii): length in centimetres (cm).

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Descriptor 5

–

Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem

degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters

Relevant pressures: Input of nutrients; Input of organic matter

Criteria, including criteria elements, and methodological standards

Criteria elements

Nutrients in the water column:

Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN),

Total Nitrogen (TN), Dissolved

Inorganic Phosphorus (DIP), Total

Phosphorus (TP).

Within coastal waters, as used under

Directive 2000/60/EC.

Beyond coastal waters, Member States

may decide at regional or subregional

level to not use one or several of these

nutrient elements.

Criteria

Methodological standards

Scale of assessment:

–

within coastal waters, as used under Directive

2000/60/EC,

–

beyond coastal waters, subdivisions of the region or

subregion, divided where needed by national

boundaries.

Use of criteria:

The extent to which good environmental status has been

achieved shall be expressed for each area assessed as

follows:

(a) the values achieved for each criterion used, and an

estimate of the extent of the assessment area over

which the threshold values set have been achieved;

(b) in coastal waters, the criteria shall be used in

accordance with the requirements of Directive

2000/60/EC to conclude on whether the water body

is subject to eutrophication

;

the area (as a proportion (percentage)) that is not

subject to eutrophication (as indicated by the results

D5C1

–

Primary:

Nutrient concentrations are not at levels that indicate adverse

eutrophication effects.

The threshold values are as follows:

(a) in coastal waters, the values set in accordance with

Directive 2000/60/EC;

(b) beyond coastal waters, values consistent with those for

coastal waters under Directive 2000/60/EC. Member

States shall establish those values through regional or

subregional cooperation

D5C2

–

Primary:

Chlorophyll a concentrations are not at levels that indicate

adverse effects of nutrient enrichment.

The threshold values are as follows:

(a) in coastal waters, the values set in accordance with

Directive 2000/60/EC;

(b) beyond coastal waters, values consistent with those for

coastal waters under Directive 2000/60/EC. Member

States shall establish those values through regional or

subregional cooperation.

Chlorophyll a in the water column

Guidance documents published in the context of the Common Implementation Strategy for Directive 2000/60/EC may be relevant in this assessment (e.g. "N° 13 - Overall

Approach to the Classification of Ecological Status and Ecological Potential" and "N° 23 - Eutrophication Assessment in the Context of European Water Policies")

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Criteria elements

Criteria

D5C3

–

Secondary:

The number, spatial extent and duration of harmful algal

bloom events are not at levels that indicate adverse effects of

nutrient enrichment.

Member States shall establish threshold values for these

levels through regional or subregional cooperation.

Harmful algal blooms (e.g.

cyanobacteria) in the water column

Methodological standards

of all criteria used, integrated in a manner agreed

where possible at Union level, but at least at

regional or subregional level).

Beyond coastal waters, the use of the secondary criteria

shall be agreed at regional or subregional level.

The outcomes of the assessments shall also contribute to

assessments for pelagic habitats under Descriptor 1 as

follows:

the distribution and an estimate of the extent of the

area (as a proportion (percentage)) that is subject to

eutrophication in the water column (as indicated by

whether the threshold values for criteria D5C2,

D5C3 and D5C4, when used, have been achieved);

The outcomes of the assessments shall also contribute to

assessments for benthic habitats under Descriptors 1 and 6

as follows:

the distribution and an estimate of the extent of the

area (as a proportion (percentage)) that is subject to

eutrophication on the seabed (as indicated by

whether the threshold values for criteria D5C4,

D5C5, D5C6, D5C7 and D5C8, when used, have

been achieved).

D5C4

–

Secondary:

The photic limit (transparency) of the water column is not

reduced, due to increases in suspended algae, to a level that

indicates adverse effects of nutrient enrichment.

The threshold values are as follows:

Photic limit (transparency) of the water

(a) in coastal waters, the values set in accordance with

column

Directive 2000/60/EC;

(b) beyond coastal waters, values consistent with those for

coastal waters under Directive 2000/60/EC. Member

States shall establish those values through regional or

subregional cooperation.

D5C5

–

Primary (may be substituted by D5C8):

The concentration of dissolved oxygen is not reduced, due to

nutrient enrichment, to levels that indicate adverse effects on

benthic habitats (including on associated biota and mobile

species) or other eutrophication effects.

The threshold values are as follows:

(a) in coastal waters, the values set in accordance with

Directive 2000/60/EC;

Dissolved oxygen in the bottom of the

water column

(b)

beyond coastal waters, values consistent with those for

coastal waters under Directive 2000/60/EC. Member

States shall establish those values through regional or

subregional cooperation.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Criteria elements

Criteria

D5C6

–

Secondary:

The abundance of opportunistic macroalgae is not at levels

that indicate adverse effects of nutrient enrichment.

The threshold values are as follows:

(a) in coastal waters, the values set in accordance with

Directive 2000/60/EC;

(b) should this criterion be relevant for waters beyond

coastal waters, values consistent with those for coastal

waters under Directive 2000/60/EC. Member States

shall establish those values through regional or

subregional cooperation.

D5C7

–

Secondary:

The species composition and relative abundance or depth

distribution of macrophyte communities achieve values that

indicate there is no adverse effect due to nutrient enrichment

including via a decrease in water transparency, as follows:

(a) in coastal waters, the values set in accordance with

Directive 2000/60/EC;

Methodological standards

Opportunistic macroalgae of benthic

habitats

Macrophyte communities (perennial

seaweeds and seagrasses such as

fucoids, eelgrass and Neptune grass) of

benthic habitats

(b)

should this criterion be relevant for waters beyond

coastal waters, values consistent with those for coastal

waters under Directive 2000/60/EC. Member States

shall establish those values through regional or

subregional cooperation.

D5C8

–

Secondary (except when used as a substitute for

D5C5):

Macrofaunal communities of benthic

habitats

The species composition and relative abundance of

macrofaunal communities, achieve values that indicate that

there is no adverse effect due to nutrient and organic

enrichment, as follows:

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Criteria elements

(a)

Criteria

in coastal waters, the values for benthic biological

quality elements set in accordance with Directive

2000/60/EC;

beyond coastal waters, values consistent with those for

coastal waters under Directive 2000/60/EC. Member

States shall establish those values through regional or

subregional cooperation.

Methodological standards

(b)

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment

In coastal waters, the criteria elements shall be selected in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC.

For D5C2 and D5C3, Member States may in addition use phytoplankton species composition and abundance.

Information on the pathways (atmospheric, land- or sea-based) for nutrients entering the marine environment shall be collected, where

feasible.

Monitoring beyond coastal waters may not be necessary due to low risk, such as in cases where the threshold values are achieved in coastal

waters, taking into account nutrient input from atmospheric, sea-based including coastal waters, and transboundary sources.

Assessments under Directive 2000/60/EC shall be used for the assessments of each criterion in coastal waters.

Values set in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC shall refer either to those set by intercalibration under Commission Decision

2013/480/EU

or to those set in national legislation in accordance with Article 8 and Annex V of Directive 2000/60/EC. These shall be

understood as the "Good-Moderate boundary" for Ecological Quality Ratios.

Species composition shall be understood to refer to the lowest taxonomic level appropriate for the assessment.

–

D5C1: nutrient concentrations in micromoles per litre (µmol/l),

D5C2: chlorophyll a concentrations (biomass) in micrograms per litre (µg/l),

Units of measurement for the criteria:

Commission Decision 2013/480/EU of 20 September 2013 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the

Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise and repealing Decision 2008/915/EC (OJ L 266, 8.10.2013, p. 1).

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

–

D5C3: bloom events as number of events, duration in days and spatial extent in square kilometres (km

) per year,

D5C4: photic limit as depth in metres (m),

D5C5: oxygen concentration in the bottom of the water column in milligrams per litre (mg/l),

D5C6: Ecological Quality Ratio for macroalgal abundance or spatial cover. Extent of adverse effects in square kilometres (km

) or as a

proportion (percentage) of the assessment area,

D5C7: Ecological Quality Ratio for species composition and relative abundance assessments or for maximum depth of macrophyte

growth. Extent of adverse effects in square kilometres (km

) or as a proportion (percentage) of the assessment area,

D5C8: Ecological Quality Ratio for species composition and relative abundance assessments. Extent of adverse effects in square

kilometres (km

) or as a proportion (percentage) of the assessment area.

Where available, Member States shall use the units or ecological quality ratios provided for under Directive 2000/60/EC.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Descriptor 6

–

Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic

ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected.

Relevant pressures: Physical loss (due to permanent change of seabed substrate or morphology and to extraction of seabed substrate); physical

disturbance to seabed (temporary or reversible)

Criteria, including criteria elements, and methodological standards

Criteria elements

Physical loss of the seabed (including

intertidal areas).

Physical disturbance to the seabed

(including intertidal areas).

Criteria

D6C1

–

Primary:

Spatial extent and distribution of physical loss (permanent

change) of the natural seabed.

D6C2

–

Primary:

Spatial extent and distribution of physical disturbance

pressures on the seabed.

Methodological standards

Scale of assessment:

As used for assessment of the benthic broad habitat types

under Descriptors 1 and 6.

Use of criteria:

The outcomes of assessment of criterion D6C1 (the

distribution and an estimate of the extent of physical loss)

shall be used to assess criteria D6C4 and D7C1.

The outcomes of assessment of criterion D6C2 (the

distribution and an estimate of the extent of physical

disturbance pressures) shall be used to assess criterion

D6C3.

The outcomes of assessment of criterion D6C3 (an

estimate of the extent of adverse effect by physical

disturbance per habitat type in each assessment area) shall

contribute to the assessment of criterion D6C5.

D6C3

–

Primary:

Spatial extent of each habitat type which is adversely

affected, through change in its biotic and abiotic structure and

its functions (e.g. through changes in species composition and

Benthic broad habitat types or other

their relative abundance, absence of particularly sensitive or

habitat types, as used under Descriptors

fragile species or species providing a key function, size

1 and 6.

structure of species), by physical disturbance.

Member States shall establish threshold values for the adverse

effects of physical disturbance, through regional or

subregional cooperation.

Criteria D6C1, D6C2 and D6C3 relate only to the pressures 'physical loss' and 'physical disturbance' and their impacts, whilst criteria D6C4 and D6C5 address the

overall assessment of Descriptor 6, together with that for benthic habitats under Descriptor 1. Criteria D6C4 and D6C5 are presented under Part II of this Annex.

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment

Regarding methods for monitoring:

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

(a)

for D6C1, permanent changes to the seabed from different human activities shall be assessed (including permanent changes to natural

seabed substrate or morphology via physical restructuring, infrastructure developments and loss of substrate via extraction of the seabed

materials);

for D6C2, physical disturbances from different human activities shall be assessed (such as bottom-trawling fishing);

for coastal waters, the hydromorphology data and relevant assessments under Directive 2000/60/EC shall be used. Beyond coastal

waters, data may be collated from mapping of infrastructure and licensed extraction sites.

D6C1 is assessed as area lost in relation to total natural extent of all benthic habitats in the assessment area (e.g. by extent of

anthropogenic modification);

D6C3 is assessed in relation to total natural extent of each benthic habitat type assessed.

(b)

(c)

Regarding methods for assessment, the data shall be aggregated so that:

(a)

(b)

Physical loss shall be understood as a permanent change to the seabed which has lasted or is expected to last for a period of two reporting

cycles (12 years) or more.

Physical disturbance shall be understood as a change to the seabed from which it can recover if the activity causing the disturbance pressure

ceases.

For D6C3 species composition shall be understood to refer to the lowest taxonomic level appropriate for the assessment.

–

D6C1: extent of the assessment area physically lost in square kilometres (

D6C2: extent of the assessment area physically disturbed in square kilometres (

D6C3: extent of each habitat type adversely affected in square kilometres (

)

or as a proportion (percentage) of the total natural extent

of the habitat in the assessment area.

Units of measurement for the criteria:

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Descriptor 7

–

Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems

Relevant pressures: Physical loss (due to permanent change of seabed substrate or morphology or to extraction of seabed substrate); Changes to

hydrological conditions

Criteria, including criteria elements, and methodological standards

Criteria elements

Criteria

D7C1

–

Secondary:

Spatial extent and distribution of permanent alteration of

hydrographical conditions (e.g. changes in wave action,

currents, salinity, temperature) to the seabed and water

column, associated in particular with physical loss

of the

natural seabed.

D7C2

–

Secondary:

Spatial extent of each benthic habitat type adversely affected

(physical and hydrographical characteristics and associated

biological communities) due to permanent alteration of

hydrographical conditions.

Member States shall establish threshold values for the adverse

effects of permanent alterations of hydrographical conditions,

through regional or subregional cooperation.

Methodological standards

Scale of assessment:

As used for assessment of the benthic broad habitat types

under Descriptors 1 and 6.

Use of criteria:

The outcomes of assessment of criterion D7C1 (the

distribution and an estimate of the extent of

hydrographical changes) shall be used to assess criterion

D7C2.

The outcomes of assessment of criterion D7C2 (an

estimate of the extent of adverse effect per habitat type in

each assessment area) shall contribute to the assessment of

criterion D6C5.

Hydrographical changes to the seabed

and water column (including intertidal

areas).

Benthic broad habitats types or other

habitat types, as used for Descriptors 1

and 6.

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment

Regarding methods for monitoring and assessment:

(a)

(b)

Monitoring shall focus on changes associated with infrastructure developments, either on the coast or offshore.

Environmental impact assessment hydrodynamic models, where required, which are validated with ground-truth measurements, or other

suitable sources of information, shall be used to assess the extent of effects from each infrastructure development.

Physical loss shall be understood as under point 3 of the specifications under Descriptor 6.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

(c)

(a)

(b)

–

For coastal waters, the hydromorphology data and relevant assessments under Directive 2000/60/EC shall be used.

D7C1 is assessed in relation to total natural extent of all habitats in the assessment area;

D7C2 is assessed in relation to total natural extent of each benthic habitat type assessed.

D7C1: extent of the assessment area hydrographically altered in square kilometres (km

D7C2: extent of each habitat type adversely affected in square kilometres (km

) or as a proportion (percentage) of the total natural extent

of the habitat in the assessment area.

Regarding methods for assessment, the data shall be aggregated so that:

Units of measurement for the criteria:

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Descriptor 8

–

Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects

Relevant pressures: Input of other substances (e.g. synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides)

Criteria, including criteria elements, and methodological standards

Criteria elements

(1)

(a)

Within coastal and territorial

waters:

Contaminants selected in

accordance with Directive

2000/60/EC:

(i) contaminants for which an

environmental quality standard

is laid down in Part A of Annex

I to Directive 2008/105/EC;

(ii) River Basin Specific

Pollutants under Annex VIII to

Directive 2000/60/EC, in

coastal waters;

(b)

additional contaminants, if

relevant, such as from offshore

sources, which are not already

identified under point (a) and

which may give rise to pollution

effects in the region or

subregion. Member States shall

establish that list of

contaminants through regional

or subregional cooperation.

Beyond territorial waters:

the contaminants considered

Criteria

D8C1

–

Primary:

Within coastal and territorial waters, the concentrations of

contaminants do not exceed the following threshold values:

(a) for contaminants set out under point (1)(a) of criteria

elements, the values set in accordance with Directive

2000/60/EC;

(b) when contaminants under point (a) are measured in a

matrix for which no value is set under Directive

2000/60/EC, the concentration of those contaminants in

that matrix established by Member States through

regional or subregional cooperation;

of criteria elements, the concentrations for a specified

matrix (water, sediment or biota) which may give rise to

pollution effects. Member States shall establish these

concentrations through regional or subregional

cooperation, considering their application within and

beyond coastal and territorial waters.

Beyond territorial waters, the concentrations of contaminants

do not exceed the following threshold values:

(a) for contaminants selected under point (2)(a) of criteria

elements, the values as applicable within coastal and

territorial waters;

Methodological standards

Scale of assessment:

–

within coastal and territorial waters, as used under

Directive 2000/60/EC,

–

beyond territorial waters, subdivisions of the

region or subregion, divided where needed by

national boundaries.

Use of criteria:

The extent to which good environmental status has been

achieved shall be expressed for each area assessed as

follows:

(a) for each contaminant under criterion D8C1, its

concentration, the matrix used (water, sediment,

biota), whether the threshold values set have been

achieved, and the proportion of contaminants

assessed which have achieved the threshold

values, including indicating separately substances

behaving like ubiquitous persistent,

bioaccumulative and toxic substances (uPBTs), as

referred to in Article 8a(1)(a) of Directive

2008/105/EC;

(b) for each species assessed under criterion D8C2, an

estimate of the abundance of its population in the

assessment area that is adversely affected;

estimate of the extent in the assessment area that is

(2)

(a)

(b)

for contaminants selected under point (2)(b) of criteria

elements, the concentrations for a specified matrix

(water, sediment or biota) which may give rise to

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

(b)

Criteria elements

under point (1), where these still

may give rise to pollution

effects;

additional contaminants, if

relevant, which are not already

identified under point (2)(a) and

which may give rise to pollution

effects in the region or

subregion. Member States shall

establish that list of

contaminants through regional

or subregional cooperation.

Criteria

pollution effects. Member States shall establish these

concentrations through regional or subregional

cooperation.

Methodological standards

adversely affected.

The use of criterion D8C2 in the overall assessment of

good environmental status for Descriptor 8 shall be

agreed at regional or subregional level.

The outcomes of the assessment of criterion D8C2 shall

contribute to assessments under Descriptors 1 and 6,

where appropriate.

Species and habitats which are at risk

from contaminants.

Member States shall establish that list

of species, and relevant tissues to be

assessed, and habitats, through

regional or subregional cooperation.

D8C2

–

Secondary:

The health of species and the condition of habitats (such as

their species composition and relative abundance at locations

of chronic pollution) are not adversely affected due to

contaminants including cumulative and synergetic effects.

Member States shall establish those adverse effects and their

threshold values through regional or subregional cooperation.

Scale of assessment:

Regional or subregional level, divided where needed by

national boundaries.

Use of criteria:

The extent to which good environmental status has been

achieved shall be expressed for each area assessed as

follows:

–

an estimate of the total spatial extent of significant

Significant acute pollution events

involving polluting substances, as

defined in Article 2(2) of Directive

2005/35/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council

including crude oil and similar

compounds.

D8C3

–

Primary:

The spatial extent and duration of significant acute pollution

events are minimised.

Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties, including criminal

penalties, for pollution offences (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 11).

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Criteria elements

Criteria

Methodological standards

acute pollution events and their distribution and

total duration for each year.

This criterion shall be used to trigger assessment of

criterion D8C4.

Scale of assessment:

As used for assessment of the species groups or benthic

broad habitat types under Descriptors 1 and 6.

Use of criteria:

The outcomes of assessment of criterion D8C4 shall

contribute, where the cumulative spatial and temporal

effects are significant, to the assessments under

Descriptors 1 and 6 by providing:

(a) an estimate of the abundance of each species that

is adversely affected;

(b)

an estimate of the extent of each broad habitat

type that is adversely affected.

The use of criterion D8C4 in the overall assessment of

good environmental status for Descriptor 8 shall be

agreed at regional or subregional level.

Species of the species groups, as listed

under Table 1 of Part II, and benthic

broad habitat types, as listed under

Table 2 of Part II.

D8C4

–

Secondary (to be used when a significant acute

pollution event has occurred):

The adverse effects of significant acute pollution events on the

health of species and on the condition of habitats (such as their

species composition and relative abundance) are minimised

and, where possible, eliminated.

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment

For criteria elements under D8C1, the selection under points (1)(b) and (2)(b) of additional contaminants that may give rise to pollution effects

shall be based on a risk assessment. For these contaminants, the matrix and threshold values used for the assessment shall be representative of

the most sensitive species and exposure pathway, including hazards to human health via exposure through the food chain.

For the purposes of this Decision:

(a)

Criterion D8C1: for the assessment of contaminants in coastal and territorial waters, Member States shall monitor the contaminants in

accordance with the requirements of Directive 2000/60/EC and the assessments under that Directive shall be used where available.

Information on the pathways (atmospheric, land- or sea-based) for contaminants entering the marine environment shall be collected,

where feasible.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

(b)

(c)

(d)

Criteria D8C2 and D8C4: biomarkers or population demographic characteristics (e.g. fecundity rates, survival rates, mortality rates, and

reproductive capacity) may be relevant to assess the health effects.

Criteria D8C3 and D8C4: for the purposes of this Decision, monitoring is established as needed once the acute pollution event has

occurred, rather than being part of a regular monitoring programme under Article 11 of Directive 2008/56/EC.

Criterion D8C3: Member States shall identify the source of significant acute pollution events, where possible. They may use the

European Maritime Safety Agency satellite-based surveillance for this purpose.

Contaminants shall be understood to refer to single substances or to groups of substances. For consistency in reporting, the grouping of

substances shall be agreed at Union level.

Species composition shall be understood to refer to the lowest taxonomic level appropriate for the assessment.

–

D8C1: concentrations of contaminants in micrograms per litre (µg/l) for water, in micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg) of dry weight for

sediment and in micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg) of wet weight for biota,

D8C2: abundance (number of individuals or other suitable units as agreed at regional or subregional level) per species affected; extent in

square kilometres (km

) per broad habitat type affected,

D8C3: duration in days and spatial extent in square kilometres (km

) of significant acute pollution events per year,

D8C4: abundance (number of individuals or other suitable units as agreed at regional or subregional level) per species affected; extent in

square kilometres (km

) per broad habitat type affected.

Units of measurement for the criteria:

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Descriptor 9

–

Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by Union legislation or other

relevant standards

Relevant pressure: Input of hazardous substances

Criteria, including criteria elements, and methodological standards

Criteria elements

Contaminants listed in Regulation

(EC) No 1881/2006.

For the purposes of this Decision,

Member States may decide not to

consider contaminants from

Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 where

justified on the basis of a risk

assessment.

Member States may assess additional

contaminants that are not included in

Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006.

Member States shall establish a list of

those additional contaminants through

regional or subregional cooperation.

Member States shall establish the list

of species and relevant tissues to be

assessed, according to the conditions

laid down under 'specifications'. They

may cooperate at regional or

subregional level to establish that list

of species and relevant tissues.

Criteria

Methodological standards

D9C1

–

Primary:

The level of contaminants in edible tissues (muscle, liver,

roe, flesh or other soft parts, as appropriate) of seafood

(including fish, crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms, seaweed

and other marine plants) caught or harvested in the wild

(excluding fin-fish from mariculture) does not exceed:

(a) for contaminants listed in Regulation (EC) No

1881/2006, the maximum levels laid down in that

Regulation, which are the threshold values for the

purposes of this Decision;

(b) for additional contaminants, not listed in Regulation

(EC) No 1881/2006, threshold values, which Member

States shall establish through regional or subregional

cooperation.

Scale of assessment:

The catch or production area in accordance with Article

38 of Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013

of the European

Parliament and of the Council

Use of criteria:

The extent to which good environmental status has been

achieved shall be expressed for each area assessed as

follows:

–

for each contaminant, its concentration in seafood,

the matrix used (species and tissue), whether the

threshold values set have been achieved, and the

proportion of contaminants assessed which have

achieved their threshold values.

Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture

products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 1).

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment

When Member States establish the list of species to be used under D9C1, the species shall:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

be relevant to the marine region or subregion concerned;

fall under the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006;

be suitable for the contaminant being assessed;

be among the most consumed in the Member State or the most caught or harvested for consumption.

Exceedance of the standard set for a contaminant shall lead to subsequent monitoring to determine the persistence of the contamination in the

area and species sampled. Monitoring shall continue until there is sufficient evidence that there is no risk of failure.

For the purposes of this Decision, the sampling for the assessment of the maximum levels of contaminants shall be performed in accordance

with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council

and with Commission Regulation (EU) No

589/2014

and Commission Regulation (EC) No 333/2007

Within each region or subregion, Member States shall ensure that the temporal and geographical scope of sampling is adequate to provide a

representative sample of the specified contaminants in seafood in the marine region or subregion.

–

D9C1: concentrations of contaminants in the units set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006.

Units of measurement for the criteria:

Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with

feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

Commission Regulation (EU) No 589/2014 of 2 June 2014 laying down methods of sampling and analysis for the control of levels of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-

dioxin-like PCBs in certain foodstuffs and repealing Regulation (EU) No 252/2012 (OJ L 164, 3.6.2014, p. 18).

Commission Regulation (EC) No 333/2007 of 28 March 2007 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of the levels of lead, cadmium,

mercury, inorganic tin, 3-MCPD and benzo(a)pyrene in foodstuffs (OJ L 88, 29.3.2007, p. 29).

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Descriptor 10

–

Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment

Relevant pressure: Input of litter

Criteria, including criteria elements, and methodological standards

Criteria elements

Litter (excluding micro-litter),

classified in the following categories

artificial polymer materials, rubber,

cloth/textile, paper/cardboard,

processed/worked wood, metal,

glass/ceramics, chemicals, undefined,

and food waste.

Member States may define further sub-

categories.

Criteria

D10C1

–

Primary:

The composition, amount and spatial distribution of litter on

the coastline, in the surface layer of the water column, and on

the seabed, are at levels that do not cause harm to the coastal

and marine environment.

Member States shall establish threshold values for these

levels through cooperation at Union level, taking into account

regional or subregional specificities.

D10C2

–

Primary:

The composition, amount and spatial distribution of micro-

litter on the coastline, in the surface layer of the water

column, and in seabed sediment, are at levels that do not

cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.

Member States shall establish threshold values for these

levels through cooperation at Union level, taking into account

regional or subregional specificities.

D10C3

–

Secondary:

The amount of litter and micro-litter ingested by marine

animals is at a level that does not adversely affect the health

of the species concerned.

Member States shall establish threshold values for these

Methodological standards

Micro-litter (particles < 5mm),

classified in the categories 'artificial

polymer materials' and 'other'.

Litter and micro-litter classified in the

categories 'artificial polymer materials'

and 'other', assessed in any species

from the following groups: birds,

mammals, reptiles, fish or

Scale of assessment:

Subdivisions of the region or subregion, divided where

needed by national boundaries.

Use of criteria:

The extent to which good environmental status has been

achieved shall be expressed for each criterion separately

for each area assessed as follows:

(a) the outcomes for each criterion (amount of litter or

micro-litter per category) and its distribution per

matrix used under D10C1 and D10C2 and whether

the threshold values set have been achieved.

(b) the outcomes for D10C3 (amount of litter and

micro-litter per category per species) and whether

the threshold values set have been achieved.

The use of criteria D10C1, D10C2 and D10C3 in the

overall assessment of good environmental status for

Descriptor 10 shall be agreed at Union level.

The outcomes of criterion D10C3 shall also contribute to

assessments under Descriptor 1, where appropriate.

These are the "Level 1

–

Material" categories from the Master List of categories of litter items from the Joint Research Centre "Guidance on Monitoring of marine litter in

European seas" (2013, ISBN 978-92-79-32709-4). The Master List specifies what is covered under each category, for instance "Chemicals" refers to paraffin, wax, oil and

tar.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Criteria elements

invertebrates.

Member States shall establish that list

of species to be assessed through

regional or subregional cooperation.

Criteria

levels through regional or subregional cooperation.

Methodological standards

Species of birds, mammals, reptiles,

fish or invertebrates which are at risk

from litter.

Member States shall establish that list

of species to be assessed through

regional or subregional cooperation.

D10C4

–

Secondary:

The number of individuals of each species which are

adversely affected due to litter, such as by entanglement,

other types of injury or mortality, or health effects.

Member States shall establish threshold values for the

adverse effects of litter, through regional or subregional

cooperation.

Scale of assessment:

As used for assessment of the species group under

Descriptor 1.

Use of criteria:

The extent to which good environmental status has been

achieved shall be expressed for each area assessed as

follows:

–

for each species assessed under criterion D10C4, an

estimate of the number of individuals in the

assessment area that have been adversely affected.

The use of criterion D10C4 in the overall assessment of

good environmental status for Descriptor 10 shall be

agreed at Union level.

The outcomes of this criterion shall also contribute to

assessments under Descriptor 1, where appropriate.

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment

For D10C1: litter shall be monitored on the coastline and may additionally be monitored in the surface layer of the water column and on the

seabed. Information on the source and pathway of the litter shall be collected, where feasible;

For D10C2: micro-litter shall be monitored in the surface layer of the water column and in the seabed sediment and may additionally be

monitored on the coastline. Micro-litter shall be monitored in a manner that can be related to point-sources for inputs (such as harbours,

marinas, waste-water treatment plants, storm-water effluents), where feasible.

For D10C3 and D10C4: the monitoring may be based on incidental occurrences (e.g. strandings of dead animals, entangled animals in

breeding colonies, affected individuals per survey).

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Units of measurement for the criteria:

–

D10C1: amount of litter per category in number of items:

–

per 100 metres (m) on the coastline,

per square kilometre (km

) for surface layer of the water column and for seabed,

per square metre (m

) for surface layer of the water column,

per kilogram (dry weight) (kg) of sediment for the coastline and for seabed,

D10C2: amount of micro-litter per category in number of items and weight in grams (g):

D10C3: amount of litter/micro-litter in grams (g) and number of items per individual for each species in relation to size (weight or

length, as appropriate) of the individual sampled,

D10C4: number of individuals affected (lethal; sub-lethal) per species.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Descriptor 11

–

Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment

Relevant pressures: Input of anthropogenic sound; Input of other forms of energy

Criteria, including criteria elements, and methodological standards

Criteria elements

Criteria

Methodological standards

Scale of assessment:

Region, subregion or subdivisions.

Use of criteria:

The extent to which good environmental status has been

achieved shall be expressed for each area assessed as

follows:

(a) for D11C1, the duration per calendar year of

impulsive sound sources, their distribution within

the year and spatially within the assessment area,

and whether the threshold values set have been

achieved;

(b) for D11C2, the annual average of the sound level,

or other suitable temporal metric agreed at regional

or subregional level, per unit area and its spatial

distribution within the assessment area, and the

extent (%, km

) of the assessment area over which

the threshold values set have been achieved.

The use of criteria D11C1 and D11C2 in the assessment

of good environmental status for Descriptor 11 shall be

agreed at Union level.

The outcomes of these criteria shall also contribute to

assessments under Descriptor 1.

Anthropogenic impulsive sound in

water.

D11C1

–

Primary:

The spatial distribution, temporal extent, and levels of

anthropogenic impulsive sound sources do not exceed levels

that adversely affect populations of marine animals.

Member States shall establish threshold values for these

levels through cooperation at Union level, taking into account

regional or subregional specificities.

Anthropogenic continuous low-

frequency sound in water.

D11C2

–

Primary:

The spatial distribution, temporal extent and levels of

anthropogenic continuous low-frequency sound do not

exceed levels that adversely affect populations of marine

animals.

Member States shall establish threshold values for these

levels through cooperation at Union level, taking into account

regional or subregional specificities.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment

For D11C1 monitoring:

(a)

(b)

Spatial resolution: geographical locations whose shape and areas are to be determined at regional or subregional level, on the basis of,

for instance, activities listed in Annex III to Directive 2008/56/EC.

Impulsive sound described as monopole energy source level in units of dB re 1!Pa

s or zero to peak monopole source level in units of

dB re 1!Pa m, both over the

frequency band 10 Hz to 10 kHz. Member States may consider other specific sources with higher frequency

bands if longer-range effects are considered relevant.

For D11C2 monitoring:

Annual average, or other suitable metric agreed at regional or subregional

level, of the squared sound pressure in each of two ‘1/3-octave

bands', one centred at 63 Hz and the other at 125 Hz, expressed as a level in decibels in units of dB re 1!Pa, at a suitable

spatial resolution in

relation to the pressure. This may be measured directly, or inferred from a model used to interpolate between, or extrapolated from,

measurements. Member States may also decide at regional or subregional level to monitor for additional frequency bands.

Criteria relating to other forms of energy input (including thermal energy, electromagnetic fields and light) and criteria relating to the environmental

impacts of noise are still subject to further development.

Units of measurement for the criteria:

–

D11C1: Number of days per quarter (or per month if appropriate) with impulsive sound sources; proportion (percentage) of unit areas or

extent in square kilometres (km

) of assessment area with impulsive sound sources per year,

D11C2: Annual average (or other temporal metric) of continuous sound level per unit area; proportion (percentage) or extent in square

kilometres (km

) of assessment area with sound levels exceeding threshold values.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

PART II

–

RITERIA AND METHODOLOGICAL STANDARDS

SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDISED METHODS FOR MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF

ESSENTIAL FEATURES AND CHARACTERISTICS AND CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS OF MARINE WATERS UNDER POINT

(

)

RTICLE

8(1)

IRECTIVE

2008/56/EC

Part II considers the descriptors linked to the relevant ecosystem elements: species groups of birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods

(Descriptor 1), pelagic habitats (Descriptor 1), benthic habitats (Descriptors 1 and 6) and ecosystems, including food webs (Descriptors 1 and 4), as

listed in Annex III to Directive 2008/56/EC

Theme: Species groups of birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods (relating to Descriptor 1)

Criteria, including criteria elements, and methodological standards

Criteria elements

Species of birds, mammals, reptiles

and non-commercially-exploited

species of fish and cephalopods, which

are at risk from incidental by-catch in

the region or subregion.

Member States shall establish that list

of species through regional or

subregional cooperation, pursuant to

the obligations laid down in Article

25(5) of Regulation (EU) No

1380/2013 for data collection activities

and taking into account the list of

species in Table 1D of the Annex to

Commission Implementing Decision

(EU) 2016/1251

Criteria

Methodological standards

D1C1

–

Primary:

The mortality rate per species from incidental by-catch is

below levels which threaten the species, such that its long-

term viability is ensured.

Member States shall establish the threshold values for the

mortality rate from incidental by-catch per species, through

regional or subregional cooperation.

Scale of assessment:

As used for assessment of the corresponding species or

species groups under criteria D1C2-D1C5.

Use of criteria:

The extent to which good environmental status has been

achieved shall be expressed for each area assessed as

follows:

–

the mortality rate per species and whether this has

achieved the threshold value set.

This criterion shall contribute to assessment of the

corresponding species under criterion D1C2.

Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 may be used for the collection of relevant fisheries-related data under Descriptors 1, 4 and 6.

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1251 of 12 July 2016 adopting a multiannual Union programme for the collection, management and use of data in the

fisheries and aquaculture sectors for the period 2017-2019 (OJ L 207, 1.8.2016, p. 113).

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Criteria elements

Criteria

D1C2

–

Primary:

The population abundance of the species is not adversely

affected due to anthropogenic pressures, such that its long-

term viability is ensured.

Member States shall establish threshold values for each

species through regional or subregional cooperation, taking

account of natural variation in population size and the

mortality rates derived from D1C1, D8C4 and D10C4 and

other relevant pressures. For species covered by Directive

92/43/EEC, these values shall be consistent with the

Favourable Reference Population values established by the

relevant Member States under Directive 92/43/EEC.

D1C3

–

Primary for commercially-exploited fish and

cephalopods and secondary for other species:

The population demographic characteristics (e.g. body size or

age class structure, sex ratio, fecundity, and survival rates) of

the species are indicative of a healthy population which is not

adversely affected due to anthropogenic pressures.

Member States shall establish threshold values for specified

characteristics of each species through regional or

subregional cooperation, taking account of adverse effects on

their health derived from D8C2, D8C4 and other relevant

pressures.

D1C4

–

Primary for species covered by Annexes II, IV or V

to Directive 92/43/EEC and secondary for other species:

The species distributional range and, where relevant, pattern

is in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and

climatic conditions.

Member States shall establish threshold values for each

species through regional or subregional cooperation. For

Methodological standards

Scale of assessment:

Ecologically-relevant scales for each species group shall

be used, as follows:

–

for deep-diving toothed cetaceans, baleen whales,

deep-sea fish: region;

–

for birds, small toothed cetaceans, pelagic and

demersal shelf fish: region or subdivisions for

Baltic Sea and Black Sea; subregion for North-East

Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea;

–

for seals, turtles, cephalopods: region or

subdivisions for Baltic Sea; subregion for North-

East Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea;

–

for coastal fish: subdivision of region or subregion.

–

for commercially-exploited fish and cephalopods:

as used under Descriptor 3.

Use of criteria:

The status of each species shall be assessed individually,

on the basis of the criteria selected for use, and these shall

be used to express the extent to which good environmental

status has been achieved for each species group for each

area assessed, as follows:

(a) the assessments shall express the value(s) for each

criterion used per species and whether these achieve

the threshold values set;

(b) the overall status of species covered by Directive

92/43/EEC shall be derived using the method

provided under that Directive. The overall status for

commercially-exploited species shall be as assessed

under Descriptor 3. For other species, the overall

status shall be derived using a method agreed at

Species groups, as listed under Table 1

and if present in the region or

subregion.

Member States shall establish a set of

species representative of each species

group, selected according to the

criteria laid down under ‘specifications

for the selection of species and

habitats’, through regional or

subregional cooperation. These shall

include the mammals and reptiles

listed in Annex II to Directive

92/43/EEC and may include any other

species, such as those listed under

Union legislation (other Annexes to

Directive 92/43/EEC, Directive

2009/147/EC or through Regulation

(EU) No 1380/2013) and international

agreements such as Regional Sea

Conventions.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Criteria elements

Criteria

species covered by Directive 92/43/EEC, these shall be

consistent with the Favourable Reference Range values

established by the relevant Member States under Directive

92/43/EEC.

D1C5

–

Primary for species covered by Annexes II, IV and V

to Directive 92/43/EEC and secondary for other species:

The habitat for the species has the necessary extent and

condition to support the different stages in the life history of

the species.

Methodological standards

Union level, taking into account regional or

subregional specificities;

(c)

the overall status of the species group, using a

method agreed at Union level, taking into account

regional or subregional specificities.

Criteria elements

Table 1

–

Species groups

Ecosystem component

Species groups

Grazing birds

Wading birds

Birds

Surface-feeding birds

Pelagic-feeding birds

Benthic-feeding birds

Small toothed cetaceans

Mammals

Deep-diving toothed cetaceans

Baleen whales

Seals

Relevant fisheries-related data should be used in application of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Ecosystem component

Reptiles

Turtles

Coastal fish

Fish

Species groups

Pelagic shelf fish

Demersal shelf fish

Deep-sea fish

Cephalopods

Coastal/shelf cephalopods

Deep-sea cephalopods

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment relating to theme "Species groups of marine birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and

cephalopods"

For D1C1, data shall be provided per species per fishing metier for each ICES area or GFCM Geographical Sub-Area or FAO fishing areas for

the Macaronesian biogeographic region, to enable its aggregation to the relevant scale for the species concerned, and to identify the particular

fisheries and fishing gear most contributing to incidental catches for each species.

'Coastal' shall be understood on the basis of physical, hydrological and ecological parameters and is not limited to coastal water as defined in

Article 2(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC.

Species may be assessed at population level, where appropriate.

Wherever possible, the assessments under Directive 92/43/EEC, Directive 2009/147/EC and Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 shall be used for

the purposes of this Decision:

(a)

(b)

(c)

for birds, criteria D1C2 and D1C4 equate to the ‘population size’ and ‘breeding distribution map

and

range size’ criteria of Directive

2009/147/EC;

for mammals, reptiles and non-commercial fish, the criteria are equivalent to those used under Directive 92/43/EEC as follows: D1C2

and D1C3 equate to ‘population’, D1C4 equates to ‘range’ and D1C5 equates to ‘habitat for the species’;

for commercially-exploited fish and cephalopods, assessments under Descriptor 3 shall be used for Descriptor 1 purposes, using

criterion D3C2 for D1C2 and criterion D3C3 for D1C3.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Assessments of the adverse effects from pressures under criteria D1C1, D2C3, D3C1, D8C2, D8C4 and D10C4, as well as the assessments of

pressures under criteria D9C1, D10C3, D11C1 and D11C2, shall be taken into account in the assessments of species under Descriptor 1.

–

D1C2: abundance (number of individuals or biomass in tonnes (t)) per species.

Units of measurement for the criteria:

Theme: Pelagic habitats (relating to Descriptor 1)

Criteria, including criteria elements, and methodological standards

Criteria elements

Pelagic broad habitat types (variable

salinity

, coastal, shelf and

oceanic/beyond shelf), if present in the

region or subregion, and other habitat

types as defined in the second

paragraph.

Member States may select, through

regional or subregional cooperation,

additional habitat types according to

the criteria laid down under

'specifications for the selection of

species and habitats'.

Criteria

D1C6

–

Primary:

The condition of the habitat type, including its biotic and

abiotic structure and its functions (e.g. its typical species

composition and their relative abundance, absence of

particularly sensitive or fragile species or species providing a

key function, size structure of species), is not adversely

affected due to anthropogenic pressures.

Member States shall establish threshold values for the

condition of each habitat type, ensuring compatibility with

related values set under Descriptors 2, 5 and 8, through

regional or subregional cooperation.

Methodological standards

Scale of assessment:

Subdivision of region or subregion as used for assessments

of benthic broad habitat types, reflecting biogeographic

differences in species composition of the habitat type.

Use of criteria:

The extent to which good environmental status has been

achieved shall be expressed for each area assessed as:

(a)

an estimate of the proportion and extent of each

habitat type assessed that has achieved the threshold

value set;

a list of broad habitat types in the assessment area

that were not assessed.

(b)

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment relating to theme "Pelagic habitats"

'Coastal' shall be understood on the basis of physical, hydrological and ecological parameters and is not limited to coastal water as defined in

Article 2(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC.

Retained for situations where estuarine plumes extend beyond waters designated as Transitional Waters under Directive 2000/60/EC.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Assessments of the adverse effects from pressures, including under D2C3, D5C2, D5C3, D5C4, D7C1, D8C2 and D8C4, shall be taken into

account in the assessments of pelagic habitats under Descriptor 1.

–

D1C6: extent of habitat adversely affected in square kilometres (km

) and as a proportion (percentage) of the total extent of the habitat

type.

Units of measurement for the criteria:

Theme: Benthic habitats (relating to Descriptors 1 and 6)

Criteria, including criteria elements, and methodological standards

Criteria elements

Refer to Part I of this Annex for criteria D6C1, D6C2 and D6C3.

Benthic broad habitat types as listed in

Table 2 and if present in the region or

subregion, and other habitat types as

defined in the second paragraph.

Member States may select, through

regional or subregional cooperation,

additional habitat types, according to

the criteria laid down under

‘specifications

for the selection of

species and habitats’, and which may

include habitat types listed under

Directive 92/43/EEC or international

agreements such as Regional Sea

Conventions, for the purposes of:

(a) assessing each broad habitat type

under criterion D6C5;

(b)

assessing these habitat types

D6C4

–

Primary:

The extent of loss of the habitat type, resulting from

anthropogenic pressures, does not exceed a specified

proportion of the natural extent of the habitat type in the

assessment area.

Member States shall establish the maximum allowable extent

of habitat loss as a proportion of the total natural extent of the

habitat type, through cooperation at Union level, taking into

account regional or subregional specificities.

D6C5

–

Primary:

The extent of adverse effects from anthropogenic pressures on

the condition of the habitat type, including alteration to its

biotic and abiotic structure and its functions (e.g. its typical

species composition and their relative abundance, absence of

particularly sensitive or fragile species or species providing a

key function, size structure of species), does not exceed a

specified proportion of the natural extent of the habitat type in

the assessment area.

Scale of assessment:

Subdivision of region or subregion, reflecting

biogeographic differences in species composition of the

broad habitat type.

Use of criteria:

A single assessment per habitat type, using criteria D6C4

and D6C5, shall serve the purpose of assessments of both

benthic habitats under Descriptor 1 and sea-floor integrity

under Descriptor 6.

The extent to which good environmental status has been

achieved shall be expressed for each area assessed as:

(a) for D6C4, an estimate of the proportion and extent

of loss per habitat type and whether this has

achieved the extent value set;

(b) for D6C5, an estimate of the proportion and extent

of adverse effects, including the proportion lost from

point (a), per habitat type and whether this has

achieved the extent value set;

Criteria

Methodological standards

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Criteria elements

A single set of habitat types shall serve

the purpose of assessments of both

benthic habitats under Descriptor 1 and

sea-floor integrity under Descriptor 6.

Criteria

Member States shall establish threshold values for adverse

effects on the condition of each habitat type, ensuring

compatibility with related values set under Descriptors 2, 5, 6,

7 and 8, through cooperation at Union level, taking into

account regional or subregional specificities.

Member States shall establish the maximum allowable extent

of those adverse effects as a proportion of the total natural

extent of the habitat type, through cooperation at Union level,

taking into account regional or subregional specificities.

(c)

Methodological standards

overall status of the habitat type, using a method

agreed at Union level based on points (a) and (b),

and a list of broad habitat types in the assessment

area that were not assessed.

Criteria elements

Table 2

–

Benthic broad habitat types including their associated biological communities (relevant for criteria under Descriptors 1 and 6),

which equate to one or more habitat types of the European nature information system (EUNIS) habitat classification

. Updates to the EUNIS

typology shall be reflected in the broad habitat types used for the purposes of Directive 2008/56/EC and of this Decision.

Ecosystem component

Broad habitat types

Littoral rock and biogenic reef

Littoral sediment

Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef

Benthic habitats

Infralittoral coarse sediment

Infralittoral mixed sediment

Infralittoral sand

Infralittoral mud

Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef

Relevant EUNIS habitat codes (version 2016)

MA1, MA2

MA3, MA4, MA5, MA6

MB1, MB2

MB3

MB4

MB5

MB6

MC1, MC2

Evans, D. (2016). Revising the marine section of the EUNIS Habitat classification - Report of a workshop held at the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, 12 &

13 May 2016. ETC/BD Working Paper N° A/2016.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Ecosystem component

Broad habitat types

Circalittoral coarse sediment

Circalittoral mixed sediment

Circalittoral sand

Circalittoral mud

Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef

Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment

Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment

Offshore circalittoral sand

Offshore circalittoral mud

Upper bathyal

rock and biogenic reef

Upper bathyal sediment

Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef

Lower bathyal sediment

Abyssal

Relevant EUNIS habitat codes (version 2016)

MC3

MC4

MC5

MC6

MD1, MD2

MD3

MD4

MD5

MD6

ME1, ME2

ME3, ME4, ME5, ME6

MF1, MF2

MF3, MF4, MF5, MF6

MG1, MG2, MG3, MG4, MG5, MG6

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment relating to theme "Benthic habitats"

The status of each habitat type shall be assessed using assessments (such as of sub-types of the broad habitat types) under Directive

92/43/EEC and Directive 2000/60/EC, wherever possible.

Assessment of criterion D6C4 shall use the assessment made under criterion D6C1.

Criteria D6C4 and D6C5 equate to the

‘range/area covered by habitat type within range’ and ‘specific structures and functions’ criteria of

Directive 92/43/EEC.

Where not specifically defined in the EUNIS classification, the boundary between the upper bathyal and lower bathyal may be set as a specified depth limit.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

For D6C5, assessments of the adverse effects from pressures, including under criteria D2C3, D3C1, D3C2, D3C3, D5C4, D5C5, D5C6,

D5C7, D5C8, D6C3, D7C2, D8C2 and D8C4, shall be taken into account.

For D6C5, species composition shall be understood to refer to the lowest taxonomic level appropriate for the assessment.

–

D6C4: extent of habitat loss in square kilometres (km

) and as a proportion (percentage) of the total extent of the habitat type,

D6C5: extent of habitat adversely affected in square kilometres (km

) and as a proportion (percentage) of the total extent of the habitat

type.

Units of measurement for the criteria:

Specifications for the selection of species and habitats under Themes "Species groups of marine birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods",

"Pelagic habitats" and "Benthic habitats"

The selection of species and habitats to be assigned to the species groups and pelagic and benthic broad habitat types shall be based on the following:

Scientific criteria (ecological relevance):

(a)

representative of the ecosystem component (species group or broad habitat type), and of ecosystem functioning (e.g. connectivity

between habitats and populations, completeness and integrity of essential habitats), being relevant for assessment of state/impacts, such

as having a key functional role within the component (e.g. high or specific biodiversity, productivity, trophic link, specific resource or

service) or particular life history traits (age and size at breeding, longevity, migratory traits);

relevant for assessment of a key anthropogenic pressure to which the ecosystem component is exposed, being sensitive to the pressure

and exposed to it (vulnerable) in the assessment area;

present in sufficient numbers or extent in the assessment area to be able to construct a suitable indicator for assessment;

the set of species or habitats selected shall cover, as far as possible, the full range of ecological functions of the ecosystem component

and the predominant pressures to which the component is subject;

if species of species groups are closely associated to a particular broad habitat type they may be included within that habitat type for

monitoring and assessment purposes; in such cases, the species shall not be included in the assessment of the species group.

monitoring/technical feasibility;

monitoring costs;

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Additional practical criteria (which shall not override the scientific criteria):

(a)

(b)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

(c)

adequate time series of the data.

The representative set of species and habitats to be assessed are likely to be specific to the region or subregion, although certain species may occur in

several regions or subregions.

Theme: Ecosystems, including food webs (relating to Descriptors 1 and 4)

Criteria, including criteria elements, and methodological standards

Criteria elements

Criteria

D4C1

–

Primary:

The diversity (species composition and their relative

abundance) of the trophic guild is not adversely affected due

to anthropogenic pressures.

Member States shall establish threshold values through

regional or subregional cooperation.

D4C2

–

Primary:

The balance of total abundance between the trophic guilds is

not adversely affected due to anthropogenic pressures.

Member States shall establish threshold values through

regional or subregional cooperation.

D4C3

–

Secondary:

The size distribution of individuals across the trophic guild is

not adversely affected due to anthropogenic pressures.

Member States shall establish threshold values through

regional or subregional cooperation.

D4C4

–

Secondary (to be used in support of criterion D4C2,

where necessary):

Productivity of the trophic guild is not adversely affected due

to anthropogenic pressures.

Scale of assessment:

Regional level for Baltic Sea and Black Sea; subregional

level for North-East Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea.

Subdivisions may be used where appropriate.

Use of criteria:

Where values do not fall within the threshold values, this

may trigger further research and investigation to

understand the causes for the failure.

Methodological standards

Trophic guilds of an ecosystem.

Member States shall establish the list

of trophic guilds through regional or

subregional cooperation.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Criteria elements

Criteria

Member States shall establish threshold values through

regional or subregional cooperation.

Methodological standards

Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment

Species composition shall be understood to refer to the lowest taxonomic level appropriate for the assessment.

The trophic guilds selected under criteria elements shall take into account the ICES list of trophic guilds

and shall meet the following

conditions:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

–

include at least three trophic guilds;

two shall be non-fish trophic guilds;

at least one shall be a primary producer trophic guild;

preferably represent at least the top, middle and bottom of the food chain.

D4C2: total abundance (number of individuals or biomass in tonnes (t)) across all species within the trophic guild.

Units of measurement:

ICES Advice (2015) Book 1, ICES special request advice, published 20 March 2015.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

meeting of MSFD Committee

10 November 2016, Brussels

Revision of Decision 2010/477/EU

and MSFD Annex III

Information on outcome of

Feedback Mechanism

European Commission

DG Environment

Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Feedback mechanism

•

Draft Commission proposals for the GES Decision and Annex III

•

were subject to feedback mechanism, as part of Commission's

better regulation agenda to listen to views of citizens and stakeholders

•

Feedback period: 14 September to 12 October 2016

•

Commission informed Committee and MSCG members

•

All responses can be found here:

•

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/share-your-views_en

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

MSFD Annex III

No. of responses

Comments

In total 8 responses

Response attributed to BE is from an international organisation

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Main comments received

•

To amend parameters in Table 1

•

To remove list of anthropogenic activities

•

Some drafting proposals

•

Note:

Some responses where not relevant to Annex III but rather

referred to the GES Decision proposal

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Main changes following feedback mechanism

(text uploaded on 26/10 on circabc for the vote)

•

Table 1:

"concentration" added after chlorophyll a

"shifts" replaced by "structure"

•

In Table 2a:

Improved alignment with GES decision D3

delete

"including target and non-target species"

"hazardous" changed into "other substances"

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

GES decision

No. of responses

AU BE CH DE DK FR

SE SL UK

Comments

In total 34 responses

- 2 responses were providing corrected links to their first reply

- 1 respondent split reply into two parts

Some responses attributed to BE are from international organisations

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Main comments received

14 similar responses from environmental NGOs:

include safeguard mechanism for setting threshold values

(TVs),

include control mechanism in case MS do not use secondary

criteria

ensure full coherence with EU policies and objectives

object to maximum allowable extent of habitat loss

Need to take into consideration regional/national characteristics

Not use RSCs as forum to establish TVs

Reduce number of criteria

Involve subregional stakeholders in development of TVs

Premature to include integration rules

Some drafting proposals, add units of measurements

•

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Main changes following feedback mechanism

(text uploaded on 26/10 on circabc for the vote)

•

Clearer consistency with other Union legislation

Recital 13 and

Article 4(1)(b) amended

•

Improved alignment of wording on RSCs with MSFD

Article 4(1)(j)

amended

•

Guiding principles for interim national threshold values

Article 4(2)

amended

•

additions to the units of measurement in Annex

•

Annex Part II: clarify that DCF should be used for fisheries related

data

footnote added

•

D1C1: better ensure long-term viability of species

criterion

amended in Annex

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

CTTEE_15-2016-01_rev

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

ENVIRONMENT

Directorate C - Quality of Life

ENV.C.2 - Marine Environment & Water Industry

EETING OF THE

OMMITTEE UNDER

RTICLE

IRECTIVE

2008/56/EC

ARINE

TRATEGY

OMMITTEE

)

HURSDAY

10 N

OVEMBER

2016 (09:00 ! 12:30)

Conference Centre Albert Borschette (CCAB) - Room 4D

36, Rue Froissart - B-1040 Brussels

RAFT

GENDA

Time

09:00

09:10

09:15

09:20

Item

Agenda item

Welcome and introduction

Adoption of the agenda

Adoption of the minutes of the

14th meeting of the Committee

Information on outcome of

feedback mechanism

Draft Commission Decision laying

down criteria and methodological

standards on GES of marine

waters and specifications and

standardised methods for

monitoring and assessment, and

repealing Decision 2010/477/EU

Draft Commission Directive

amending Directive 2008/56/EC

as regards the indicative lists of

elements to be taken into

account for the preparation of

marine strategies [MSFD Annex

III]

Map and boundaries of MSFD

marine regions and subregions

MPAs in the context of BBNJ

Any other business

Close of the meeting

Action

Adoption

Item for

information

Adoption

Report

COM

Document

CTTEE_15-2016-

09:30

COM

CTTEE_15-2016-

10:45

Adoption

COM

CTTEE_15-2016-

11:30

12:00

12:15

12:30

Item for

information

Item for

information

Items for

information

CTTEE_15-2016-

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

EUROPA-

KOMMISSIONEN

Bruxelles, den

XXX

[…](2016)

XXX

draft

KOMMISSIONENS AFGØRELSE (EU) …/…

XXX

om fastlæggelse af kriterier og metodiske standarder for god miljøtilstand i havområder

samt specifikationer og standardmetoder for overvågning og vurdering og om

ophævelse af afgørelse 2010/477/EU

(EØS-relevant tekst)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

KOMMISSIONENS AFGØRELSE (EU) …/…

XXX

om fastlæggelse af kriterier og metodiske standarder for god miljøtilstand i havområder

samt specifikationer og standardmetoder for overvågning og vurdering og om

ophævelse af afgørelse 2010/477/EU

(EØS-relevant tekst)

EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR

—

under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,

under henvisning til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2008/56/EF af 17. juni 2008 om

fastlæggelse af en ramme for Fællesskabets havmiljøpolitiske foranstaltninger

(havstrategirammedirektivet)

, særlig artikel 9, stk. 3, og artikel 11, stk. 4, og

ud fra følgende betragtninger:

(1)

Ved Kommissionens afgørelse 2010/477/EU

har Kommissionen fastlagt de kriterier,

som medlemsstaterne skal anvende for at beskrive en god miljøtilstand for deres

havområder og som udgangspunkt for deres vurdering af denne tilstand i den første

fase af gennemførelsen af direktiv 2008/56/EF.

I afgørelse 2010/477/EU anerkendtes det, at der var brug for yderligere videnskabelige

og tekniske fremskridt for at støtte videreudviklingen eller revisionen af disse kriterier

for visse kvalitative deskriptorer og yderligere udvikling af de metodiske standarder

under tæt samordning med etableringen af overvågningsprogrammer. I afgørelsen

anførte Kommissionen desuden, at denne revision bør gennemføres så hurtigt som

muligt efter afsluttet vurdering i henhold til artikel 12 i direktiv 2008/56/EF og

rettidigt med henblik på at støtte en vellykket opdatering af havstrategierne, der i

henhold til artikel 17 i direktiv 2008/56/EF skal gennemføres inden 2018.

På grundlag af den indledende vurdering af deres havområder, der er gennemført i

henhold til artikel 8, stk. 1, i direktiv 2008/56/EF, rapporterede medlemsstaterne i

2012 om miljøtilstanden for deres havområder og meddelte Kommissionen deres

beskrivelse af en god miljøtilstand og deres miljømål i henhold til henholdsvis artikel

9, stk. 2, og artikel 10, stk. 2, i direktiv 2008/56/EF. Kommissionen fremhævede i sin

vurdering

af disse rapporter fra medlemsstaterne, som den gennemførte i henhold til

artikel 12 i direktiv 2008/56/EF, at der omgående var behov for en yderligere indsats,

hvis medlemsstaterne skal opnå god miljøtilstand inden 2020. Ifølge resultaterne er der

behov for i betydelig grad at forbedre kvaliteten af og sammenhængen i

medlemsstaternes beskrivelser af en god miljøtilstand. I vurderingen anerkendtes det

EUT L 164 af 25.6.2008, s. 19.

Kommissionens afgørelse 2010/477/EU af 1. september 2010 om kriterier og metodiske standarder for

god miljøtilstand i havområder (EUT L 232 af 2.9.2010, s. 14).

Rapport fra Kommissionen til Rådet og Europa-Parlamentet

–

Første fase af gennemførelsen af

havstrategirammedirektivet (2008/56/EF)

–

Europa-Kommissionens vurdering og vejledning

(COM(2014)097 final af 20.2.2014).

(2)

(3)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

endvidere, at det regionale samarbejde skal være kernen i gennemførelsen af direktiv

2008/56/EF. Nødvendigheden af, at medlemsstaterne mere systematisk tager

udgangspunkt i den gældende EU-lovgivning eller i de regionale havkonventioners

eller andre internationale aftalers standarder fremhæves desuden.

(4)

For at sikre, at den anden fase af gennemførelsen af medlemsstaternes havstrategier

bidrager yderligere til opfyldelsen af målene i direktiv 2008/56/EF og fører til mere

konsistente beskrivelser af en god miljøtilstand, anbefalede Kommissionen i sin

rapport om den første gennemførelsesfase, at Kommissionens tjenestegrene og

medlemsstaterne samarbejder på EU-niveau om at revidere, styrke og forbedre

afgørelse 2010/477/EU med henblik på at tilvejebringe klarere, enklere, mere koncise,

mere kohærente og sammenlignelige kriterier for en god miljøtilstand og metodiske

standarder og samtidig gennemgår bilag III til direktiv 2008/56/EF og om nødvendigt

reviderer bilaget og udarbejder specifikke retningslinjer for at sikre en mere kohærent

og konsekvent tilgang til vurderingerne i den næste gennemførelsesfase.

På grundlag af disse konklusioner blev revisionsprocessen indledt i 2013, da en

køreplan bestående af flere faser (tekniske og videnskabelige, høring og

beslutningstagning) blev godkendt af det forskriftsudvalg, der er nedsat i henhold til

artikel 25, stk. 1, i direktiv 2008/56/EF. Under denne proces hørte Kommissionen alle

berørte parter, herunder de regionale havkonventioner.

For at lette fremtidig ajourføring af de indledende vurderinger af medlemsstaternes

havområder og deres beskrivelse af en god miljøtilstand og for at sikre bedre

sammenhæng i gennemførelsen af direktiv 2008/56/EF i hele EU er det nødvendigt at

præcisere, revidere eller indføre kriterier, metodiske standarder, specifikationer og

standardmetoder, som medlemsstaterne skal anvende, i forhold til de elementer, der på

nuværende tidspunkt er fastsat i afgørelse 2010/477/EU. Som følge deraf bør det antal

kriterier, som medlemsstaterne skal overvåge og vurdere, reduceres, og der bør

anvendes en risikobaseret tilgang på de tilbageværende kriterier for at give

medlemsstaterne mulighed for at målrette deres indsats mod de væsentligste

menneskeskabte belastninger i deres havområder. Endelig bør kriterierne og deres

anvendelse specificeres yderligere, herunder med bestemmelser om tærskelværdier

eller fastsættelse heraf, således at det kan måles på tværs af medlemsstaternes

havområder, i hvilket omfang der er opnået en god miljøtilstand.

I overensstemmelse med det tilsagn, som Kommissionen afgav i forbindelse med

vedtagelsen af meddelelsen til Europa-Parlamentet, Rådet, Det Europæiske

Økonomiske og Sociale Udvalg samt Regionsudvalget: Bedre regulering for bedre

resultater

–

En EU-dagsorden

bør denne afgørelse sikre sammenhængen med den

øvrige EU-lovgivning. For at gøre medlemsstaternes beskrivelser af en god

miljøtilstand mere konsistente og sammenlignelige på EU-niveau og undgå

unødvendige overlapninger bør der tages hensyn til de relevante gældende

overvågnings- og vurderingsstandarder og -metoder, der er fastlagt i EU-lovgivningen,

herunder

ådets direktiv 92/43/EØF

, Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets

direktiv2000/60/EF

, Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1881/2006

, Rådets

(5)

(6)

(7)

COM(2015) 215 final.

Rådets direktiv 92/43/EØF af 21. maj 1992 om bevaring af naturtyper samt vilde dyr og planter (EFT L

206 af 22.7.1992, s. 7).

Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2000/60/EF af 23. oktober 2000 om fastlæggelse af en ramme

for Fællesskabets vandpolitiske foranstaltninger (EFT L 327 af 22.12.2000, s. 1).

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

forordning (EF) nr. 1967/2006

, Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv

2008/105/EF

, Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2009/147/EF

og Europa-

Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 1380/2013

(8)

Det bør for hver af de kvalitative deskriptorer i bilag I til direktiv 2008/56/EF på

grundlag af de vejledende lister i bilag III til nævnte direktiv fastlægges, hvilke

kriterier, herunder kriterieelementer og i relevante tilfælde tærskelværdier, som skal

anvendes. Det er hensigten, at tærskelværdier skal bidrage til medlemsstaternes

fastlæggelse af en række fælles karakteristika for en god miljøtilstand og lægges til

grund for deres vurdering af, i hvilket omfang der er opnået en god miljøtilstand. Der

bør også fastlægges metodiske standarder, herunder hvilket geografisk niveau

vurderingen skal foretages på, og hvordan kriterierne bør anvendes. Disse kriterier og

metodiske standarder har til formål at sikre konsistens og sammenlignelighed på

havregionsniveau eller subregionsniveau mellem vurderingerne af, i hvilket omfang

der er opnået en god miljøtilstand.

For at sikre sammenlignelighed mellem oplysningerne i ajourføringer, som

medlemsstaterne foretager efter revision af visse elementer af deres

havområdestrategier, og som de har meddelt i henhold til artikel 17, stk. 3, i direktiv

2008/56/EF, bør der fastlægges specifikationer og standardmetoder for overvågning og

vurdering under hensyntagen til gældende specifikationer og standarder på EU-niveau

eller internationalt niveau, herunder på regionalt eller subregionalt niveau.

Medlemsstaterne bør anvende de kriterier, metodiske standarder, specifikationer og

standardmetoder for overvågning og vurdering, der fastlægges i denne afgørelse,

sammen med de økosystemelementer, menneskeskabte belastninger og menneskelige

aktiviteter, der er anført i de vejledende lister i bilag III til direktiv 2008/56/EF, under

hensyntagen til den indledende vurdering, der er gennemført i henhold til samme

direktivs artikel 8, stk. 1, når de fastlægger rækken af fælles karakteristika for en god

miljøtilstand i henhold til nævnte direktivs artikel 9, stk. 1, og når de udarbejder

samordnede overvågningsprogrammer i henhold til direktivets artikel 11.

For at sikre en klar forbindelse mellem fastlæggelsen af rækken af fælles karakteristika

for en god miljøtilstand og vurderingen af fremskridtet hen imod opnåelsen heraf bør

kriterierne og de metodiske standarder opstilles på grundlag af de kvalitative

deskriptorer i bilag I til direktiv 2008/56/EF under hensyntagen til de vejledende lister

over økosystemelementer, menneskeskabte belastninger og menneskelige aktiviteter i

bilag III til nævnte direktiv. Nogle af disse kriterier og metodiske standarder vedrører

Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1881/2006 af 19. december 2006 om fastsættelse af grænseværdier

for bestemte forurenende stoffer i fødevarer (EUT L 364 af 20.12.2006, s. 5).

Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1967/2006 af 21. december 2006 om forvaltningsforanstaltninger til

bæredygtig udnyttelse af fiskeressourcerne i Middelhavet, om ændring af forordning (EØF) nr. 2847/93

og om ophævelse af forordning (EF) nr. 1626/94 (EUT L 409 af 30.12.2006, s. 11).

Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2008/105/EF af 16. december 2008 om miljøkvalitetskrav

inden for vandpolitikken, om ændring og senere ophævelse af Rådets direktiv 87/176/EØF, 3/513/EØF,

84/156/EØF, 84/491/EØF og 86/280/EØF og om ændring af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv

2000/60/EF (EUT L 348 af 24.12.2008, s. 84).

Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2009/147/EF af 30. november 2009 om beskyttelse af vilde

fugle (EUT L 20 af 26.1.2010, s. 7).

Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 1380/2013 af 11. december 2013 om den fælles

fiskeripolitik, ændring af Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1954/2003 og (EF) nr. 1224/2009 og ophævelse af

Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 2371/2002 og (EF) nr. 639/2004 samt Rådets afgørelse 2004/585/EF (EUT

L 354 af 28.12.2013, s. 22).

(9)

(10)

(11)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

navnlig vurderingen af den nuværende miljøtilstand eller af de væsentlige belastninger

og påvirkninger, der er omhandlet i artikel 8, stk. 1, litra a) og b), i direktiv

2008/56/EF.

(12)

Hvis der ikke er fastlagt tærskelværdier, bør medlemsstaterne fastlægge

tærskelværdier gennem et samarbejde på EU-niveau eller på regionalt eller

subregionalt niveau, f.eks. ved at tage udgangspunkt i gældende værdier eller

udarbejde nye inden for rammerne af de regionale havkonventioner. Hvis der skal

fastlægges tærskelværdier gennem et samarbejde på EU-niveau (for deskriptorerne

vedrørende affald i havet, undervandsstøj og havbundens integritet), vil dette ske

inden for rammerne af den fælles gennemførelsesstrategi, som medlemsstaterne og

Kommissionen har etableret med henblik på direktiv 2008/56/EF. Når disse

tærskelværdier er blevet fastlagt gennem et samarbejde på EU-niveau eller på regionalt

eller subregionalt niveau, bliver de først en del af medlemsstaternes rækker af fælles

karakteristika for en god miljøtilstand, når de er indgivet til Kommissionen som et led

i medlemsstaterne rapportering i henhold til artikel 17, stk. 3, i direktiv 2008/56/EF.

Indtil sådanne tærskelværdier er blevet fastlagt gennem et samarbejde på EU-niveau

eller på regionalt eller subregionalt niveau, bør medlemsstaterne kunne anvende

nationale tærskelværdier, retningsmæssige tendenser eller, for statslige elementer,

belastningsbaserede tærskelværdier som referencer.

Tærskelværdierne bør i relevante tilfælde afspejle det kvalitetsniveau, der udgør en

negativ virkning for et kriterium, og bør fastlægges i forhold til en referencebetingelse.

Tærskelværdier bør fastlægges på et relevant geografisk grundlag med henblik på at

afspejle de forskellige biotiske og abiotiske karakteristika i regionerne, subregionerne

og underopdelingerne. Dette kan følgelig, selv om fastlæggelsen af tærskelværdier

sker på EU-niveau, føre til fastlæggelsen af forskellige tærskelværdier, som er

specifikke for en region, subregion eller underopdeling. Tærskelværdierne bør også

fastlægges på grundlag af forsigtighedsprincipper og afspejle de potentielle risici for

havmiljøet. Ved fastlæggelsen af tærskelværdier bør der tages højde for den

dynamiske karakter af havøkosystemer og deres elementer, som kan ændre sig i tid og

rum gennem hydrologisk og klimatisk variation, relationer mellem rov- og byttedyr og

andre miljøfaktorer. Tærskelværdierne bør også afspejle det forhold, at forringede

havøkosystemer kan genoprettes til en tilstand, der afspejler fremherskende

fysiografiske, geografiske, klimatiske og biologiske betingelser, i stedet for at vende

tilbage til en tidligere bestemt tilstand.

I henhold til artikel 1, stk. 3, i direktiv 2008/56/EF skal det samlede pres fra

menneskelige aktiviteter holdes inden for niveauer, der er forenelige med opnåelsen af

en god miljøtilstand, således at de marine økosystemers evne til at håndtere

menneskeskabte forandringer ikke bringes i fare. Dette kan, hvis det er

hensigtsmæssigt, indebære, at tærskelværdierne for visse belastninger og deres

miljøvirkninger ikke nødvendigvis opnås i alle dele af medlemsstaternes havområder,

forudsat at dette ikke er til hinder for opfyldelsen af målene i direktiv 2008/56/EF,

samtidig med at en bæredygtig udnyttelse af havets goder og ydelser muliggøres.

Der bør fastlægges tærskelværdier, som skal indgå i den række af fælles karakteristika,

som medlemsstaterne anvender til at beskrive en god miljøtilstand i overensstemmelse

med artikel 9, stk. 1, i direktiv 2008/56/EF, og i hvilket omfang, tærskelværdierne skal

nås. Tærskelværdier udgør derfor ikke i sig selv medlemsstaternes beskrivelser af en

god miljøtilstand.

(13)

(14)

(15)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

(16)

Medlemsstaterne bør angive, i hvilket omfang der er opnået en god miljøtilstand, som

den andel af deres havområder, hvor tærskelværdierne er nået, eller den andel af

kriterieelementer (arter, forurenende stoffer osv.), som tærskelværdierne er nået for.

Når medlemsstaterne vurderer deres havområders tilstand i henhold til artikel 17, stk.

2, litra a), i direktiv 2008/56/EF, bør de i lyset af havområders ofte langsomme

reaktion på forandring angive enhver ændring i tilstanden som bedre, stabil eller værre

sammenlignet med den foregående rapporteringsperiode.

Når tærskelværdier, som er fastlagt i henhold til denne afgørelse, ikke nås for et

bestemt kriterium, bør medlemsstaterne overveje at træffe hensigtsmæssige

foranstaltninger eller gennemføre yderligere forskning eller undersøgelse.

Når det kræves, at medlemsstaterne samarbejder på regionalt eller subregionalt niveau,

bør de, hvor det er praktisk og hensigtsmæssigt, anvende de eksisterende regionale

institutionelle samarbejdsstrukturer, herunder strukturerne inden for rammerne af de

regionale havkonventioner som omhandlet i artikel 6 i direktiv 2008/56/EF. Ligeledes,

hvis der ikke foreligger specifikke kriterier, metodiske standarder, herunder for

integration af kriterierne, specifikationer og standardmetoder for overvågning og

vurdering, bør medlemsstaterne, hvor det er praktisk og hensigtsmæssigt, anvende de

kriterier, metodiske standarder, specifikationer og standardmetoder for overvågning og

vurdering, der er udviklet på internationalt, regionalt eller subregionalt niveau, f.eks.

inden for rammerne af de regionale havkonventioner eller andre internationale

ordninger. Ellers kan medlemsstaterne vælge at koordinere internt inden for regionen

eller subregionen, hvor det er relevant. En medlemsstat kan desuden på grundlag af de

særlige forhold i dens havområder beslutte at tage hensyn til yderligere elementer, som

ikke er omhandlet i denne afgørelse eller på internationalt, regionalt eller subregionalt

niveau, eller at anvende elementerne i denne afgørelse på dens overgangsvande som

defineret i artikel 2, stk. 6, i direktiv 2000/60/EF med henblik på gennemførelsen af

direktiv 2008/56/EF.

Medlemsstaterne bør have tilstrækkelig fleksibilitet til på visse betingelser at fokusere

på de fremherskende belastninger og deres miljøvirkninger på forskellige

økosystemelementer i hver region eller subregion med henblik på at overvåge og

vurdere deres havområder på en effektiv måde og at lette prioriteringen af de

foranstaltninger, som skal træffes for at opnå en god miljøtilstand. Til dette formål bør

medlemsstaterne for det første kunne bestemme, at det ikke er hensigtsmæssigt at

anvende visse af kriterierne, hvis dette er begrundet. Medlemsstaterne bør for det

andet have mulighed for at beslutte ikke at anvende visse kriterieelementer, at vælge

yderligere elementer eller at fokusere på bestemte matricer eller dele af deres

havområder, såfremt dette er baseret på en risikovurdering af belastningerne og deres

virkninger. Endelig bør der indføres en sondring mellem primære og sekundære

kriterier. Mens primære kriterier bør anvendes til at sikre overensstemmelse i hele

Unionen, bør der indrømmes fleksibilitet med hensyn til de sekundære kriterier.

Medlemsstaterne bør kunne vælge at anvende et sekundært kriterium, hvis det er

nødvendigt for at supplere et primært kriterium, eller hvis der for et bestemt kriterium

er risiko for, at havmiljøet ikke opnår eller bevarer en god miljøtilstand.

Kriterierne, herunder tærskelværdierne, de metodiske standarder, specifikationerne og

standardmetoderne for overvågning og vurdering, bør baseres på de bedste

tilgængelige videnskabelige resultater. Der er imidlertid stadig behov for

videnskabelige og tekniske fremskridt for at understøtte udviklingen af nogle af dem,

og disse fremskridt bør udnyttes, efterhånden som viden og forståelse bliver

tilgængelig.

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

(21)

(22)

Direktiv 2010/477/EU bør derfor ophæves.

Foranstaltningerne i denne afgørelse er i overensstemmelse med udtalelse fra

Forskriftsudvalget

—

VEDTAGET DENNE AFGØRELSE:

Artikel 1

Genstand

I denne afgørelse fastlægges:

(a)

kriterier og metodiske standarder, som medlemsstaterne skal anvende,

når

de i

henhold til artikel 9, stk. 1, i direktiv 2008/56/EF fastlægger en række fælles

karakteristika for en god miljøtilstand på grundlag af bilag I og III og under

hensyntagen til den indledende vurdering, der er gennemført i henhold til samme

direktivs artikel 8, stk. 1, med henblik på at vurdere, i hvilket omfang der er opnået

en god miljøtilstand, jf. samme direktivs artikel 9, stk. 3

specifikationer og standardmetoder for overvågning og vurdering som omhandlet i

direktivs artikel 11, stk. 4, som skal anvendes af medlemsstaterne, når de udarbejder

samordnede overvågningsprogrammer i henhold til artikel 11

i direktiv 2008/56/EF

en tidsramme for fastlæggelsen af tærskelværdier, lister over kriterieelementer og

metodiske standarder for integration af kriterier gennem et samarbejde på EU-niveau

eller på regionalt eller subregionalt niveau

et krav om meddelelse af kriterieelementer, tærskelværdier og metodiske standarder

for integration af kriterier.

Artikel 2

Definitioner

I denne afgørelse finder definitionerne i artikel 3 i direktiv 2008/56/EF anvendelse.

I denne afgørelse forstås endvidere ved:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

"subregioner": de subregioner, der er anført i artikel 4, stk. 2, i direktiv 2008/56/EF

"underopdelinger": de underopdelinger, der er anført i artikel 4, stk. 2, i direktiv

2008/56/EF

"invasiv ikkehjemmehørende art": "invasiv ikkehjemmehørende art" som omhandlet

i artikel 3, stk. 2, i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 1143/2014

"kriterieelementer": elementer i et økosystem, særligt dets biologiske elementer

(arter, habitater og deres samfund), eller aspekter af belastninger af havmiljøet

(biologiske, fysiske, stoffer, affald og energi), som vurderes under hvert kriterium

"tærskelværdi": en værdi eller et interval af værdier, som gør det muligt at vurdere

det kvalitetsniveau, der er opnået for et bestemt kriterium, og som derved indgår i

vurderingen af, i hvilket omfang der er opnået en god miljøtilstand.

(b)

(c)

(d)

(5)

Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 1143/2014 af 22. oktober 2014 om forebyggelse og

håndtering af introduktion og spredning af invasive ikkehjemmehørende arter (EUT L 317 af 4.11.2014,

s. 35).

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Artikel 3

Anvendelse af kriterier, metodiske standarder, specifikationer og standardmetoder

Medlemsstaterne anvender de primære kriterier og tilknyttede metodiske standarder,

specifikationer og standardmetoder, der er fastlagt i bilaget med henblik på at

gennemføre denne afgørelse. På grundlag af den indledende vurdering eller

efterfølgende ajourføringer heraf, der er udført i overensstemmelse med artikel 8 og

artikel 17, stk. 2, litra a), i direktiv 2008/56/EF, kan medlemsstaterne, for så vidt det

er begrundet, vurdere, at det ikke er hensigtsmæssigt at anvende et eller flere af de

primære kriterier. I sådanne tilfælde begrunder medlemsstaterne dette over for

Kommissionen i den underretning, der indgives i henhold til artikel 9, stk. 2, eller

artikel 17, stk. 3, i direktiv 2008/56/EF.

I overensstemmelse med forpligtelsen til regionalt samarbejde som fastlagt i artikel 5

og 6 i direktiv 2008/56/EF underretter en medlemsstat de andre medlemsstater, der

deler den samme havregion eller subregion, inden den i henhold til stk. 1 beslutter

ikke at anvende et primært kriterium.

Sekundære kriterier og tilknyttede metodiske standarder, specifikationer og

standardmetoder som fastlagt i bilaget anvendes til at supplere et primært kriterium,

eller når der er risiko for, at havmiljøet ikke opnår eller bevarer en god miljøtilstand

for dette bestemte kriterium. Hver medlemsstat træffer beslutning om anvendelsen af

et sekundært kriterium, medmindre andet er anført i bilaget.

Hvis der i denne afgørelse ikke fastlægges kriterier, metodiske standarder, herunder

for integration af kriterierne, specifikationer eller standardmetoder for overvågning

og vurdering, herunder for rumlig og tidsmæssig aggregering af data, anvender

medlemsstaterne, hvor det er praktisk og hensigtsmæssigt, de kriterier, metodiske

standarder, specifikationer eller standardmetoder for overvågning og vurdering, der

er udviklet på internationalt, regionalt eller subregionalt niveau, eksempelvis inden

for rammerne af de relevante regionale havkonventioner.

Indtil der på EU-niveau eller på regionalt eller subregionalt niveau er fastlagt lister

over kriterieelementer, metodiske standarder for integration af kriterier,

specifikationer og standardmetoder for overvågning og vurdering, kan

medlemsstaterne anvende de lister, der er fastlagt på nationalt plan, såfremt de

deltager i regionalt samarbejde som omhandlet i artikel 5 og 6 i direktiv 2008/56/EF.

Artikel 4

Fastlæggelse af tærskelværdier gennem et samarbejde på EU-niveau eller på regionalt eller

subregionalt niveau

Såfremt medlemsstaterne i henhold til denne afgørelse skal fastlægge tærskelværdier

gennem et samarbejde på EU-niveau eller på regionalt eller subregionalt niveau, skal

disse værdier:

være en del af den række af fælles karakteristika, som medlemsstaterne anvender i

deres beskrivelser af en god miljøtilstand

(a)

(b)

hvor det er relevant, afspejle det kvalitetsniveau, der udgør en negativ virkning

for et kriterium, og fastlægges i forhold til en referencebetingelse

fastlægges på et relevant geografisk niveau med henblik på at afspejle de

forskellige biotiske og abiotiske karakteristika i regionerne, subregionerne og

underopdelingerne

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

fastlægges på grundlag af forsigtighedsprincipper og afspejle de potentielle

risici for havmiljøet

være overensstemmende på tværs af forskellige kriterier, når de vedrører det

samme økosystemelement

fastsættes under anvendelse af de bedste tilgængelige videnskabelige resultater

være baseret på langsigtede tidsrækkedata, hvor sådanne foreligger, med

henblik på fastlæggelsen af den mest hensigtsmæssige værdi

afspejle økosystemets naturlige dynamik, herunder relationer mellem rov- og

byttedyr og hydrologisk og klimatisk variation, idet det også anerkendes, at

økosystemet eller dele deraf kan genoprettes, hvis det forringes, til en tilstand,

der afspejler fremherskende fysiografiske, geografiske, klimatiske og

biologiske betingelser, i stedet for at vende tilbage til en tidligere bestemt

tilstand

være i overensstemmelse med de relevante værdier, der anvendes i regionale

institutionelle samarbejdsstrukturer, herunder de regionale havkonventioner.

(h)

Indtil medlemsstaterne har fastlagt tærskelværdier gennem et samarbejde på EU-

niveau eller på regionalt eller subregionalt niveau som krævet i denne afgørelse, kan

de anvende følgende til at angive, i hvilket omfang der er opnået en god

miljøtilstand:

(a)

(b)

(c)

nationale tærskelværdier, såfremt forpligtelsen til regionalt samarbejde i artikel

5 og 6 i direktiv 2008/56/EF er overholdt

retningsmæssige tendenser for værdierne

for statslige elementer, belastningsbaserede tærskelværdier som referencer.

Såfremt tærskelværdier, herunder de tærskelværdier, der er fastlagt af

medlemsstaterne i henhold til denne afgørelse, ikke nås for et bestemt kriterium i det

omfang, der ifølge denne medlemsstat er nødvendigt for at opnå en god miljøtilstand

som omhandlet i artikel 9, stk. 1, i direktiv 2008/56/EF, overvejer medlemsstaterne,

om der bør træffes foranstaltninger i henhold til samme direktivs artikel 13, eller om

der bør gennemføres yderligere forskning eller undersøgelse.

Tærskelværdier fastlagt af medlemsstaterne i henhold til denne afgørelse kan

revideres regelmæssigt i lyset af videnskabelige og tekniske fremskridt og om

nødvendigt ændres inden den gennemgang der er omhandlet i artikel 17, stk. 2, litra

a), i direktiv 2008/56/EF.

Artikel 5

Tidsramme

Hvis medlemsstaterne i henhold til denne afgørelse skal fastlægge tærskelværdier,

lister over kriterieelementer eller metodiske standarder for integration af kriterier

gennem et samarbejde på EU-niveau eller på regionalt eller subregionalt niveau,

tilstræber medlemsstaterne at gøre dette inden for den tidsfrist, der er fastsat for den

første gennemgang af deres indledende vurdering og beskrivelse af en god

miljøtilstand i henhold til artikel 17, stk. 2, litra a), i direktiv 2008/56/EF (den 15. juli

2018).

Hvis medlemsstaterne ikke kan fastlægge tærskelværdier, lister over

kriterieelementer eller metodiske standarder for integration af kriterier gennem et

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

samarbejde på EU-niveau eller på regionalt eller subregionalt niveau inden for den

tidsfrist, der er fastsat i stk. 1, fastlægger de disse så hurtigt som muligt derefter på

den betingelse, at de senest den 15. oktober 2018 begrunder dette over for

Kommissionen i den underretning, som de skal indgive i henhold til artikel 9, stk. 2,

eller artikel 17, stk. 3, i direktiv 2008/56/EF.

Artikel 6

Underretning

Som en del af underretningen i henhold til artikel 17, stk. 3, i direktiv 2008/56/EF forelægger

medlemsstaterne Kommissionen oplysninger om de kriterieelementer, tærskelværdier og

metodiske standarder for integration af kriterier, der er fastlagt gennem et samarbejde på EU-

niveau eller på regionalt eller subregionalt niveau, og som anvendes af medlemsstaterne i

henhold til denne afgørelse.

Artikel 7

Ophævelse

Afgørelse 2010/477/EU ophæves.

Henvisninger til afgørelse 2010/477/EF forstås som henvisninger til nærværende afgørelse.

Artikel 8

Ikrafttræden

Denne afgørelse træder i kraft på tyvendedagen efter offentliggørelsen i

Den Europæiske

Unions Tidende.

Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den

[…][…].

På Kommissionens vegne

Formand

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

ENVIRONMENT

Directorate C

–

Quality of Life, Water and Air

ENV.C.2 - Marine Environment & Water Industry

THE FOURTEENTH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF

DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC

(MARINE STRATEGY COMMITTEE)

WEDNESDAY 29 JUNE 2016 (09:00

–

17:30)

Conference Centre Albert Borschette / Room 1D

36, Rue Froissart, B-1040 Brussels

1. Welcome and introduction

The Chair (European Commission, DG Environment) opened the meeting and welcomed the

participants. The Chair reminded the Committee members of the request to ensure the Commission

has up-to-date official nominations to the Committee as only an officially-appointed Committee

member can take part in a vote.

2. Adoption of the agenda

The draft agenda (document CTTEE_14-2016-01) was adopted without amendments.

3. Adoption of the minutes of the 13

Committee Meeting

The minutes of the 13

Committee meeting (document CTTEE_14-2016-02) were amended in

order to reflect the comments made by Romania,

the United Kingdom

and Denmark, and were

adopted as amended.

4. Review of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU on criteria and methodological standards for

GES

The Chairman thanked the Member States for their efforts over the past months and for sending

their comments on the draft text (version 3) of the Commission Decision on criteria and

methodological standards for Good Environmental Status (document CTTEE_13-2016-03). All

comments were considered and a large number were accommodated. The Chairman encouraged a

discussion that would lead to eventual consensus. The Commission presented the main changes

made to the text in version 4 (document CTTEE_14-2016-03), and also explained how the feedback

mechanism would factor into the decision-making process.

A discussion followed, during which Member States made general comments:

Several Member States expressed concerns on: threshold values at Union versus

(sub)regional level, the binding nature of threshold values and their scientific basis, as well

as some of the principles for setting threshold values, and the difficulties to

achieve establish

threshold values for all descriptors by 2018.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

One Member State asked whether threshold values should be considered as methodological

standards or criteria. The Commission

clarified stated

that they sit under the 'criteria' section

in the Annex to the Decision.

ThreeTwo

Member States expressed a reservation on the general use of threshold values

and

about the compliance of the draft Decision, in particular on the inclusion of a need to

establish new threshold values, with the provision of Article 9(3) of the Directive.

Two Member States raised an issue on transitional waters. The Commission indicated that it

would explore options to solve that point.

One Member State raised general concerns with regards to the wording of 'use of criteria' in

the Annex and proposed to modify those headings to avoid linking threshold values to the

achievement of GES.

Specific issues

The Commission presented certain key issues of the draft GES decision and Member States were

invited to comment on each of them. For some of these key issues, the Commission proposed new

draft wording, with a view to reaching compromises (see

amended text as discussed in Committee

in Annex):

Threshold values

Setting threshold values at Union or (sub)regional level: the Commission presented an

addition to Recital 12, which reads "This

means that even if the process to establish

threshold values takes place at Union level, this may result in the setting of different

threshold values, specific to a region, subregion or subdivision".

Member States welcomed

this clarification.

In addition, it was agreed during the meeting to also clarify the Annex with regard to the

establishment of threshold values at Union level, that this should be done "taking

into

account regional or subregional specificities".

Upon the request of one Member State

and

agreed by a majority of Member States,

the wording "MS

shall cooperate to establish"

was

changed to "MS

shall establish … through regional cooperation..."

in Article 5(1).

The

majority of Member States did not object to the change.

These amendments will be

introduced throughout the Annex.

One Member State retained an overall reservation on setting threshold values at Union level.

Legal nature of threshold values: three Member States questioned whether the Decision can

set require that Member States set

threshold values and proposed to

include the possibility to

use trends or qualitative criteria instead.

To clarify the legal nature of threshold values (i.e. clarify that they do not automatically

become part of Member States' GES determination), the Commission presented the

following addition to recital 11 "Once

established at Union, regional or subregional level,

these threshold values will only become part of Member States' sets of characteristics for

good environmental status when they are reported to the Commission as part of Member

States' reporting under Article 9(2) or 17(3) of Directive 2008/56/EC."

This should be read

in conjunction with Article 6. Most Member States welcomed this clarification. Two

Member States requested that Article 6 is amended to include the new wording from

Recital 11.

Secondary criteria

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Article 2(2): the Commission presented new wording for the definition of secondary criteria,

which makes it even clearer that the use of secondary criteria is to be decided by Member

States, when the conditions are fulfilled: "'secondary

criterion' means a criterion to be used

where necessary, to complement a primary criterion or when the marine environment is at

risk of not achieving or not maintaining good environmental status for that particular

criterion. The use of a secondary criterion is to be decided by each Member State, except

where specified otherwise in the Annex

". The words "to

complement a primary criterion or"

were reintroduced during Committee following a request from some Member States. One

Member State had a reservation on this. The Commission nevertheless explained that there

was no need to refer to "substitute" as this only concerned criterion D5C8 and was covered

directly in the Annex.

Most

Member States appreciated the new proposed wording of definition 2(2).

Recital 20 was amended along the same line as Article 2(2).

The Commission presented new wording on Article 4, which concerns principles for setting

threshold values. The following changes to version 4 of the text were proposed by the

Commission: point (c) was split into 2 points:

"c) make use of best available science"

and

(

"(d)

be set taking into account the precautionary principle, reflecting the potential risks to

the marine environment"

(upon suggestion from one Member State in its written comments).

The Commission also proposed the following amendments: "(h)

be consistent across

different criteria when they relate to the same ecosystem element; in case several criteria

are used across the descriptors to assess different pressures and their impacts on an

ecosystem element, (i) reflect, where appropriate, what constitutes an adverse effect for the

relevant criterion.

Following discussions in the Committee, the following changes were made:

Point d was modified into "(d)

be set on the basis of the precautionary principle, reflecting

the potential risks to the marine environment";

New point (h) was deleted with the intention of integrating it under point (f). However, there

was no agreement on the final wording of point (f) "be

expressed in terms relating to the

impacts and pressures they describe and as a deviation from a state which is free of

anthropogenic pressures, allowing, where appropriate, for sustainable use of marine goods

and services"

as several Member States expressed disagreement on 'allowing sustainable

use' and on 'free from anthropogenic pressures'. The following options were discussed for a

new point (f) (integrating point (h)): "express

what constitutes an acceptable state or an

acceptable level of pressure [or impact], [thereby indicating there is not an adverse effect]

in relation to the particular criterion or criterion element"

but this was not considered

acceptable by all Member States. The Commission indicated that it will develop a text that

covers all concerns raised in its next version.

Principles for setting threshold values

Timeline

One Member State insisted that Article 5(2) is not acceptable as there may be political

conditions that could prevent the setting of threshold values at regional level, even by 2024.

Another Member State raised the question of the consequences of not agreeing threshold

values by 2018.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Following discussions in Committee, it was decided to modify the wording of Article 5(2)

as follows: "Should

threshold values not be established in accordance with paragraph 1,

Member States may shall establish these threshold values at regional or subregional level as

soon as possible after 15 July 2018 by the second review of their initial assessment and

determination of good environmental status in accordance with point (a) of Article 17(2) of

Directive 2008/56/EC, provided the reasons for the delay are this is justified to the

Commission in the notification by 15 October 2018 made pursuant to Article 9(2) or 17(3)

of Directive 2008/56/EC."

Additional burden / impact assessment of costs

The Commission

clarified explained

that, on the basis of preliminary findings of a short

study, it found that if Member States are currently implementing Decision 2010/477/EU

correctly, the costs involved under the new Decision would be either similar or lower.

Some Member States requested that this study is made available.

One Member State proposed the following new text aiming to address the issue of

integration rules (anticipating the work currently carried out as "Article 8 guidance"):

"Whether

good environmental status is achieved is determined through the application of

integration rules that are to be agreed (for each descriptor) at Union level, taking into

account Union legislation and regional and subregional methods".

That Member State also

argued that a timeline for setting such integration rules should be included under Art. 5(2) of

the Decision.

However, even though Member States agreed this was an important issue,

some many

them considered that it was too early to introduce such provision in the Decision, given that

the work on integration rules is still at a preliminary stage. These Member States were of the

view that such integration rules should only be guidance,

in the framework of the "Article 8

guidance" mentioned above.

The Commission took note of this and stated that this concern

would be

addressed

in the next version.

Integration rules

The Commission then presented the draft Annex and its descriptors and Member States were invited

to comment on some of the criteria on which most written comments had been received. The

Commission explained that the more specific and detailed written comments made by Member

States would all be considered, also ensuring consistency throughout the text, but that the purpose

of the discussion was to discuss and resolve the most difficult issues.

Descriptor 1

One Member State proposed that species covered by the Habitats Directive (HD) should not

be subject to the obligation to set threshold values (HD species would be excluded from

second paragraph in D1C1 and D1C2) and that HD assessments should automatically be re-

used under MSFD.

It was agreed that the same wording on "taking

into account regional or subregional

specificities"

agreed during the discussion on specific issues would also be used under D1.

One Member State insisted that requirements under other Directives (HD) cannot be

indirectly made stricter via this Decision, with the Commission

clarifyingexplaining

again

that while this is not the case, obligations under MSFD

(i.e. achieving good environmental

status by 2020)

have nevertheless still to be met.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Descriptor 2

One Member State expressed concerns with the use of "reduced to zero" and would prefer

the wording "minimised".

D3C3: Most Member States raised a concern with regards to D3C3 and requested that it

becomes secondary, due to the latest ICES advice. The Commission

clarified explained

that

the secondary nature of a criterion should not be triggered by the immaturity of a criterion,

that D3C3 is necessary to answer to the Descriptor (cf Descriptor 3 wording), and that the

ICES workshop concluded that it should not be used only because there were no reference

points (i.e. threshold values) yet. The Commission agreed to explore the possibility of a

footnote indicating that D3C3 may not be used for the 2018 assessment.

Following Member States' comments, it was agreed to move D3C4 under D1.

One Member State requested that the wording of D3C1 and D3C2 is amended to reflect that

MSY

is not a threshold value, and that the latest text on "B

trigger

" is used under specifications.

One Member State expressed concerns with regards to use of D5 criteria

beyond in

coastal

waters.

One Member State asked for the re-introduction of the phytoplankton criterion which had

been deleted.

Following a question by one Member State, the Commission replied that there is no

obligation to set threshold values for D5 in coastal waters, if the obligation does not exist in

the Water Framework Directive.

On this descriptor, one Member State indicated that the difference between certain criteria

was not sufficiently clear.

One Member State requested consistency between the two criteria: loss and disturbance.

Two Member States proposed to re-name D6C4 and D6C5 as D1 criteria.

One Member State requested to use the wording "significantly adversely affected" to reflect

the Habitats Directive wording.

Descriptor 3

Descriptor 5

Descriptor 6

The Commission presented the expected next steps (inter-service consultation over the summer,

feedback mechanism in September, and vote in November). A new version of the legal text is

therefore expected to be available in early September (for the feedback mechanism) and the next

meeting of the Committee will most probably be held in November along the MSCG meeting.

Member States requested to send additional written comments by 4

July.

One Member State requested that the text as discussed in Committee is sent to Member States (this

was done and the text is available on circabc).

5. Review of MSFD Annex III

The latest version of the proposal replacing Annex III of the MSFD (document CTTEE_14-2016-

03) was not discussed during the Committee, as the comments received on it from Member States

were of a more minor technical nature. The Commission will consider Member States' written

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

comments.

6. Any other business

Commission presented a new system (AGN) for the reimbursement of travel expenses.

7. Close of the meeting

The Chair thanked participants for their engagement during the meeting and closed it.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Annex I:

Agenda

point

List of meeting documents

Reference

Title

Submitted by

CTTEE_14-2016-01

CTTEE_14-2016-02

CTTEE_14-2016-03

CTTEE_14-2016-04

Draft agenda

Minutes of the Thirteenth Committee meeting

Review of Commission Decision on GES

Review of MSFD Directive Annex III

European Commission

(DG ENV)

European Commission

(DG ENV)

European Commission

(DG ENV)

European Commission

(DG ENV)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Annex II:

List of participants

State

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Malta

The Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

European

Commission

European

Commission

Organisation

Belgian Federal Public Service - Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment

Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water

Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment

The Danish Nature Agency

Ministry of Environment of Estonia

Ministry of Environment of Finland

Ministère de l'écologie, du développement durable et de l'énergie

Federal Ministry for the Environment (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und

Reaktorsicherheit)

Ministry of Interior

Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG)

Ministry of the Environment, Land and Sea Protection - Nature and Sea Protection

Directorate (MATTM-PNM)

Ministry of the Environmental Protection and Regional Development

Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania

Permanent Representation of Lithuania

Malta Environment and Planning Authority

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment - DG for Spatial Issues and Water

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment - RWS Centre for Water Management

Ministry of the Environment - Water Resources Department

Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection - Monitoring Department

Direcção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços Marítimos (DGRM)

Ministry of Environment, Water and Forest

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM)

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DG Environment

DG Mare

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

CTTEE_15-2016-05

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

ENVIRONMENT

Directorate C - Quality of Life, Water & Air

ENV.C.2 - Marine Environment & Water Industry

EETING OF THE

OMMITTEE UNDER

RTICLE

IRECTIVE

2008/56/EC

ARINE

TRATEGY

OMMITTEE

)

HURSDAY

10 N

OVEMBER

2016 (09:00

–

12:30)

Conference Centre Albert Borschette (CCAB) - Room 4D

36, Rue Froissart - B-1040 Brussels

Agenda Item:

Document:

CTTEE_15-2016-05

Draft Commission Decision laying down criteria and methodological standards on GES of

marine waters and specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and

assessment, and repealing Decision 2010/477/EU

European Commission

26/10/2016

Content

The attached draft Commission Decision has been discussed in the past 4 Committee

meetings (11 , 12 , 13 , 14 Committee meetings).

The draft has been subject to the Commission's inter-service consultation and to the

Better Regulation's feedback mechanism. The outcome of the feedback mechanism will

be presented under agenda item n°5, before the vote on the draft texts.

Procedural aspects

In accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, the Commission is submitting

to the Committee draft measures that it intends to adopt. The Committee shall deliver

its opinion on the draft by means of a qualified majority. The votes of the

representatives of the Member States within the Committee shall be weighted in the

manner set out in Article 16(4) and (5) of the Treaty on European Union.

According to the standard rules of procedure of the Marine Strategy Committee, a

Member State delegation may, if necessary, represent a maximum of one other Member

State. The Permanent Representation of the Member State that is being represented

shall inform the Chairman of this in writing.

If the Committee gives a positive opinion, the Commission will submit the

measures to the European Parliament and to the Council for a 3-month scrutiny

period. If neither the European Parliament nor the Council opposes the draft

measures, the Commission shall then adopt the Decision.

Title:

Prepared by:

Date prepared:

Background

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

CTTEE_15-2016-05

If the Committee gives a negative opinion or if no opinion is delivered, the

Commission shall submit a proposal relating to the measures to be taken to the

Council and shall forward it to the European Parliament at the same time. The

decision of whether to adopt or reject the measures then lies with the Council.

The MSFD Committee is invited to consider the draft Commission Decision and deliver its

opinion on the draft by means of a qualified majority.

Member State delegations that will not be present on the day of the vote but will be

represented by another delegation are invited to inform the Commission as soon as

possible by email and at the latest by 8 November, cob.

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels,

XXX

[…](2016)

XXX

draft

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) …/…

XXX

laying down criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of

marine waters and specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and

assessment, and repealing Decision 2010/477/EU

(Text with EEA relevance)

L 111 - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 121: Spm. om uddybning af svar på MOF alm. del – spm. 135-138 og MOF alm. del – bilag 53, til miljø- og fødevareministeren