COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council assessing Member States' programmes of measures under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Date: 2018-07-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU environmental policy, application of EU law, biodiversity, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, marine ecosystem, marine environment, marine pollution, prevention of pollution

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.7.2018  SWD(2018) 393 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT   Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council  assessing Member States' programmes of measures under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive {COM(2018) 562 final}  
 
 
Abbreviations 

BWMC 
CFP  
EIA 
EQS 
GES  
GFCM 
HELCOM 

ICCAT 
IED 
IMO 
MARPOL 
MPA  
MSFD  
MSP 
NEC 
OSPAR 
RBMP 
REACH 
SEA 
UNEP/MAP 

UWWTD  
WFD  

Ballast Water Management Convention 
Common Fisheries Policy 
Environmental Impact Assessment 
Environmental Quality Standards 
Good Environmental Status 
General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean 
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea 
Area 
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna 
Industrial Emissions Directive 
International Maritime Organisation 
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 
Marine Protected Area 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
Maritime Spatial Planning 
National Emissions Ceiling Directive 
Convention for the Protection of the marine environment of the North-east 
River Basin Management Plan 
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals 
Strategic Environmental Assessment 
United Nations Environment Programme / Mediterranean Action Plan 
(Barcelona Convention) 
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 
Water Framework Directive 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 

ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 1 
PART I — SUMMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PER MEMBER STATE ON 
PROGRAMMES OF MEASURES, REPORTED UNDER ARTICLE 13(9) OF DIRECTIVE 
2008/56/EC ............................................................................................................................. 3 
A.  MSFD DESCRIPTOR-SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 4 
Descriptor 2 — Non-indigenous species .............................................................. 4 
Descriptor 3 —  Commercial fish and shellfish .................................................... 8 
Descriptor 5 — Eutrophication ............................................................................ 12 
Descriptor 7 — Hydrographical changes .......................................................... 16 
Descriptors 8 & 9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood ............. 22 
Descriptor 10 — Marine litter ................................................................................ 30 
Descriptor 11 — Underwater noise & Energy .................................................... 34 
Descriptors 1, 4, 6 — Biodiversity ......................................................................... 38 
General biodiversity ..................................................................................... 38 
i. 
D1, 4 Birds .................................................................................................. 40 
ii. 
D1, 4 Fish and cephalopods .......................................................................... 43 
iii. 
D1, 4 Mammals and reptiles ......................................................................... 47 
iv. 
D1, 4 Water column habitats ......................................................................... 50 
v. 
D1, 4, 6 Seabed habitats ............................................................................... 54 
vi. 
B.  MEMBER STATE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 59 
1.  BELGIUM ........................................................................................................................ 59 
2.  BULGARIA ...................................................................................................................... 67 
3.  CYPRUS .......................................................................................................................... 75 
4.  GERMANY ...................................................................................................................... 82 
SPAIN ............................................................................................................................. 89 
5. 
FINLAND ......................................................................................................................... 95 
6. 
FRANCE ........................................................................................................................ 102 
7. 
IRELAND ....................................................................................................................... 111 
8. 
9. 
ITALY ............................................................................................................................. 117 
10.  LATVIA .......................................................................................................................... 123 
11.  MALTA .......................................................................................................................... 131 
12.  THE NETHERLANDS ....................................................................................................... 140 
13.  POLAND ....................................................................................................................... 147 
14.  PORTUGAL ................................................................................................................... 156 
15.  SWEDEN ....................................................................................................................... 164 
16.  UNITED KINGDOM ....................................................................................................... 172 
PART II — SUMMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PER MEMBER STATE ON THEIR 
INITIAL ASSESSMENT, GES DETERMINATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS, REPORTED 
UNDER ARTICLE 9(2) AND 10(2) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC ............................................ 184 
1. 
POLAND ....................................................................................................................... 184 
PART III — SUMMARY FINDINGS AND GUIDANCE PER MEMBER STATE ON MONITORING 
PROGRAMMES, REPORTED UNDER ARTICLE 11(3) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC ................ 189 
1.  GREECE ........................................................................................................................ 190 
2.  MALTA .......................................................................................................................... 194 
3. 
POLAND ....................................................................................................................... 197 
4.  UNITED KINGDOM (GIBRALTAR) ................................................................................. 200 

2 

 
 
 
 
PART I — SUMMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PER 
MEMBER STATE ON PROGRAMMES OF MEASURES, REPORTED 
UNDER ARTICLE 13(9) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC 

The technical assessments1 on which this part of the annex is based analyse Member States’ 
reporting  of  their  programmes  of  measures  per  descriptor,  under  Article 13(9)  of  Directive 
2008/56/EC2. This part of the annex provides a summary assessment of how Member States 
cover  pressures3  on  the  marine  environment  in  their  programme  of  measures,  based  on  the 
descriptors identified in Annex I of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive4.  For each of 
these  descriptors,  this  part  of  the  annex  draws conclusions  on  the  strengths  and  weaknesses 
that have been identified across the EU, while providing some recommendations for Member 
States to consider by the next update of their programmes of measures, or for other parts of 
their marine strategy. 

Methodology:  Member  States’  programmes  of  measures  were  assessed  by  considering 
whether they addressed the relevant pressures and associated activities in a marine region. By 
addressing the right pressures, Member States would be in a position to move closer towards 
achieving  good  environmental  status  (GES)  within  the  timeline  set  by  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework  Directive  (MSFD).  The  assessment  was  based  on  the  information  reported  by 
Member  States.  In  this  assessment,  the  programme  of  measures  either  addresses,  partially 
addresses or does not address the needs required to meet the MSFD targets and achieve GES, 
including  its  timeline.  However  this  assessment  due  to  lack  of  information  reported  by 

at 

are 

found 

1 The technical Member State-specific assessments were prepared for the Commission by an external consultant 
and 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-
policy/implementation/reports_en.htm  
2 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), OJ L 
164, 25.6.2008, p. 19. 
3  Some  Member  States  had  indicated  military  and  defence  operations  as  an  activity  exerting  pressure  on  the 
marine  environment  in  their  reports  under  Article 8  of  the  Directive.  Depending  on  the  descriptor,  Member 
States have subsequently included measures as part of their Article 13 programme, while others failed to do so. 
While the technical Member State-specific assessments examine whether these pressures have been addressed, 
this  document  does  not  enter  into  that  assessment  given  defence  activites  are  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the 
directive (Article 2(2)). 
4  The  11  qualitative  descriptors  are  defined  in  Annex  I  of  Directive  2008/56/EC  and  are  further  specified  in 
Commission  Decision  2010/477/EU  of  1 September  2010  on  criteria  and  methodological  standards  on  good 
environmental  status  of  marine  water  (OJ  L  232,  2.9.2010,  p.  14),  hereafter  referred  to  as  ‘descriptors’  and 
associated to a number between 1 and 11. The numbers refer to the respective numbered points in Annex I of the 
MSFD (D1 — Biodiversity, D2 — Non-indigenous Species, D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish, D4 — Food 
webs, D5 — Eutrophication, D6 — Sea-floor integrity, D7 — Hydrographical changes, D8 — Contaminants, D9 
—  Contaminants  in  seafood,  D10  —  Litter,  D11  —  Energy,  including underwater noise).    For  the purpose  of 
reporting on monitoring programmes ‘Biodiversity’ descriptors (D1, 4 and 6) have been grouped according to 
the main species groups and habitat types: D1, 4 and 6 — Birds, D1, 4 and 6 — Mammals and reptiles, D1, 4 
and 6 — Fish and cephalopods, D1, 4 and 6 — Seabed habitats, D1, 4 and 6– Water column habitats. Note that 
Decsision 2010/477/EU has now been repealed and replaced by Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 of 17 May 
2017  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 
(OJ L 125, 18.5.2017, p. 43). 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Member States has not been able to assess whether the measures will sufficiently reduce the 
pressures  and  impacts  and  thereby  achieve  good  environmental  status.  The  outcome  of  the 
assessment  is  therefore  partly  dependent  on  the  ambition  level  of  the  Member  State’s 
determination  of  their  GES  and  targets.  The  high-level  results  are  presented  in  the 
Commission’s report5. This annex further develops the assessment of the main components of 
Member  States’  programmes  in  relation  to  the  pressures  reported.  It  moreover  looks  at  the 
exceptions  that  were  applied  by  Member  States  and  provides  a  technical  opinion  on  their 
plausibility. 

A. MSFD descriptor-specific conclusions and recommendations 

1.  DESCRIPTOR 2 — NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES 

Have the pressures been covered by Member States? 

The coherence of the measures in the coverage of pressures and associated activities for non-
indigenous species (D2) is assessed to be moderate to high across the EU. 

Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

Partially 
addressed 

the 

Based  on 
information  reported,  shipping 
(through  ballast  water  management)  appears  to  be 
addressed.  It 
is  unclear  which  pathways  are 
targeted by the other measures and if shipping via 
anti-fouling measures is addressed.  

FI 

EE 

Baltic Sea 

LV 

Partially 
addressed 

LT 

PL 

Addressed 

Aquaculture  is  addressed.  Shipping  is  addressed 
both indirectly and in the future. Latvia reports that 
the  specific  measures  to  reduce  non-indigenous 
species  introductions  through  shipping  will  be 
determined  once  the  Ballast  Water  Management 
Convention (BWMC) is ratified and implemented, 
which  is  not  yet  done.  Several  measures  focus  on 
monitoring  activities.  These  are  more  relevant  to 
the MSFD monitoring programmes (Article 11). 

and 
and 

(ballast  water 
Aquaculture 
management 
are 
addressed.  Poland  also  addressed  agriculture, 
which it considers relevant to its marine waters. 

shipping 
anti-fouling 

efforts) 

DE 

Addressed  Aquaculture, shipping, and fisheries are addressed. 

5  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  assessing  member  States’ 
programmes of measures under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, COM(2018)393 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

DK 

SE 

SE 

DK 
DE 
NL 

BE 

UK 

IE 
FR 

North-East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

Partially 
addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

to  be 

included 

Aquaculture  and  shipping  are  addressed.  On 
shipping,  while  ballast  water  management 
measures  are  reported;  anti-fouling  measures  do 
the  Swedish 
not  appear 
programme.  
Aquaculture  and  shipping  are  addressed.  On 
shipping,  while  ballast  water  management 
measures  are  reported;  anti-fouling  measures  do 
not  appear 
the  Swedish 
programme.  

included 

to  be 

in 

in 

Addressed  Aquaculture, shipping and fishing are addressed. 
Addressed  Aquaculture and shipping are addressed. 

Partially 
addressed 

is  addressed.  Aquaculture  which 

Shipping 
is 
identified as a relevant activity contributing to non-
indigenous  species  by  Belgium,  is  not  covered  by 
the reported measures.  

Addressed  Aquaculture, shipping and recreational boating are 

addressed. 

Addressed  Aquaculture and shipping are addressed.  
Addressed  Aquaculture, shipping and fishing are addressed.  

ES 

Addressed 

PT 

Not 
addressed 

UK 
(Gibraltar) 

Partially 
addressed 

Mediterranean 
Sea 

ES 

Addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

FR 

IT 
MT 

programmes 

Aquaculture,  fisheries  and  shipping  are  addressed. 
They also include a measure implementing an early 
detection  and  warning  system  in  National  Parks, 
and efforts in defining guidelines on artificial reefs. 
Aquaculture  and  shipping  are  not  addressed.  The 
measures  are  either  very  general  or  focus  on 
establishing  monitoring 
and 
modelling.  None  of  the  measures  directly  target 
pressures.  There  are  no  measures  on  ballast  water 
management, nor for anti-fouling. 
Shipping (ballast water management) is addressed. 
Tourism  and  recreational  activities,  which  are 
identified  as  relevant  activities  in  the  United 
Kingdom’s  Article 8  report  do  not  appear  to  be 
covered.  
Aquaculture, 
tourism/recreation are addressed. 
Aquaculture,  shipping,  and  fishing  are  addressed. 
On  shipping,  while  ballast  water  management 
measures  are  explicitly  reported,  it  is  not  clear  if 
bio-fouling is covered. 

shipping, 

fisheries 

and 

Addressed  Aquaculture, fisheries and shipping are addressed.  
Addressed  Aquaculture,  shipping  and  recreational  yachting 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

are addressed. 

HR 
SI 
EL 

CY 

BG 

RO 

Partially 
Addressed 

Addressed 

Black Sea 

address 

shipping 

Fisheries  and  aquaculture  impacts  are  addressed. 
No  measures 
land 
claim/coastal  defence,  which  were  reported  in 
Cyprus’  Article 8  as  the  main  pathways  of  non-
indigenous species introductions into its waters. 
Aquaculture 
management and anti-fouling) are addressed.  

(ballast  water 

shipping 

and 

and 

Table 1 Assessment conclusions of coverage of pressures by Member States for non-indigenous species 

Conclusions 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 

s
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S

New  introductions  of  non-indigenous  species  are  addressed  by  almost  all  Member 
States. 

Efforts  focus  on  addressing  this  pressure  from  shipping  through  ballast  water 
management  efforts  (most  link  to  the  BWMC)  and  from  aquaculture  (wherever 
relevant). 

Several  Member  States  report  early  warning  systems  of  non-indigenous  species 
introductions as measures linked also to contingency palns. 

Some  Member  States  also  report  efforts  to  remove  existing  non-indigenous  species 
(although how effective these may be remains unclear). 

Most  Member  States  include  measures  that  are  based  on  commitments  to  existing 
policies and legislation and therefore there is a certain degree of coherence across the 
programmes of measures. 

Several  Member  States  also  report  research  effort  to  better  understand  the  impact  of 
non-indigenous species in the environment. 

Member States that have applied for an exception under Article 14(1)(a) have provided 
grounded  justifications  for  doing  so  (e.g.  non-indigenous  species  introductions  via 
neighbouring  waters  outside  of  the  EU  are  considered  beyond  control  of  Member 
States). 

  The  pressure  of  introduction  of  non-indigenous  species  from  shipping  is  not  always 
fully covered, as bio-fouling is not always reported, and hull cleaning is a measure in 
some but not the majority of the Member States’ programmes of measures. 

s
e
s
s
e
n
k
a
e
W

Transboundary aspects of this pressure and their influence on non-indigenous species 
introductions are mentioned by some but not the majority of Member States. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D2 — Non-indigenous species 

A number of programmes include monitoring as a measure A few Member States only 
report  their  monitoring  efforts  as  their  measures  to  address  non-indigenous  species. 
These are not considered to contribute to achieving targets and GES for D2. 

Some  measures  proposed  by  few  Member  States  are  not  described  clearly  enough  to 
understand how they will contribute to achieving GES and targets for D2, particularly 
those  measures  that  involve  developing  action  plan(s)  to  address  the  introduction  of 
non-indigenous species which is what the programme should be doing. 

measures also targeting bio-fouling and not just ballast water management.  

  Member  States  should  address  shipping  and  recreational  vessels  better,  by  including 
s
n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
R

Member  States  should  clarify  any  measures  that  involve  developing  action  plan(s). 
When  not  provided  for,  Member  States  should  consider  developing  non-indigenous 
species early warning systems and contingency plans linked to them and registries as 
part of their measures. Studies assessing the impact of removal efforts should be put in 
place to determine their effectiveness. 

7 

 
 
 
 
2.  DESCRIPTOR 3 —  COMMERCIAL FISH AND SHELLFISH 

Have the pressures been covered by Member States? 

The  coherence  of  the  measures  in  the  coverage  of  pressures  and  associated  activities  for 
commercial fish and shellfish (D3) is assessed to be high across the EU. 

Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

Baltic Sea 

North-East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

Addressed 

Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 
activities.  

FI 

EE 

LV 

Addressed 

Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 
activities. 

LT 

PL 

Partially 
addressed 

DE 

Addressed 

DK 

SE 

Addressed 

SE 

Addressed 

DK 

DE 

Addressed 

NL 

Addressed 

BE 

Partially 
addressed 

Commercial  and  potentially  recreational  fishing  is 
addressed. It does not address the activities related 
to  seaweed  and  other  sea-based  food  harvesting 
despite  Poland  having  reported  these  as  activities 
causing pressure ‘extraction of species’. 
Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 
activities.  

Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 
activities. 
Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 
activities. 

Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 
activities.  Aquaculture,  which  is  identified  as  a 
relevant  activity  contributing  to  extraction  of 
species  by  Germany  in  the  North  Sea,  is  also 
covered by the reported measures. 
Commercial fishing is addressed, through measures 
that  aim  to  regulate  fishing  activities.  Due  to  the 
limited  information  provided,  it  is  likely  that 
recreational fishing is addressed, but this cannot be 
checked. 
Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 
activities.  Aquaculture  which  is  identified  as  a 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

UK 

Addressed 

IE 

Partially 
addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

PT 

Addressed 

UK 
(Gibraltar) 

Partially 
addressed 

ES 

Partially 
addressed 

FR 

Partially 
addressed 

IT 

Addressed 

MT 

Addressed 

Mediterranean 
Sea 

relevant  activity  contributing  to  extraction  of 
species by Belgium is not covered by the reported 
measures. 
Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 
activities. 
Extraction  of  species,  fish  and  shellfish  by 
commercial and recreational fisheries is addressed. 
reported  pressure  extraction  of  species 
The 
(seaweed harvesting, maerl, other) is not covered. 
Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 
activities. 
Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 
activities.  Harvesting  of  algae  (Bay  of  Biscay  and 
Macaronesia subregion) are also included. 
Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 
activities. 
Even  though  no  national  fishing  fleet  exists  in 
Gibraltar, its waters are impacted by illegal fishing, 
the  programme. 
is  not  addressed  by 
which 
Recreational fishing activities are covered. 
Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 
activities. Harvesting of red coral is also addressed. 
However,  given  the  state  of  fisheries  resources  in 
the  Mediterranean,  it  is  not  clear  whether  the 
represent  a  sufficient 
management  measures 
departure  from  the  status  quo  to  address  the 
problem. 
Measures  focused  on  managing  fisheries  partially 
regulate 
address 
recreational  fishing  for  all  relevant  species  (i.e. 
measures  do  not  seem  to  focus  on  controlling 
recreational  fishing  in  the  Mediterranean  as,  other 
than  regulations  for  swordfish  and  tuna  fisheries, 
recreational fishing is not subject to any register of 
practitioners, licences, or catch reporting).  
Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 
activities. 
Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 

commercial 

fisheries 

and 

9 

 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

activities. 

HR 
SI 
EL 

CY 

Partially 
addressed 

Black Sea 

BG 

Addressed 

Commercial  fisheries  for  national  stocks  and 
recreational  fisheries  are  addressed.    However, 
Cyprus  does  not  link  its  programme  to  the 
Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)6.  Therefore,  it  is 
not  clear  whether  commercial  fish  species  are 
sufficiently addressed. 
Commercial  and  recreational  fishing  is  addressed, 
through  measures  that  aim  to  regulate  fishing 
activities. 

Table 2 Assessment conclusions of coverage of pressures by Member States for D3 

RO 

Conclusions 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 

s
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S

The pressure ‘Extraction of species — fish and shellfish’ is consistently identified — 
as expected — as the main pressure on commercial fisheries, with ‘fisheries including 
recreational  fishing’  as  the  main  activity  contributing  to  this,  and  all  Member  States 
address  this  pressure  and  activity  (to  varying  degrees)  in  their  programmes  of 
measures. 

The majority of Member States consistently link their MSFD programmes to the CFP, 
ensuring a high level of coherence at EU level.  

The  majority  of  Member  States  consistently  link  their  programmes  to  Regional 
Fisheries  Management  Organisations  (when  available),  ensuring  coherence  at  the 
regional level.  

Many  Member  States  report  measures  addressing  recreational  fishing  in  addition  to 
commercial fishing (e.g. transition of recreational fishermen to commercial fishermen, 
controls on level of recreational fishing). 

Several Member States propose seasonal and spatial fishing bans (for several purposes 
including  stock  management  and  biodiversity  conservation,  protection  of  over-
exploited stocks) that are in addition to existing CFP measures. 

A few Member States also report awareness raising efforts on the state of fish stocks, 
targeting the public (consumers) in order to influence demand of certain fish.  

6 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. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
s
e
s
s
e
n
k
a
e
W

s
n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
R

All  waters  are  generally  covered,  even  beyond  the  Exclusive  Economic  Zone 
(activities  of  the  Member  States’  commercial  fleet,  regardless  of  where  they  are 
operating). 

Member  States  that  have  applied  for  an  exception  under  Article 14(1)(a)  or 
Article 14(1)(e) have provided grounded justifications for doing so (e.g. will take time 
for stocks to respond to changes in exploitation rates and for biomass to increase to the 
targeted levels). 

  Recreational fishing  is  not always addressed by Member States  where it may exert  a 

significant pressure on stocks. 

Some programmes lack sufficient detail to determine whether stocks that are managed 
on a national level are addressed by the measures. 

Age/size structure is not always addressed in the programmes of measures. 

  Member  States  should  establish  measures  to  address  recreational  fishing,  where  it 

exerts a significant pressure on stocks, if they have not already done so.  

Member  States  should  ensure  that  measures  comprehensively  address  nationally-
managed stocks (inshore stocks, shellfish) as well as stocks managed through the CFP. 

Member  States  should  ensure  that  age/size  structure  is  taken  into  account  and 
addressed where required. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
3.  DESCRIPTOR 5 — EUTROPHICATION 

Have the pressures been covered by Member States? 

The  coherence  of  the  measures  in  the  coverage  of  pressures  and  associated  activities  for 
eutrophication (D5) is assessed to be moderate to high across the EU. 

Region 

Member 
State 

FI 

EE 

LV 

LT 

PL 

DE 

DK 

Baltic Sea 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Addressed 

Explanation 

Agriculture/forestry, urban areas and industry are 
tackle  NOx 
addressed.  The  measures  also 
emissions from ships.  

Addressed 

Agriculture/forestry 
addressed.  

and 

urban 

areas 

are 

Partially 
addressed 

Addressed 

Agriculture,  urban  areas  and 
industry  are 
addressed,  but  solid  waste  disposal  and  fishing 
are not (reported by the Member State as relevant 
to Polish marine waters). 
Agriculture/forestry,  urban  areas,  industry  and 
shipping are addressed. 

SE 

Partially 
addressed 

SE 

Partially 
addressed 

North-East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

Based on the reporting style of the Member State, 
existing  measures  are  likely  to  address  several 
activities  (e.g.  agriculture  and  urban  areas),  yet, 
based  on  the  information  reported,  these  cannot 
be  identified.  New  measures  will  mainly  address 
indirect  impacts  on  the  marine  environment,  as 
they  are  research  and  financing  measures.  As 
such,  the  progarmme  is  considered  to  at  least 
partially address pressures. 
Based on the reporting style of the Member State, 
existing  measures  are  likely  to  address  several 
activities  (e.g.  agriculture  and  urban  areas),  yet 
based on the information reported these cannot be 
identified.  New  measures  will  mainly  address 
indirect  impacts  on  the  marine  environment,  as 
they  are  research  and  financing  measures.  As 
such,  the  programme  is  considered  to  at  least 
partially address pressures. 

DK 

DE 

NL 

BE 

Addressed  Agriculture/forestry,  urban  areas,  industry,  and 

shipping are addressed. 

Addressed  Agriculture/forestry,  urban  areas,  industry,  and 

shipping are addressed. 

Partially  Urban  areas  are  addressed.  Agriculture  and 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 
addressed 

UK 

Partially 
addressed 

IE 

Addressed 

FR 

ES 

Partially 
addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

PT 

Partially 
addressed 

UK 
(Gibraltar) 

Partially 
addressed 

Mediterranean 
Sea 

ES 

FR 

IT 

Partially 
addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

Explanation 

areas, 

industry, 

industry  do  not  appear  to  be  covered  by  the 
reported measures.  
Agriculture,  urban  areas  and 
industry  are 
addressed.  Aquaculture,  identified  as  relevant  by 
the United Kingdom in Article 8, is not addressed 
via the reported measures. 
Agriculture/forestry,  urban 
aquaculture and shipping are addressed. 
Agriculture,  urban  areas,  shipping  and  industry 
are  addressed.  Aquaculture  and  recreational 
activities,  identified  as  relevant  by  France  in 
Article 8,  are  not  addressed  via  the  reported 
measures.  
Agriculture, urban areas, aquaculture and industry 
are addressed. Yet fishing, which Spain identified 
as  relevant  to  its  marine  waters  and  contributing 
to eutrophication, is not addressed.  
Agriculture 
is  partly  addressed  by  Water 
Framework  Directive  (WFD)7  measures  and 
Maritime  Spatial  Planning  (MSP)  measures. 
Other  measures  aim  to  identify  gaps,  share  data, 
revise  monitoring  programmes  to  collect  more 
useful, cost-effective data, etc. These actions will 
have  no  direct  effects  on  pressures  but  is  rather 
contributing to increasing knowledge. 
Urban areas, industry and shipping are addressed. 
is  currently 
However, 
planning a sewage treatment plant, without which 
pressures can be considered partially addressed. 
Agriculture, urban areas, aquaculture and industry 
are addressed. Yet fishing, which Spain identified 
as  relevant  to  its  marine  waters  and  contributing 
to eutrophication, is not addressed.  
Agriculture,  urban  areas,  shipping  and  industry 
are  addressed.  Aquaculture  and  recreational 
activities,  identified  as  relevant  by  France  in 
Article 8,  are  not  addressed  via  the  reported 
measures.  

the  United  Kingdom 

Addressed  Agriculture/forestry, 

industry, 

tourism,  urban 

areas, aquaculture are addressed.  
Agriculture,  urban  areas,  aquaculture  and 
shipping are addressed. In relation to the measure 

MT 

Addressed 

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. 

13 

 
 
                                                            
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

on waste water, there is currently an infringement 
case  on  the  performance  of  the  plants  in  the 
framework of the Urban  Waste  Water Treatment 
Directive  (UWWTD)8.  The  contribution  of  this 
measure to the MSFD programme and how it can 
address  pressures  on  the  marine  environment 
directly  depends  on 
this 
infringement  case  and  if  Malta  ensures  the 
acceptable performance of those plants.  

the  outcome  of 

HR 
SI 
EL 

CY 

BG 

RO 

Addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

Black Sea 

industry, 

Agriculture,  urban  areas,  industry,  aquaculture 
and shipping are addressed.  
Aquaculture, 
are 
addressed.  Based  on  the  reporting  style  of  the 
Member  State,  existing  measures  are  likely  to 
address  several  other  activities  as  well  (e.g. 
agriculture  and  urban  areas),  yet  based  on  the 
information reported these cannot be identified. 

shipping 

and 

Table 3 Assessment conclusions of coverage of pressures by Member States for D5 

Conclusions 

D5 — Eutrophication 

s
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S

Member States report measures that are consistently based on the WFD. Measures for 
eutrophication  draw  from  Member  States’  River  Basin  Management  Plans.  Under  the 
MSFD, most are considered likely to be sufficient to address pressures of nutrient and 
organic  matter  enrichment  in  the  marine  environment  and  cover  relevant  human 
activities  (i.e.  mainly  agriculture,  industry,  waste  water  and  flood  risks).  However, 
considering  the  extent  to  which  the  MSFD  programme  relies  on  WFD  measures,  this 
statement  is  true  provided  that  the  River  Basin  Management  Plans  (RBMPs)  are 
assessed as adequate under the upcoming WFD assessment.  

Most  Member  States  also  utilise  synergies  with  the  UWWTD,  the  Nitrates  Directive, 
Industrial  Emissions  Directive,  the  National  Emission  Ceilings  Directive,  and  the 
processes through the Regional Sea Conventions. 

For most if not all Member States, the achievement or not of ‘Good’ or higher status in 
WFD  coastal  waterbodies  appears  to  have  been  the  principal  factor  determining 
whether new measures were developed for the MSFD. 

Most  Member  States  refer 

to  the  International  Maritime  Organisation  (IMO 

8 Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, 
p. 40. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
D5 — Eutrophication 

(MARPOL)) legislation when regulating shipping, particularly on NOx emissions. 

Member  States  that  have  applied  for  an  exception  under  Article 14(1)(a),  (b),  (e)  or 
Article 14(4) have not always provided fully grounded justifications for doing so (e.g. 
even  if  the  nutrient  load  targets  are  reached,  recovery  of  the  state  of  the  marine 
environment  will  take  a  long  time  because  the  concentrations  in  marine  waters  can 
persist for a very long time). 

Some Member States do not address atmospheric deposition of nutrients. 

Most Member States do not consider additional aspects, such as improved aquaculture 
management practices.   

s
e
s
s
e
n
k
a
e
W

atmospheric deposition and, where relevant, aquaculture. 

  Member  States  should  establish  measures  that  consider  nutrient  inputs  from 
s
n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
R

If applied, exceptions should be justified better. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  DESCRIPTOR 7 — HYDROGRAPHICAL CHANGES 

Have the pressures been covered by Member States? 

Coherence  of  the  measures  in  the  coverage  of  pressures  and  associated  activities  for 
hydrographical changes (D7) is assessed to be moderate across the EU. 

Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
measures 

Explanation 

Baltic Sea 

The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
adversely 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 
Measures  refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA9 
and  SEA10  Directives.  The  measures  also  tackle 
interference  with  hydrological  processes  and 
marine  acidification,  due 
to  diverse  marine 
activities  such  as  dredging,  marine  mining  (sand, 
gravel,  rock  extraction).  It  is  not  clear  if  and  how 
cumulative impacts are addressed.  

The  measures  reported  by  Latvia  are  not  D7-
specific  and  do  not  appear  to  tackle  any  relevant 
pressure / activity. Latvia did not previously report 
the pressures associated to hydrographical changes 
as  relevant  in  its  Article 8  report  due  to  a  lack  of 
existing  data.  As  such,  the  programme  does  not 
address relevant D7 pressures. 

The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
adversely 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 
However,  little  detail  is  provided  on  the  measures 
to  address  the  pressures.  The  activities  of  waste 
disposal, shipping and tourism are not addressed. It 
is also not clear if and how cumulative impacts are 
addressed. 
The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
adversely 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 

FI 

Addressed 

EE 

LV 

LT 

Not 
addressed 

PL 

Partially 
addressed 

DE 

Addressed 

9  Directive  2014/52/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16 April  2014  amending  Directive 
2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 124, 
25.4.2014, p. 1. 
10 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the 
effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
measures 

Explanation 

DK 

SE 

Addressed 

SE 

Addressed 

North-East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

DK 

DE 

Addressed 

NL 

Addressed 

Measures  refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
addresses 
SEA  Directives.  Germany 
and 
cumulative impacts which is positive. 

Measures  link  to  the  implementation  of  MSP, 
water  regulations,  and  the  Swedish  Planning  and 
Building  Act  (PBA).  The  measures  are  likely  to 
address  most  pressures  and  activities  since  all 
projects which could adversely impact hydrological 
conditions  are  subject  to  the  existing  regulatory 
procedures.  Even 
though  Sweden  did  not 
previously report hydrographical changes (D7) as a 
pressure  in  its  marine  waters  (in  either  of  its 
subregions),  it  defined  existing  and  new  measures 
to  tackle  this  issue.  One  of  the  new  measures 
particularly targets urban activities. It is not clear if 
and how cumulative impacts are addressed. 
Measures  link  to  the  implementation  of  MSP, 
water regulations, as well as the Swedish PBA. The 
measures  are  likely  to  address  most  pressures  and 
activities  since  all  projects  which  could  adversely 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are  subject  to  the 
though 
regulatory  procedures.  Even 
existing 
Sweden  did  not  previously  report  hydrographical 
changes (D7) as a pressure in its marine waters (in 
either  of  its  subregions),  it  defined  existing  and 
new measures to tackle this issue. One of the new 
measures  particularly  targets  urban  activities.  It  is 
not  clear  if  and  how  cumulative  impacts  are 
addressed. 

The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
adversely 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 
Measures  refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
and 
addresses 
SEA  Directives.  Germany 
cumulative impacts which is positive. 
The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
adversely 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 
Measures  refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
and SEA Directives. It should be noted that it is not 
clear if and how cumulative impacts are addressed. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
measures 

Explanation 

BE 

Partially 
addressed 

UK 

Addressed 

IE 

Addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

PT 

Not 
addressed 

Mediterranean 
Sea 

UK 
(Gibraltar) 

Addressed 

changes 

reported 

No  measures  are 
specifically 
for 
(D7).  Nevertheless, 
hydrographical 
Belgium reports a WFD measure that may address 
D7  in  the  coast  (where  most  hydrographical 
changes  occur),  although,  given  the  level  of  detail 
reported, this cannot be checked. 
The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
adversely 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 
Measures  refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
Directives.  It  is  not  clear  if  and  how  cumulative 
impacts are addressed. 
The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
adversely 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 
Measures  refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
Directives.  It  is  not  clear  if  and  how  cumulative 
impacts are addressed. 
The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
adversely 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 
Measures  refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
and  SEA  Directives.  France  addresses  cumulative 
impacts which is positive. 
The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
adversely 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 
Measures  refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
and  SEA  Directives.  It  is  not  clear  if  and  how 
cumulative impacts are addressed. 
Activities causing pressures are not addressed. The 
reported  measures  aim  to  collect  data  for  the 
parameters 
establish 
management  plans  for  maritime  and  coastal 
activities in order to control pressures in the future. 
The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
adversely 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 
Measures  refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
Directives.  It  is  not  clear  if  and  how  cumulative 

for  D7 

relevant 

or 

18 

 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
measures 

Explanation 

ES 

Partially 
addressed 

FR 

Partially 
addressed 

IT 

Addressed 

MT 

Addressed 

impacts are addressed. 
The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
adversely 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 
Measures  refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
and  SEA  Directives.  Nevertheless,  no  clear 
measure  about  desalination  in  the  Mediterranean 
Sea  has  been  reported  (an  activity  identified  by 
Spain as relevant to its Mediterranean water). It is 
not  clear  if  and  how  cumulative  impacts  are 
addressed. 
The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
adversely 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 
Measures  refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
and  SEA  Directives.  Nevertheless,  it  is  not  clear 
how  agriculture  and  changes  in  thermal  regimes 
due  to  discharges  from  powerplants  (reported  as 
relevant  by  France  in  its  Article 8  report)  are 
addressed.  France  addresses  cumulative  impacts 
which is positive.  
The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
adversely 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 
Measures  refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
Directive.  It  is  not  clear  if  and  how  cumulative 
impacts are addressed. 
The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
adversely 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 
Measures  refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
and  SEA  Directives.  It  is  not  clear  if  and  how 
cumulative impacts are addressed. 

HR 
SI 
EL 

CY 

Partially 
addressed 

The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
adversely 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
subject to the existing regulatory procedures. Still, 
industrial,  coastal  defence  and  port  activities  are 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
measures 

Explanation 

are 

activities 

only  covered  by  one  horizontal  measure  linked  to 
EIAs  and  SEAs,  but  no  specific  D7  measure  has 
been reported to address these activities. Measures 
refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA  and  SEA 
also 
Directives.  Desalination 
addressed.  It  is  not  clear  if  and  how  cumulative 
impacts are addressed. 
The  measures  are  likely  to  address most  pressures 
and  activities  since  all  projects  which  could 
adversely 
impact  hydrological  conditions  are 
subject  to  the  existing  regulatory  procedures. 
Measures  refer  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
Directive.  It  is  not  clear  if  and  how  cumulative 
impacts are addressed. 

Black Sea 

BG 

Addressed 

Table 4 Assessment conclusions of coverage of pressures by Member States for D7 

RO 

Conclusions 

D7 — H ydrographical changes  

s
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S

s
e
s
s
e
n
k
a
e
W

Most  Member  States  refer  to  existing  measures  stemming  from  other  legal  acts.  As 
such, all projects that are subject to existing authorisation and regulatory procedures are 
addressed in terms of hydrographical changes. 

Most Member States use synergies with the EIA and SEA Directives, as well as with 
the WFD.  

Desalination activities are also addressed by all Member States where this is relevant.  

Most  Member  States  do  not  explain  how  they  will  address  the  issue  of  cumulative 
impacts,  i.e.  impacts  from  different/multiple  human  activities  on  hydrography. 
Cumulative  impacts  are  a  major  issue  for  the  MSFD.  Assessing  cumulative  impacts 
would require Member States to consolidate results of individual assessments together 
to assess the overall scale of hydrographical changes. This is not currently being done 
by most Member States.  

As there is much overlap with the WFD in coastal waters, some Member States tend to 
consider  —  without  sufficient  justification  —  that  MSFD  requirements  (of  achieving 
GES and targets) can be fully met by WFD measures only. Very often, Member States 
just  transfer  these  measures  to  the  MSFD  programme  but  do  not  clearly  explain  how 
these will contribute to meeting MSFD objectives. 

Many  national  initial  assessments  show  that  past  and  existing  activities  did  and  do 
impact GES. There is a strong trend in the programmes to consider that the present state 
is  at GES, and as  such  to  focus  measures  to  address  only  new activities and projects, 
without assessing the scale of past impacts. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D7 — H ydrographical changes  

Few  measures  have  been  reported  to  address  hydrographical  changes  beyond  new 
individual projects. Most measures focus on implementing EIA procedures, and less so 
SEA  procedures.  MSP  and  Integrated  coastal  zone  management  processes  could  also 
contribute to D7, but are not referred to by most Member States. 

s
n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
R

Member States should use synergies with MSP for addressing cumulative impacts for 
D7. 

Member  States  should  address  pressures  from  activities  not  subject  to  local/project 
scale  EIAs  (e.g.  fishing,  maritime  transport)  better.  In  some  cases  (e.g.  hydrological 
changes  where  local  dimension  is  important)  this  gap  hampers  the  assessment  of 
cumulative effects.  

Member  States  should  apply  SEA  procedures,  in  addition  to  EIA  procedures,  more 
consistently to ensure that hydrographical changes are tackled at a strategic level, rather 
than at the project level.   

21 

 
 
 
 
 
5.  DESCRIPTORS 8 & 9 — CONTAMINANTS AND CONTAMINANTS IN SEAFOOD 

Have the pressures been covered by Member States? 

Coherence  of  the  measures  in  the  coverage  of  pressures  and  associated  activities  for 
contaminants (D8) is assessed to be moderate to high across the EU. 

Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

Industry,  urban  activities,  and  agriculture/forestry 
as sources of hazardous compounds are addressed. 
Although  no  specific  measures  have  been  defined 
to address accidental pollution due to industry and 
urban activities (which are identified by Finland as 
relevant  activities  contributing  to  the  pressure  in 
their  Article 8  report),  these  activities  associated 
with  this  pressure  are  likely  to  be  covered  by 
existing measures on the introduction of hazardous 
compounds through urban and industrial activities. 
Some  further  measures  also  for  shipping  and 
accidental pollution are reported. 

Industry  and  urban  activities,  as  sources  of 
hazardous compounds, as well as shipping and port 
operations,  as  responsible  for  accidental  pollution, 
are addressed. 

Industry  and  urban  activities,  as  sources  of 
hazardous  compounds,  are  addressed.  Agriculture 
is  also  covered.  Accidental  pollution  is  also 
addressed through measures targeting shipping. 
Agriculture, as source of synthetic compounds, and 
shipping,  responsible  for  accidental  pollution,  are 
addressed. Various other activities are also covered 
(e.g., marine mining or urban activities).  

Industry  and  urban  activities  as  sources  of  non-
synthetic compounds and shipping, responsible for 
accidental  pollution  are  addressed.  Agriculture, 
another  source  of  non-synthetic  compounds,  does 
not appear to be covered by the reported measures. 
It  could  be  addressed  by  the  general  measures 
they 
(which  do  not  specify  which  activities 
address),  but  this  cannot  be  checked  based  on  the 
information reported. 
Industry  and  urban  activities  as  sources  of  non-
synthetic compounds and shipping, responsible for 

FI 

Addressed 

EE 

LV 

Addressed 

Baltic Sea 

LT 

PL 

Addressed 

DE 

Addressed 

DK 

SE 

Partially 
addressed 

North-East 
Atlantic 

SE 

Partially 
addressed 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

accidental  pollution  are  addressed.  Agriculture, 
another  source  of  non-synthetic  compounds,  does 
not appear to be covered by the reported measures. 
It  could  be  addressed  by  the  general  measures 
they 
(which  do  not  specify  which  activities 
address),  but  this  cannot  be  checked  based  on  the 
information reported. 

DK 

DE 

Addressed 

NL 

Addressed 

BE 

Addressed 

UK 

Addressed 

IE 

Addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

PT 

Partially 
addressed 

and 

shipping, 

extraction 

Industry, agriculture, urban activities and shipping, 
as sources of hazardous compounds, are addressed. 
Accidental  pollution  is  also  addressed  through 
measures targeting urban areas and shipping. 
Industry,  agriculture,  urban  activities  and  shipping 
as  sources  of  hazardous  compounds,  as  well  as 
marine  hydrocarbon  extraction  and  shipping,  as 
responsible for accidental pollution, are addressed.  
Marine-based  renewable  energy  generation,  as 
responsible  for  accidental  pollution,  as  well  as 
shipping, as both a source of hazardous compounds 
and accidental pollution are addressed.  
Industry,  tourism/recreational  activities  (probably 
associated with shipping) and shipping, as sources 
of  hazardous  compounds,  as  well  as  marine 
hydrocarbon 
as 
responsible for accidental pollution, are addressed. 
Industry,  urban  activities  and  shipping,  as  sources 
of  hazardous  compounds,  as  well  as  fisheries  and 
shipping,  as  responsible  for  accidental  pollution, 
are  addressed.  Several  other  activities  are  covered 
such as aquaculture. 
Industry, 
activities,  port 
operations  and  solid  waste  disposal,  as  sources  of 
hazardous  compounds,  as  well  as  dumping  of 
munitions  and  shipping,  other  sources  of  both 
hazardous compounds and accidental pollution, are 
addressed. 
Industry, 
activities,  port 
operations  and  shipping,  as  sources  of  hazardous 
compounds,  as  well  as  industry,  port  operations 
and  shipping,  as 
for  accidental 
pollution, are addressed.  
Shipping,  as 
the  main  source  of  hazardous 
compounds,  is  addressed.  Marine  hydrocarbon 
extraction,  as  responsible  for  accidental  pollution, 
is not addressed. Riverine discharge or atmospheric 

agriculture,  urban 

agriculture,  urban 

responsible 

23 

 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

UK 
(Gibraltar) 

Addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

Mediterranean 
Sea 

IT 

Partially 
addressed 

MT 

Addressed 

HR 
SI 
EL 

CY 

Addressed 

Black Sea 

BG 

Partially 
addressed 

responsible 

agriculture,  urban 

agriculture,  urban 

deposition  are  not  addressed.  Accidental  pollution 
is addressed through measures targeting shipping. 
Industry,  agriculture,  and  shipping  (point  and 
diffuse  discharges),  as  sources  of  hazardous 
compounds and accidental pollution, are addressed. 
Industry, 
activities,  port 
operations  and  shipping,  as  sources  of  hazardous 
compounds,  as  well  as  marine  hydrocarbon 
extraction,  industry,  port  operations  and  shipping, 
as 
for  accidental  pollution,  are 
addressed.  
activities,  port 
Industry, 
operations  and  solid  waste  disposal,  as  sources  of 
hazardous  compounds,  as  well  as  dumping  of 
munitions  and  shipping,  other  sources  of  both 
hazardous compounds and accidental pollution, are 
addressed.  Pollution  coming  from  shipwrecks  is 
also covered. 
Industry  and  offshore  structures  as  sources  of 
hazardous compounds are covered. However, other 
sources  of  contaminants  such  as  urban  activities 
and  port  operations,  reported  by  neighbouring 
Member  States  as  important  sources  of  pressures, 
do not appear to be covered. Accidental pollution is 
addressed. 
Industry  and  urban  activities,  as  well  as 
desalination/water  abstraction  and  aquaculture,  as 
sources  of  hazardous  compounds,  as  well  as 
industry,  port  operations  and 
shipping,  as 
responsible for accidental pollution, are addressed. 
Other  activities,  such  as  marine  hydrocarbon 
extraction, are covered. 

Industry,  agriculture,  and  urban  activities,  as 
sources  of  hazardous  compounds,  as  well  as 
shipping,  another  source  of  hazardous  compounds 
and accidental pollution, are addressed. 
Industry,  agriculture,  and  urban  activities,  as 
sources  of  hazardous  compounds,  are  addressed. 
Port  operations  and  shipping  as  responsible  for 
accidental  pollution  are  addressed. 
Industry, 
another  source  of  accidental  pollution,  is  not 
addressed. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Member 
State 

RO 

Explanation 

Table 5 Assessment conclusions of coverage of pressures by Member States for D8 

Have the pressures been covered by Member States? 

Coherence  of  the  measures  in  the  coverage  of  pressures  and  associated  activities  for 
contaminants in seafood (D9) is assessed to be high across the EU. 

Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

FI 

Addressed 

EE 

Baltic Sea 

LV 

Addressed 

LT 

PL 

Addressed 

DE 

Addressed 

Finland  reports  the  same  set  of  measures  for  D8 
urban 
and  D9. 
and 
Industry, 
activities, 
agriculture/forestry  as 
sources  of  hazardous 
compounds  are  addressed.  Although  no  specific 
measures  have  been  defined  to  address  accidental 
pollution  due  to  industry  and  urban  activities 
(which  are  identified  by  Finland  as  relevant 
activities  contributing  to  the  pressure  in  their 
Article 8  report),  these  activities  associated  with 
this  pressure  are  likely  to  be  covered  by  existing 
measures  on 
introduction  of  hazardous 
compounds through urban and industrial activities. 
Some  further  measures  also  for  shipping  are 
reported. 

the 

Latvia reports the same set of measures for D8 and 
D9.  Industry,  urban  activities,  as  well  as  shipping 
and port operations are addressed.  

Poland reports the same set of measures for D8 and 
D9,  in  addition  to  some  D3  and  D10  measures. 
Industry  and  urban  activities  are  addressed.  Other 
activities  such  as  agriculture  and  fisheries  as 
relevant  sources  of  hazardous  compounds  are  also 
covered. 
Agriculture  and  shipping  are  addressed  when 
combined  with 
the  D8  programme.  The  D9 
programme  addresses  the  key  pressures  but  only 
focuses on the dumping of munitions and does not 
cover additional activities. 

DK 

SE 

Partially 
addressed 

Sweden  reports  the  same  set  of  measures  for  D8 
and D9. Industry, urban activities and shipping are 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

addressed.  Agriculture  does  not  appear  to  be 
covered  by  the  reported  measures.  It  could  be 
addressed  by  the  general  measures  (which  do  not 
specify  which  activities  they  address),  but  this 
cannot  be  checked  based  on  the  information 
reported.  
Sweden  reports  the  same  set  of  measures  for  D8 
and D9. Industry, urban activities and shipping are 
addressed.  Agriculture  does  not  appear  to  be 
covered  by  the  reported  measures.  It  could  be 
addressed  by  the  general  measures  (which  do  not 
specify  which  activities  they  address),  but  this 
cannot  be  checked  based  on  the  information 
reported. 

combined  with 

Industry, agriculture,  urban areas and shipping are 
addressed when combined with the D8 programme. 
The D9 programme addresses the key pressures but 
only focuses on the dumping of munitions and does 
not cover additional activities. 
Industry, agriculture,  urban activities and shipping 
as  well  as  marine  hydrocarbon  extraction  are 
the  D8 
addressed,  when 
programme.  The  D9  related  measure  does  not 
make reference to any specific human activity. 
Marine-based  renewable  energy  generation  and 
shipping  are  addressed,  when  combined  with  the 
D8  measures.  Most  of  the  measures  in  the  D9 
programme have indirect effects on the D9-related 
pressure  because  they  are  either  monitoring  or 
governance  measures,  that  focus  on  fisheries, 
except  one  direct  measure 
targets 
recreational fishing. 
Industry,  tourism/recreational  activities  (probably 
associated  with  shipping)  and  shipping,  as  well  as 
marine hydrocarbon extraction are addressed. 
Industry,  urban  activities  and  shipping,  as  well  as 
fisheries are addressed. 
Industry, 
activities,  port 
operations  and  solid  waste  disposal,  as  well  as 
dumping of munitions and shipping, are addressed, 
when combined with the D8 programme. 
Spain reports the same set of measures for D8 and 
D9,  except  one  existing  D9-specific  measure. 
activities,  port 
Industry, 

agriculture,  urban 

agriculture,  urban 

that  only 

North-East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

SE 

Partially 
addressed 

DK 

DE 

Addressed 

NL 

Addressed 

BE 

Addressed 

UK 

Addressed 

IE 

Addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

26 

 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

PT 

Partially 
addressed 

UK 
(Gibraltar) 

Addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

Mediterranean 
Sea 

IT 

Partially 
Addressed 

MT 

Addressed 

HR 

agriculture,  urban 

agriculture,  urban 

operations and shipping are addressed. 
Shipping is addressed, when combined with the D8 
programme.  Marine  hydrocarbon  extraction  is  not 
addressed. 
The  United  Kingdom  reports  the  same  set  of 
measures for D8 and D9. Industry, agriculture and 
shipping 
(point  and  diffuse  discharges)  are 
addressed.  Even  though  Gibraltar  has  no  fishing 
fleet,  it  conducts  tests  on  imported  seafood,  as 
required  under  other  EU  legislation  as  well  as  to 
meet D9 objectives. 
Spain reports the same set of measures for D8 and 
D9,  except  one  existing  D9-specific  measure. 
Industry, 
activities,  port 
operations  and  shipping,  as  well  as  marine 
hydrocarbon extraction, are addressed.  
Industry, 
activities,  port 
operations  and  solid  waste  disposal,  as  well  as 
dumping of munitions and shipping, are addressed, 
when combined with the D8 programme. 
Industry  and  offshore  structures  are  addressed, 
when  combined  with  the  D8  programme.  The  D9 
programme includes several measures to tackle the 
issue  of  contaminants,  targeting  several  sources 
the  D9-specific 
such  as  aquaculture  (through 
measures),  agriculture, 
industry  and  shipping 
(through  measures  also  relevant  for  D8).  Even 
though  offshore  structures  are  not  covered  by  any 
D9 measure, it is still likely to be addressed by D8-
related  measures.  However,  other  sources  of 
contaminants  such  as  urban  activities  and  port 
operations,  reported  by  neighbouring  Member 
States  as  important  sources  of  pressures,  are  not 
covered. 
Industry,  urban 
activities,  desalination/water 
abstraction  and  aquaculture,  as  well  as  port 
operations  and  shipping,  are  addressed,  when 
combined  with  the  D8  programme.  The  measures 
address  the  relevant  pressures  as  they  will  ensure 
the identification  of potential  risk of contaminated 
the  competent 
seafood  and  notification  of 
authorities.  Concentration  levels  in  marine  water 
are addressed under D8 and will contribute towards 
reducing pressures under D9. 

27 

 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

SI 
EL 

CY 

Addressed 

Black Sea 

Partially 
addressed 

BG 

RO 

Explanation 

Industry, agriculture,  urban activities and shipping 
are  addressed  when  combined  with 
the  D8 
programme.  A  D9-specific  measure  has  been 
defined  to  address  contaminants  in  seafood  (it 
however does not focus on a specific activity). 
Industry, 
activities,  port 
agriculture,  urban 
operations  and  shipping,  as  sources  of  hazardous 
compounds, are addressed when combined with the 
D8  programme. 
for 
Industry  as 
accidental pollution, is not addressed. 

responsible 

Table 6 Assessment conclusions of coverage of pressures by Member States for D9 

Conclusions 

D8 and D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 

Contaminants  in  the  sea  are  addressed  by  all  Member  States  through  measures  that 
target  land-based  (e.g.  industry,  urban  areas),  as  well  as  sea-based  sources  (e.g. 
shipping). 

Most  Member  States  address  accidental  pollution.  Measures  link  to  the  International 
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (IMO-MARPOL).  

s
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S

Most  Member  States  make  use  of  synergies  with  existing  legal  acts  targeting 
contamination which are extensively referenced in their programmes of measures (i.e. 
WFD,  National  Emission  Ceiling  Directive,  Industrial  Emissions  Directive,  Urban 
Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive  and  EC  Regulation  on  the  prohibition  of  organotin 
compounds on ships among others11). 

For  D9,  Member  States  have  a  coherent  approach  in  the  way  they  address  this 
descriptor. Most Member States do not report D9 specific measures, but rather refer to 
their  D8  measures  that are relevant  to  D9  as  well.  This  approach is  logical  (as  log  as 
seafood  origin  can  be  traces  to  a  specific  area),  as  reducing  the  input  levels  of 
contaminants to the sea will inevitably reduce the level of contaminants in seafood. 

For  D9,  Member  States  that  have  applied  for  an  exception under  Article 14(1)(a)  and 
(e)  have  provided  fully  grounded  justifications  for  doing  so  (e.g.  concentrations  of 
hazardous  substances  in  marine  waters  from  transboundary  sources.  The  issue  cannot 
be solely addressed by a single Member State’s programme of measures). 

11 They correspond to, respectively, Directives 2000/60/EC, 2016/2284/EU, 2010/75/EU, 91/271/EEC, and Regulation (EC) 
No 782/2003. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
D8 and D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 

Unlike other sources of contaminants, most Member States do not address atmospheric 
deposition12. The Member States that address this type of pollution mainly refer to the 
Industrial Emissions Directive and the National Emission Ceiling Directive. 

s
e
s
s
e
n
k
a
e
W

Some but not all Member States address biological effects by contaminants. 

For D9, most Member States do not make sufficient references to relevant EU policies 
such as EU rules on setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. In 
addition, most Member States do not explain how their D8 measures will contribute in 
addressing pressures for D913. 

For D8, Member States that have applied for an exception under Article 14(1)(a), (e) or 
Article 14(4) have not always provided fully grounded justifications for doing so (e.g. 
few  highlight  historical  contamination,  others  refer  to  transboundary  sources  of 
contaminants, while one refers to disproportionate costs of removing contaminants). 

sources) better. 

  Member States should address atmospheric deposition (from sea-based and land-based 
s
n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
R

The  manner  in  which  the  D8  measures  contribute  to  D9  targets  should  be  better 
explained in the Member State programmes. 

If applied, exceptions should be justified better. 

12 However, atmospheric deposition is indirectly reduced when reducing some land sources. 
13 They correspond to, respectively, Regulation (EC) 1881/2006 and Regulation (EU) 589/2014. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
6.  DESCRIPTOR 10 — MARINE LITTER 

Have the pressures been covered by Member States? 

Coherence of pressures addressed by the programmes for marine litter (D10) is assessed to be 
moderate to high across the EU. 

Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

Baltic Sea 

Addressed 

FI 

EE 

LV 

Addressed 

LT 

PL 

Addressed 

DE 

Addressed 

DK 

SE 

Partially 
addressed 

North-East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

SE 

Partially 
addressed 

DK 

DE 

Addressed 

tourism/recreational 

Fisheries, 
shipping  are  addressed.  Micro-litter 
addressed. 

activities 

and 
is  also 

Even though marine litter has not been reported as 
a pressure in Latvia’s Article 8 report, retail sector, 
tourism/recreation  activities  and  shipping  are 
addressed. Micro-litter is indirectly addressed. 

Tourism/recreational  activities  are  addressed. 
Several  other  activities  are  covered  (e.g.,  port 
operations  or  urban  activities).  Micro-litter  is 
indirectly addressed. 
and 
Industry, 
shipping  are  addressed.  Micro-litter 
is  also 
addressed  through  measures  on  urban  activities 
(municipal waste water discharge). 

tourism/recreational 

activities, 

are 

and 

(mainly 

through  measures  on 

Fisheries 
addressed. 
shipping 
Tourism/recreational  activities  might  be  targeted 
indirectly 
through  measures  against 
littering), although no specific measure focusing on 
these  activities  have  been  reported.  Micro-litter  is 
also  addressed 
industry 
(discharges,  emissions,  cosmetics)  and  urban 
activities (municipal waste water discharge). 
addressed. 
shipping 
Fisheries 
Tourism/recreational  activities  might  be  targeted 
indirectly 
through  measures  against 
littering), although no specific measure focusing on 
these  activities  have  been  reported.  Micro-litter  is 
also  addressed 
industry 
(discharges,  emissions,  cosmetics)  and  urban 
activities (municipal waste water discharge). 

through  measures  on 

(mainly 

and 

are 

Fisheries,  offshore  structures,  and  shipping  are 
addressed.  Micro-litter 
through 
measures  on  several  activities,  including  urban 

is  addressed 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

NL 

Addressed 

BE 

Addressed 

UK 

Addressed 

IE 

Addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

PT 

Partially 
addressed 

UK 
(Gibraltar) 

Partially 
addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

Mediterranean 
Sea 

industry, 

activities, 

activities, 

tourism/recreational 

ones (sewage treatment plants). 
and 
tourism/recreational 
Fisheries, 
shipping  are  addressed.  Micro-litter  is  addressed 
through measures on industry (cosmetic). 
and 
Fisheries, 
shipping  are  addressed.  Micro-litter  is  indirectly 
addressed. 
Fisheries, 
tourism/recreational 
and 
activities are covered. It  is not clear if micro-litter 
is addressed (no data). 
Fisheries, urban, tourism/recreational activities and 
shipping  are  addressed.  Micro-litter  is  directly 
addressed  by  a  measure  on  the  implementation  of 
the UWWTD and also indirectly. 
Fisheries,  aquaculture, 
industry,  urban,  port 
tourism/recreational  activities  and 
operations, 
shipping  are  addressed.  These  measures  will  also 
address  micro-litter  from  secondary  sources  (that 
derive  from  the  degradation  of  products  during 
their  lifecycle  or  from  the  degradation  of  macro-
litter). 
Fisheries,  aquaculture,  urban,  tourism/recreational 
activities,  and  shipping  are  addressed.  Micro-litter 
is  addressed 
industry 
(discharges, emissions). 
Fisheries,  port  operations  and  shipping  are 
tourism  are  not 
addressed.  Urban  areas  and 
addressed. It is not clear if micro-litter is addressed 
(no data). 
Urban, industry, tourism/recreational activities and 
shipping  are  addressed.  Micro-litter  is  likely  to  be 
addressed. 
Fisheries,  urban,  tourism/recreational  activities, 
is 
and  shipping  are  addressed.  Micro-litter 
addressed 
industry 
through  measures 
(discharges, emissions). 
industry,  urban,  port 
Fisheries,  aquaculture, 
operations, 
tourism/recreational  activities  and 
shipping  are  addressed.  Even  though,  fisheries, 
aquaculture  and  shipping  do  not  seem  to  be 
covered  by  specific  measures  in  the  Western 
Mediterranean  Sea,  these  activities  are  very  likely 
to  be  addressed  by  the  measures  targeting  various 
sectors (that have not been specified in the reported 
measures).  These  measures  also  address  micro-

through  measures  on 

on 

31 

 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

IT 

Partially 
addressed 

MT 

Addressed 

HR 
SI 
EL 

CY 

Partially 
addressed 

Black Sea 

BG 

Addressed 

litter from secondary sources (that derive from the 
degradation  of  products  during  their  lifecycle  or 
from the degradation of macro-litter). 
Fisheries,  urban  activities  and  shipping  are 
addressed.  Tourism/recreational  activities  are 
indirectly addressed. Micro-litter is addressed. 
Fisheries, 
and 
activities, 
tourism/recreational 
shipping  are  addressed.  Malta  also  addresses 
dredging, which it considers relevant to its marine 
waters.  It  is  not  clear  if  micro-litter  is  addressed 
(no data). 

Urban  and 
tourism/recreational  activities  are 
addressed. Industry and shipping are not addressed. 
It is not clear if micro-litter is addressed (no data). 
Fisheries,  urban  activities,  and  shipping  are 
addressed. It is not clear if micro-litter is addressed 
(no data). 

Table 7 Assessment conclusions of coverage of pressures by Member States for D10 

RO 

Conclusions 

D10 — Marine litter 

Measures cover both the reduction of marine litter input in coastal areas and in the open 
sea, as well as the removal of existing litter. Efforts are mostly directed towards macro-
litter, through measures such as the introduction of tracking devices on fishing nets to 
avoid having them lost in the sea, banning the use of plastic bags, the organisation of 
beach clean-up days and fishing for litter initiatives targeting fisherman.  

s
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S

Most  Member  States  report  measures  that  are  linked  with  regional  actions  and 
coordinated by contracting parties of relevant Regional Sea Conventions. These mostly 
link  to  regional  action  plans  for  litter,  such  as  under  OSPAR,  HELCOM  and 
UNEP/MAP.  

Most Member States also report awareness raising efforts targeting not just the public, 
but also professional sectors that can be a source of litter (e.g. fishermen) 

Transboundary impacts of marine litter are acknowledged by most Member States. 

All Member States are aware of the problem of marine litter, including micro-litter, and 
most Member States have a good understanding of the main sources contributing to this 
problem.  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D10 — Marine litter 

Micro-litter  is  not  yet  fully  covered  by  all  Member  States.  Some  report  indirect 
measures  to  address  knowledge  gaps  for  this  type  of  litter,  which  while  not  yet  fully 
addressing the problem, will positively contribute to better characterising the pressure 
and its potential impact on fauna. Very few Member States report direct measures on 
micro-litter. 

Although many Member States refer to ‘degradation products’ in their GES and target 
definitions  (in  a  general  way),  no  direct  measures  are  in  place  to  tackle  these 
degradation products. 

Due to the lack of knowledge and reporting on the effects of marine litter on biota, it is 
often unclear how Member States will interpret the issue of ‘not cause damage on the 
marine  environment’  or  ‘significant  impacts  on  the  marine  ecosystem’,  even  though 
these aspects have been included in many of the GES definitions or in specific targets.  

Even though transboundary impacts of marine litter are acknowledged by most Member 
States, no specific actions (e.g. governance efforts) are reported. 

One Member State applied for an exception under Article 14(1)(a) but did not provide a 
fully  grounded  justification  for  doing  so  (transboundary  nature  of  marine  litter  not 
sufficiently explained). 

Member States should address micro-litter better, through direct measures, in addition 
to indirect measures, in line with recommendations of TG Litter14, to ensure coherence 
of approaches at the EU level.  

Member  States  should  establish  additional  research  efforts  to  address  data  gaps, 
increase knowledge and pave the way for direct action to address this litter segment as 
soon as possible.   

Member States should develop efforts to prevent, identify and tackle pollution hot spots 
(e.g. from plastic pellets, lost fishing gear, single-use plastics, aquaculture, etc.).  

Member  States  should  develop  targeted  measures  for  products  responsible  for  beach 
litter  coming  from  both  sea-based  and  land-based  sources  (such  as  single-use  plastic 
items).  

s
e
s
s
e
n
k
a
e
W

s
n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
R

14 The technical group ‘TG Litter’ is a subgroup of the MSFD expert group, which provides a forum for the MSFD Common 
Implementation Strategy. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
7.  DESCRIPTOR 11 — UNDERWATER NOISE & ENERGY 

Have the pressures been covered by Member States? 
Coherence  of  programmes  in  the  coverage  of  pressures  and  associated  activities  for 
underwater noise and energy (D11) is assessed to be low to moderate across the EU. 

Region 

Member 
State 

FI 

EE 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 
Partially 
addressed 

LV 

Partially 
addressed 

LT 

Baltic Sea 

PL 

Partially 
addressed 

DE 

Addressed 

DK 

SE 

Partially 
addressed 

North-East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

SE 

Partially 
addressed 

Explanation 

Shipping 
indirectly addressed. 

is  addressed.  Port  operations  are 

The  programme  includes  one  indirect  measure. 
Latvia  does  not  report  underwater  noise  as  a 
pressure  in  its  marine  waters,  and  does  not  report 
measures that will directly contribute to decreasing 
the  pressure.  Nevertheless,  the  reported  research 
measure  will  contribute  to  addressing  knowledge 
the 
gaps  for 
neighbouring  Member  States  report  marine-based 
renewable  energy  and  shipping  as  key  activities 
contributing to underwater noise. 

this  descriptor.  Still,  most  of 

to 

better 

characterise 

Shipping  is  addressed.  Marine  based  renewable 
energy  generation,  fisheries  are  only  covered  by 
licensing  and  EIA  measures  and  most  new 
measures are indirect. While the reported measures 
do  not  yet  directly  address  the  pressures,  they 
contribute 
them, 
understanding  risks  and  to  the  work  of  defining 
thresholds at the EU/(sub)regional level. 
Marine based renewable energy generation, marine 
hydrocarbon 
mining, 
tourism/recreational  activities  and  shipping  are 
addressed. Heat and light inputs are also addressed 
through  measures  on  marine  based  renewable 
submarine 
energy 
cable/pipeline operations and offshore activities. 

generation, 

extraction, 

industry, 

marine 

are 

indirectly 

addressed 

Marine  based 
renewable  energy  generation, 
fisheries,  offshore  activities,  marine  research  and 
shipping 
through 
increase  efforts  and  coordination 
knowledge 
better 
contribute 
actions.  These  will 
understanding the pressures. 
renewable  energy  generation, 
Marine  based 
fisheries,  marine 
research  and  shipping  are 
indirectly  addressed  through  knowledge  increase 

to 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

efforts  and  coordination  actions.  These  will 
contribute to better understanding the pressures. 

DK 

DE 

Addressed 

NL 

Addressed 

BE 

Partially 
addressed 

UK 

Partially 
addressed 

IE 

Addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

ES 

Partially 
addressed 

PT 

Partially 
addressed 

dredging, 

extraction, 

that  develops 

communication 

Marine based renewable energy generation, marine 
hydrocarbon  extraction,  fisheries,  marine  mining, 
defence  operations,  marine  research  and  shipping 
are  addressed.  Heat  and  light  inputs  are  also 
addressed  through  measures  on  marine  based 
renewable  energy  generation,  industry,  submarine 
cable/pipeline operations and offshore activities. 
Marine based renewable energy generation, marine 
hydrocarbon extraction, offshore structures, marine 
research  and  shipping  are  addressed.  Light  inputs 
are  also  addressed  through  measures  targeting 
offshore activities. 
Marine  based  renewable  energy  generation  is 
addressed.  Shipping  is  indirectly  addressed  by  a 
measure 
and 
awareness raising effort. 
Marine based renewable energy generation, marine 
hydrocarbon 
land 
claim/coastal  defence  and  shipping  are  addressed. 
Marine research (impulsive noise) is not addressed. 
Continuous  underwater  noise  is  also  not  yet  fully 
covered. 
Marine hydrocarbon extraction, fisheries, dredging, 
marine  research  and  shipping  are  addressed. 
Fisheries and dredging are likely to be covered by 
various  measures  covering  EIA  and  guidance 
documents. 
Marine mining, offshore activities, marine research 
and 
addressed.  Marine-based 
renewable energy generation is also covered by the 
completely new D11 measure. 
Submarine  cable/pipelines,  recreational  activities 
(linked to shipping), marine research and shipping 
are  addressed.  Fisheries  are  only 
indirectly 
addressed  through  a  measure  that  aims  to  raise 
awareness  about  various  pressures  on  the  marine 
environment.  Marine  hydrocarbon  extraction,  port 
operations  and  solid  waste  disposal  are  not 
addressed. 
The programme includes one D11-specific indirect 
measure, two other new indirect measures that are 
also  relevant  for  other  descriptors  and  eight 

shipping 

are 

35 

 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

Mediterranean 
Sea 

UK 
(Gibraltar) 

Partially 
addressed 

ES 

Partially 
addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

IT 

Addressed 

MT 

HR 
SI 
EL 

CY 

Partially 
addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

Black Sea 

BG 

Partially 
addressed 

is 

to 

dredging 

horizontal  new  measures.  While  the  reported 
measures do not yet directly address any pressures, 
they  contribute  to  better  characterising  pressures, 
understanding  risks  and  defining  thresholds  at  the 
EU/sub divisional level. 
Maintenance 
addressed. 
Tourism/recreational activities and shipping are not 
addressed. EIA and Appropriate assessments (AA) 
reducing  noise 
measures  will  contribute 
pressures,  but  they  will  not  be  sufficient  to  cover 
noise impacts from all activities within the region. 
Submarine  cable/pipelines,  recreational  activities 
(linked to shipping), marine research and shipping 
are  addressed.  Fisheries  are  only 
indirectly 
addressed  through  a  measure  that  aims  to  raise 
awareness  about  various  pressures  on  the  marine 
environment.  Marine  hydrocarbon  extraction,  port 
operations  and  solid  waste  disposal  are  not 
addressed. 
Port  operations,  marine  research  and  shipping  are 
addressed. 
Marine  hydrocarbon  extraction,  marine  research 
and  shipping  are  addressed.  Both  impulsive  and 
continuous noises are covered. 
Marine  hydrocarbon  exploration  and  extraction  is 
addressed  (impulsive  noise).  Shipping 
is  not 
addressed (continuous noise). 

Marine  hydrocarbon  extraction 
is  addressed. 
Fisheries,  industry,  tourism/recreational  activities, 
marine research and shipping are not addressed. 
is  addressed. 
Marine  hydrocarbon  extraction 
land 
claim/coastal  defence,  port 
Dredging, 
operations, 
tourism/recreational  activities  and 
shipping are indirectly addressed through measures 
on  data  collection  for  monitoring  purposes  and 
filling  knowledge  gaps.  While  one  of  the  reported 
measures does not directly address the pressures, it 
contributes  to  better  characterise  them,  understand 
risks and define thresholds at the EU/(sub)regional 
level. 

Table 8 Assessment conclusions of coverage of pressures by Member States for D11 

RO 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conclusions 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

s
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S

Most  Member  States  report  research  efforts,  which  aim  to  collect  additional  data  and 
conduct studies to better characterise the pressure of noise, and impact on fauna (mainly 
marine mammals) in line with the TG Noise recommendation15. 

Some  Member  States  have  started  addressing  impulsive  noise  through  measures 
directly targeting this pressure. 

Few Member States have also reported measures tackling other energy inputs (such as 
heat and light).  

Most  Member  States  report  measures  that  aim  to  implement  a  register  for  impulsive 
sounds.  

Some Member States have started monitoring initiatives to model / measure continuous 
noise, which can be seen as a progress. 

The pressure of underwater noise is at least partially addressed by most Member States. 
Activities  covered  include  shipping,  renewable  energy  generation,  hydrocarbon 
extraction, seismic studies and marine research.   

  The programmes of Member States are often very unclear  concerning D11. It is often 
difficult to distinguish between planned measures and those already undertaken. Much 
of what is being described appears to be intentions for future actions. 

Few Member States have established synergies with existing legal acts. Some measures 
refer to the implementation of EIA procedures.  

Member States should make more efforts to address data gaps and consolidate research 
results  to  move  closer  to  characterising  the  noise  pressure  across  the  EU  (or 
(sub)regionally),  in  line  with  the  TG  Noise  recommendation.  This  will  allow  them  to 
then  define  more  concrete  and  direct  measures  to  address  underwater  noise  in  the 
second MSFD implementation cycle. 

Member States should establish direct measures to address activities that are known to 
produce high levels of noise, as soon as possible.  

All Member States not having done so should establish a register for impulsive low-mid 
frequency noise. Those Member States should also ensure that data gaps are addressed 
for  continuous  low  frequency  sounds  in  line  with  TG  Noise  recommendations,  to 
ensure coherence of approaches at the EU level.  

Member  States  should  also  establish  measures  that  address  additional  aspects  of  this 
descriptor, such as heat and light.  

Member States should more consistently use synergies with relevant existing EU legal 
acts,  such  as  the  EIA  Directive;  as  well  as  implement  measures  in  line  with  relevant 
IMO  guidelines  for  the  reduction  of  underwater  noise  from  commercial  shipping  to 
address adverse impacts on marine life. 

s
e
s
s
e
n
k
a
e
W

s
n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
R

15 The technical group ‘TG Noise’ is a subgroup of the MSFD expert group, which provides a forum for the MSFD Common 
Implementation Strategy. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
8.  DESCRIPTORS 1, 4, 6 — BIODIVERSITY 

i.  General biodiversity 

The  coherence  of  the  programmes  in  addressing  biodiversity  is  detailed  in  the  respective 
sections  for  birds,  fish  and  cephalopods,  mammals  and  reptiles,  water  column  habitats  and 
seabed habitats. 

Conclusions 

D1, 4, 6 — General biodiversity 

s
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S

s
e
s
s
e
n
k
a
e
W

Member States’ programmes of measures for the Descriptor themes of birds, mammals 
and reptiles (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6) are mostly coherent. 

Pressures are covered within the programmes, in particular for the priority pressures for 
particular  species  groups  and  habitats,  such  as  by-catch  (birds,  mammals),  noise 
(mammals) and trawling (seabed habitats).   

The majority of Member States use synergies with the Birds and Habitats Directive, by 
including relevant measures from these legal acts into their MSFD programmes. Some 
Member States also refer to the WFD and the CFP.  

The programmes  of Member States  for the Descriptor themes  of fish  and cephalopods 
(when relevant) (D1, 4) and water column habitats (D1, 4) are moderately coherent.  

Pressures of by-catch are addressed for fish and cephalopods, yet most Member States 
focus on commercial species, rather than a broader range of species. Member States do 
not explicitly report which measures in their programmes will contribute to addressing 
pressures  on  water  column  habitats.  It  is  thus  not  always  clear  how  measures  will 
contribute to progress towards targets and GES (as defined by each Member State).   

For  the  most  part,  D4  is  considered  in  measures  related  to  specific  species  (indicator 
species). There is little consideration to the broader functioning of the foodweb,  which 
would  logically  consider  key  species  or  functional  types  at  various  trophic  levels.  In 
some instances, this information is being gathered as part of D1, but is not considered 
within  the  framework  of  D4.  Some  Member  States  indicate  that  they  do  not  currently 
know enough about the functioning of the foodweb to develop meaningful measures. 

Although links with existing legislation, conservation initiatives and projects are made, 
there is little linkage provided between the biodiversity descriptors and relevant pressure 
descriptors,  which  makes  it  difficult  to  assess  whether  certain  pressures  that  affect 
biodiversity are being sufficiently addressed. In the case of non-indigenous species, for 
example, there is rarely any cross-referencing between strategies to address impacts of 
non-indigenous species within the biodiversity descriptors. Eutrophication also requires 
further  synthesis  within  the  biodiversity  framework.  Other  important  descriptors  not 
considered  within  the  framework  of  the  biodiversity  descriptors  include  contaminants 
and marine litter. 

There  is  rarely  enough  information  within  the  programmes  to  determine  progress 
towards ‘addressing’ pressures (i.e. stopping the pressure from damaging key features). 
Most  measures  indicate  that  actions  to  ‘address’  pressures  will  likely  continue  beyond 
2020, but do not specify a timeline. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
D1, 4, 6 — General biodiversity 

The spatial measures reported do not  always provide  clear and specific information  of 
the  management  efforts  that  were/are  expected  to  be  put  in  place.  Information  gaps 
include the representation of species and habitats within the MPAs, the size, number and 
location  of  MPAs,  the  conservation  objectives  of  the  MPAs,  their  coherence  and  the 
policies  and  measures  that  will  be  in  place  within  these  areas.  Links  with  the  other 
measures in the Member States’ programmes is not always evidenced either.  

Data  gaps  are  normally  defined  in  the  measures  for  biodiversity  descriptors  and  it  is 
stated  that  the  time  required  to  conduct  research  and  fill  the  identified  gaps  will 
subsequently move the achievement of GES beyond the 2020 target and into subsequent 
cycles.  

There  are  also  many  inconsistencies  between  targets,  GES  definitions  and  the 
programmes  of  measures;  some  examples  include  indicator  or  protected  species  being 
identified  for  protection  in  the  GES  and  targets,  which  are  not  specifically  discussed 
within the programmes. 

In  a  number  of  instances  for  the  biodiversity  descriptors  the  targets  do  not  adequately 
link with the programmes, making an assessment of progress towards GES very difficult 
in  the  future.  In  some  instances,  it  appears  that  a  completely  different  method  of 
ecological  appraisal  has  been  developed  for  the  targets  and  for  the  programmes.  An 
example of this is the reference to target or indicator species within the targets, which 
are subsequently not referenced again within the programmes. 

Pressures  on  marine  species  and  habitats  are  often  addressed  mainly  through  spatial 
protection  measures  (including  MPAs),  which  limits  the  spatial  scope  of  the  measures 
and  the  potential  benefits  on  species  groups  and  habitats.  Furthermore,  some  Member 
States  do  not  have  a  sufficient  distribution  of  MPAs  (particularly  into  open  sea  areas 
away from the coast. 

Member  States  should  consider  establishing  additional  measures  beyond  spatial 
protection  efforts  to  address  species  and  habitats.  It  is  important  that  pressures  are 
addressed across the broader territory of each Member State. 

Member States should more clearly explain how measures for species groups contribute 
to D4, D3 and D6 (and vice versa). Clearer reporting on D4 in the future would improve 
the understanding on how food webs in particular are addressed by the programme. 

Member  States  should  provide  more  specific  information  on  measures  for  the 
biodiversity  descriptors,  in  terms  of  what  will  be  done  to  ensure  that  GES  will  be 
achieved  by  2020  and  if  not,  how  and  when  GES  is  to  be  achieved  beyond  the  2020 
target. 

Member  States  should  provide  more  information  on  estimating  the  reductions  of 
pressures  that  are  expected  from  the  measures  and  how  this  will  benefit  species  and 
habitats. Many of the monitoring programmes included detailed ecological information 
on  the  dynamics  of  species  and  habitats  and  deviations  from  natural  trends  and  it  is 
important  that  this  information  is  put  in  context  with  the  programmes  and  when  such 
measures will allow for GES to be achieved for species and habitats.  

s
n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
R

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ii.  D1, 4 Birds 

Have the pressures been covered by Member States? 

Coherence of the programmes in the coverage of pressures and associated activities for birds 
(D1, 4) is assessed to be moderate to high across the EU. 

Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

Addressed 

By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection and MSP measures will reduce pressures 
on bird habitats.  

Partially 
addressed 

By-catch from fisheries is addressed. General, non-
bird  specific  biodiversity  measures  are  likely  to 
address pressures on birds. But it remains unclear if 
important pressures are covered.  

FI 

EE 

LV 

LT 

Baltic Sea 

PL 

Addressed 

DE 

Addressed 

DK 

SE 

Addressed 

SE 

Addressed 

By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  bird 
habitats.  Also,  oil  pollution  originating  from  ships 
is addressed. 
By-catch  from  fisheries  is  addressed.  MPA  and 
fisheries  management  measures  will 
reduce 
pressures  on  bird  habitats.  Also,  visual  light 
disturbances 
structures  are 
addressed. 

from  man-made 

By-catch from fisheries is addressed. Also, impacts 
of  collisions  with  boats  and  marine  litter  are 
addressed. 
By-catch from fisheries is addressed. Also, impacts 
of  collisions  with  boats  and  marine  litter  are 
addressed. 

North-East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

DK 

DE 

NL 

BE 

UK 

Addressed 

Addressed 

is  addressed.  Spatial 
By-catch  from  fisheries 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  bird 
habitats.  Also,  visual 
light  disturbances  are 
addressed. 
By-catch  from  fisheries  is  addressed.  Impacts  on 
breeding 
and  biological 
disturbance  caused  by  various  activities  (e.g.  land 
claim, dredging, civil aviation) are covered. 
By-catch 
is  addressed.  Also, 
fisheries 
collisions  with  shipping  vessels  and  oil  pollution 
are addressed. 
Addressed  By-catch  from  fisheries 

is  addressed.  Spatial 

Addressed 

refuge 

areas 

from 

and 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

IE 

Addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

PT 

Partially 
addressed 

UK 
(Gibraltar) 

Addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

Mediterranean 
Sea 

IT 

Addressed 

MT 

Addressed 

protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  bird 
habitats.  Visual  light  disturbance  is  indirectly 
addressed.  Also,  the  measures  cover  impacts  from 
non-indigenous species. 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
By-catch  from  fisheries 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  bird 
habitats. Also, contaminants are covered.  
By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  bird 
habitats.  
By-catch  from  fisheries  is  addressed.  Visual  light 
disturbance  is  addressed  in  the  Canary  Islands. 
Also,  oil  pollution  and  non-indigenous  species 
impacts are addressed.  
By-catch  from  fisheries  is  addressed  only  in  the 
Continental subregion. Nesting areas are protected 
in the Continental and Azores subdivisions. 
By-catch from fisheries is addressed. Also, impacts 
on bird nests will be reduced. Impacts from hunting 
and recreational activities are addressed.  
By-catch  from  fisheries  is  addressed.  Also,  oil 
pollution and non-indigenous species introductions 
in relation to birds are addressed.  
By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  bird 
habitats.  Visual  light  disturbance  and  noise  are 
covered. Also, activities attracting predation (from 
rats and invasive species) are addressed. 
By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  bird 
habitats. 
By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  bird 
habitats. Also, visual light disturbances from man-
made  structures  and  noise  impacts  are  addressed 
(incl.  from  recreational  boating).  Also,  activities 
in  SPAs  are 
attracting  predation  (from  rats) 
addressed. 

HR 
SI 
EL 

CY 

Partially 
addressed 

By-catch  is  not  specifically  addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  bird 
habitats.  

Black Sea 

BG 

Addressed  By-catch  from  fisheries 

is  addressed.  Spatial 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

Table 9 Assessment conclusions of coverage of pressures by Member States for birds (D1, 4) 

RO 

protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  bird 
habitats. 

Conclusions 

D1, 4 — Birds 

s
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S

By-catch  for  birds  is  addressed  by  almost  all  Member  States  through  fisheries 
management measures. 

Several  Member  States  complement  their  direct  measures  with  indirect  measures  on 
awareness-raising  on  the  impact  of  by-catch  on  birds  for  stakeholders  of  the  fisheries 
industry and the general public.  

  Only  certain  Member  States  address  pressures  beyond  by-catch  for  birds,  covering 
physical  disturbances  such  as  light  pollution,  oil  pollution,  effects  of  non-indigenous 
species on seabirds, the disturbance of  nesting sites by predation, noise, contaminants 
and litter ingestion.  

Overall,  birds  are  the  most  studied  species  group.  However,  bird  food  sources  have 
been poorly addressed in the programmes.  

s
e
s
s
e
n
k
a
e
W

  Member  States  should  consider  establishing  additional  measures  to  address  pressures 
s
n
on  birds  beyond  by-catch  (e.g.,  light  and  noise  disturbances,  disturbances  on  nesting 
o
i
t
sites  by  predation,  effects  of  non-indigenous  species,  contaminants,  and  litter 
a
d
n
ingestion), if not already done so. 
e
m
m
o
c
e
R

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iii.  D1, 4 Fish and cephalopods 

Have the pressures been covered by Member States? 

Coherence of the programmes  in the coverage of pressures and associated activities  for fish 
and cephalopods (D1, 4) is assessed to be moderate to high across the EU. 

Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

Partially 
addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

fisheries 

from 
species 
extraction  of 
The  pressure 
indirectly  addressed. 
is 
commercial 
Impacts  on  functional  fish  habitats,  such  as 
breeding  sites  and  migratory  fish  habitats,  are 
addressed. 

The  pressure 
from 
extraction  of 
commercial  fisheries  is  addressed.  General,  non-
fish  specific  biodiversity  measures  are  likely  to 
address pressures on fish. But it remains unclear if 
important pressures are covered. 

species 

FI 

EE 

LV 

LT 

Baltic Sea 

PL 

Addressed 

DE 

Addressed 

DK 

SE 

Addressed 

SE 

Addressed 

DK 

DE 

Addressed 

NL 

Addressed 

North-East 
Atlantic 

is 

species 

fisheries 

extraction  of 

from 
The  pressure 
commercial 
addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  fish 
habitats.  Impacts  on  functional  fish  areas  are 
addressed (i.e. from bottom trawling). 
The  pressure 
from 
extraction  of 
commercial  fisheries  is  addressed.  Longitudinal 
continuity  is  addressed  for  migratory  species.  The 
impact of underwater noise is considered.  

species 

species 

extraction  of 

is  addressed.  Also, 

contaminants,  marine 

The  pressure 
commercial  fisheries 
pressures 
eutrophication are addressed. 
from 
extraction  of 
The  pressure 
commercial  fisheries  and  hunting  is  addressed. 
Contaminants and eutrophication are addressed for 
fish. 

from 
the 
and 

species 

litter 

species 

The  pressure 
from 
extraction  of 
commercial  fisheries  is  addressed.  Longitudinal 
continuity  is  addressed  for  migratory  species.  The 
impact of underwater noise is considered. 
The  pressure 
from 
extraction  of 
commercial  fisheries  is  addressed.  Longitudinal 
continuity  is  addressed  for  migratory  species. 

species 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

BE 

Addressed 

UK 

Addressed 

IE 

Addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

PT 

Partially 
addressed 

UK 
(Gibraltar) 

Partially 
addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

IT 

Addressed 

MT 

Addressed 

Mediterranean 
Sea 

is 

are 

species 

species 

species 

species 

species 

targeted 

fisheries 

extraction  of 

Impacts  on  fish  habitats  through  various  activities 
are addressed (e.g. shipping, dredging, recreation). 
The  pressure 
from 
extraction  of 
commercial  fisheries  is  addressed.  Contaminants 
are addressed for fish. 
The  pressure 
from 
extraction  of 
commercial fisheries and non-commercial fisheries 
is  addressed.  Threatened  and  vulnerable  fish 
(e.g. 
particularly 
species 
elasmobranches and migratory fish). 
from 
The  pressure 
addressed.  Spatial 
commercial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  fish 
habitats. Contaminants are addressed for fish. 
The  pressure 
from 
extraction  of 
commercial  fisheries  is  addressed.  Also,  fishing 
impacts  on  fish  habitats  are  covered.  Longitudinal 
continuity is addressed for migratory species. 
The  pressure 
from 
extraction  of 
commercial fisheries is addressed. Also, impacts of 
aquaculture are covered. 
from 
The  pressure 
addressed.  Spatial 
commercial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  fish 
habitats.  Nevertheless,  there  is  a  lack  of  coverage 
of non-commercial fish species.  
Spatial  protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures 
on  fish  habitats.  But,  illegal  fishing  activities, 
which cause by-catch for fish, are not addressed. 
from 
extraction  of 
The  pressure 
commercial fisheries is addressed. Also, impacts of 
aquaculture are covered. 
The  pressure 
from 
extraction  of 
commercial  fisheries  is  addressed.  Longitudinal 
continuity  is  addressed  for  migratory  species. 
Contaminants are addressed for fish. 
from 
The  pressure 
commercial 
addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  fish 
habitats. Contaminants are addressed for fish.  
from 
extraction  of 
The  pressure 
commercial fisheries is addressed. Also, injury and 
mortality  from  ghost  fishing  (marine  litter)  are 
addressed.  Specific  actions  to  protect  vulnerable 
elasmobranch species are reported. Malta refers to 

extraction  of 

extraction  of 

fisheries 

fisheries 

species 

species 

species 

species 

species 

is 

is 

44 

 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

such  as  changes 

pressures 
to  hydrological 
processes  and  contaminants,  but  claims  to  cover 
these under D7 and D8. 

HR 
SI 
EL 

CY 

Addressed 

Black Sea 

BG 

Addressed 

RO 

is 

species 

fisheries 

extraction  of 

from 
The  pressure 
commercial 
addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on  fish 
habitats.  Artificial  reefs  have  been  reported  to 
improve functional fish habitats.  
from 
extraction  of 
The  pressure 
commercial  fisheries  and  recreational  fisheries  is 
addressed. 

species 

Table 10 Assessment conclusions of coverage of pressures by Member States for fish and cephalopods (D1, 4) 

Conclusions 

D1, 4 — Fish and cephalopods 
  Some  Member  States  complement  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3)  measures  with 
s
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S

In addition to protecting fish species, some Member States also protect functional fish 
habitats through spatial protection measures. 

spatial protection measures aiming to also protect non-commercial species. 

s
e
s
s
e
n
k
a
e
W

Overall,  fish  are  considered  to  have  the  weakest  coverage  of  the  biodiversity  species 
groups. Most targets and GES definitions consider non-commercial fish species in their 
text,  but  only  limited  actions  are  provided  in  the  measures  (beyond  those  for 
commercial stocks). 

The programmes of measures do not include specific measures or plans for cephalopod 
species. 

Commercial fish species are more broadly considered within the programmes through 
measures under the CFP, and the Member States make only limited reference to non-
commercial fish stocks (and cephalopods when applicable).  

In  addition,  further  MPAs  need  to  be  considered  for  open  sea  areas  to  protect  non-
commercial fish  and  cephalopods  species  and  their  habitats  from  pressures  that  affect 
them  such  as  non-indigenous  species,  by-catch,  noise  and  contaminants.  Even  though 
area-based  protection  is  considered  within  the  programmes,  there  is  little  information 
on where fish and cephalopod species present within Member States’ territorial waters 
are protected and how they are protected. 

Member  States  that  have  applied  for  an  exception  under  Article 14(1)(e)  have  not 
always provided fully  grounded justifications for doing so (e.g. time-lags for biomass 
increase but details are missing). 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s
n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
R

Member States should establish measures that extend beyond CFP, Habitats Directive 
and WFD related efforts, and address additional fish and cephalopod species, which are 
non-commercial  species  in  open  sea  areas.  The  Member  States  should  therefore 
establish  more  measures  targeting  non-commercial  fish  and  cephalopods  (when 
relevant) in these areas. 

Member  States  should  establish  measures  that  include  additional  MPAs  in  open  sea 
areas  to  protect  non-commercial  fish  and  cephalopods  species  from  various  pressures 
(non-indigenous  species,  by-catch,  noise  and  contaminants).  Information  on  existing 
MPAs  and  the  level  of  protection  they  provide  for  fish  (commercial  and  non-
commercial) and cephalopods species should be more clearly reported where fish and 
cephalopods species occur  within  Member States’  territorial waters, are protected and 
how they are protected. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
iv.  D1, 4 Mammals and reptiles 

Have the pressures been covered by Member States? 

Coherence  of  the  programmes  in  the  coverage  of  pressures  and  associated  activities  for 
mammals and reptiles (D1, 4) is assessed to be moderate across the EU. 

Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

Partially 
addressed 

By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection and MSP measures will reduce pressures 
on mammal habitats. Underwater noise is indirectly 
addressed. The Member State covers contaminants.  

Partially 
addressed 

By-catch  from  fisheries  is  indirectly  addressed. 
Spatial  protection  and  MSP  measures  will  reduce 
pressures on mammal habitats. 

FI 

EE 

LV 

LT 

Baltic Sea 

PL 

Partially 
addressed 

DE 

Addressed 

DK 

SE 

SE 

DK 

DE 

Partially 
addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

Addressed 

NL 

Addressed 

BE 

Partially 
addressed 

North-East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection and MSP measures will reduce pressures 
on  mammal  habitats.  Contaminants  from  oil 
pollution  are  covered.  Underwater  noise  is  not 
covered. 
By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection and MSP measures will reduce pressures 
is 
on  mammal  habitats.  Underwater  noise 
addressed. 

is  addressed.  Spatial 
By-catch  from  fisheries 
protection and MSP measures will reduce pressures 
on  mammal  habitats.  Underwater  noise  and 
contaminants are not addressed.  
is  addressed.  Spatial 
By-catch  from  fisheries 
protection and MSP measures will reduce pressures 
on  mammal  habitats.  Underwater  noise  and 
contaminants are not covered. 

By-catch  from  fisheries  is  addressed.  Underwater 
noise is covered.  
is  addressed.  Spatial 
By-catch  from  fisheries 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on 
mammal  and  turtle  habitats.  Shipping  impacts  are 
addressed. 
is  addressed.  But, 
By-catch 
underwater  noise  and  other  shipping  impacts  on 
mammal habitats are not covered.  

fisheries 

from 

UK 

Addressed  By-catch 

from 

fisheries 

is  addressed.  Also, 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

underwater noise, contaminants and collisions with 
ships are covered.  
By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on 
mammal and turtle habitats. Underwater noise and 
contaminants are covered. 
By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on 
mammal and turtle habitats. Underwater noise and 
contaminants are covered. 
By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on 
mammal and turtle habitats. Also, underwater noise 
and collisions with ships are covered for mammals.  
By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on 
mammal  and  turtle  habitats.  But  underwater  noise 
is not covered. 
Spatial  protection  and  MSP  measures  will  reduce 
pressures  on  mammal  and  turtle  habitats.  But, 
underwater  noise  and  collisions  with  ships  are  not 
addressed.  
is  addressed.  Spatial 
By-catch  from  fisheries 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on 
mammal  and  turtle  habitats.  Underwater  noise  is 
covered.  Also,  mammal  collisions  with  ships  are 
addressed. 
By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on 
mammal and turtle habitats. Underwater noise and 
contaminants are covered.  
By-catch from fisheries is addressed. Contaminants 
from  pollution  are  covered.  Also,  mammal 
collisions with ships are addressed.  
Incidental  by-catch  from  fisheries  and  hunting,  as 
well  as  impacts  from  tourism  and  mortality  of 
cetaceans from collisions with ships are addressed. 
Only 
(seismic 
activities)  is  covered  and  continuous  noise  (from 
shipping) is not. 

impulsive  underwater  noise 

IE 

Addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

PT 

Partially 
addressed 

UK 
(Gibraltar) 

Partially 
addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

FR 

Addressed 

Mediterranean 
Sea 

IT 

Addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

MT 

HR 
SI 
EL 

CY 

Partially 
addressed 

By-catch of turtles from fisheries is not addressed. 
Spatial  protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

on  mammal  and  turtle  habitats.  Underwater  noise 
will be addressed.  
By-catch  from  fisheries 
is  addressed.  Spatial 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on 
mammal  habitats.  Underwater  noise  will  be 
addressed for oil and gas exploitation activities. No 
measure  has  been  reported  to  address  pressures 
from shipping. 

Black Sea 

Partially 
addressed 

BG 

RO 

Table 11 Assessment conclusions of coverage of pressures by Member States for mammals and reptiles (D1, 4) 

Conclusions 

D1, 4 — Mammals and reptiles 

s
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S

s
e
s
s
e
n
k
a
e
W

By-catch  from  fisheries  activities  affecting  mammals  and  reptiles  (where  relevant)  is 
addressed by all Member States. 

Most  Member  States  also  report  spatial  protection  measures  to  address  several 
pressures  such  as  underwater  noise  due 
to  shipping,  by-catch  and  habitat 
damage/loss.    

Furthermore, several Member States go beyond by-catch, and also address underwater 
noise  or  contaminants  and  their  direct  effects  on  mammals  and  reptiles  (where 
relevant). 

Most  Member  States  do  not  address  other  direct  pressures  on  mammals,  such  as 
collisions with ships or underwater noise.   

Measures addressing ingestion and entanglement from marine litter are not extensively 
reported. This can be considered as a shortcoming in the reporting by Member States, 
as marine litter measures reported by all Member States are likely to address this issue.  

Most  measures  heavily  rely  on  the  Habitats  Directive.  Very  little  information  is 
provided on the suitability and status of these existing, often species-specific measures. 
There  is  little  reference  to  any  additional  work  on  species  not  covered  within  the 
Habitats  Directive  (although  the  majority  of  marine  mammals  and  reptiles  are 
considered under this Directive), as well as the areas not covered by the Natura 2000 
network  (e.g.,  open  sea  areas)  where  all  kinds  of  cumulative  impacts  can  still  affect 
species. 

  Member  States  should  consider  establishing  additional  measures  to  address  relevant 
s
n
pressures on mammals and reptiles beyond by-catch (e.g. collisions with ships, noise, 
o
i
t
entanglement, and ingestion of litter), if not already done so.  
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
R

Member States should establish measures beyond the remits of the Habitats Directive 
to strengthen marine mammal and reptile protection. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
v.  D1, 4 Water column habitats 

Have the pressures been covered by Member States? 

Coherence of the programmes in the coverage of pressures and associated activities for water 
column habitats (D1, 4) is assessed to be moderate across the EU. 

Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

Baltic Sea 

Partially 
addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

FI 

EE 

LV 

LT 

PL 

DE 

DK 

SE 

Addressed 

SE 

Addressed 

Nutrient  enrichment  is  covered  by  the  measures. 
No  links  are  made  between  water  column  habitats 
and measures addressing non-indigenous species or 
contaminants  (even  though  these  measures  are 
reported  under  D2  and  D8  and  will  contribute  to 
reducing  the  pressure).  Marine  litter  will  be 
addressed indirectly.  

and 

enrichment 

contaminants 

Nutrient 
are 
addressed.  General,  non-water  column  specific 
biodiversity  measures  are 
to  address 
pressures on water column habitats. But it remains 
unclear if important pressures are covered. 

likely 

Nutrient  enrichment  is  covered  by  the  measures. 
Spatial  protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures 
on  water  column  habitats.  No  other  pressures  are 
directly addressed.  
Spatial  protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures 
on  water  column  habitats  (incl.  improving  seabed 
habitat  conditions and  reduce  waste  water  runoff). 
No  links  are  made  between  water  column  habitats 
and  measures  addressing  non-indigenous  species 
(even though these measures are reported under D2 
and will contribute to reducing the pressure). 

and 

enrichment 

contaminants 

are 
Nutrient 
addressed.  Also,  non-indigenous  species  and 
hydrographical changes pressures are covered. 
Nutrient 
are 
contaminants 
addressed.  Also,  non-indigenous  species  and 
hydrographical changes pressures are covered. 

enrichment 

and 

North-East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

DK 

DE 

Partially 
addressed 

Spatial  protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures 
on  water  column  habitats  (incl.  improving  seabed 
habitat  conditions and  reduce  waste  water  runoff). 
No  links  are  made  between  water  column  habitats 
and  measures  addressing  non-indigenous  species 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

NL 

Partially 
addressed 

BE 

Partially 
addressed 

UK 

Partially 
addressed 

IE 

Partially 
addressed 

FR 

Partially 
addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

PT 

Partially 
addressed 

changes 

(even though these measures are reported under D2 
and will contribute to reducing the pressure). 
No  links  are  made  between  water  column  habitats 
and  measures  addressing  non-indigenous  species, 
or 
hydrographical 
eutrophication, 
contaminants  (even  though  these  measures  are 
reported  under  D2,  D5,  D7  and  D8  and  will 
contribute to reducing the pressure). 
No  links  are  made  between  water  column  habitats 
and  measures  addressing  non-indigenous  species, 
eutrophication or contaminants (even though these 
measures  are  reported  under  D2,  D5  and  D8  and 
will contribute to reducing the pressure). 
The  Member  State  refers  to  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish (D3) and eutrophication (D5) measures to 
address  pressures  on  water  column  habitats  (but 
does  not  specify  which  measures  are  relevant.  No 
links are made between water column habitats and 
measures  addressing  non-indigenous  species  or 
contaminants  (even  though  these  measures  are 
reported  under  D2  and  D8  and  will  contribute  to 
reducing the pressure). 
Contaminants  are  covered.  No  links  are  made 
between  water  column  habitats  and  measures 
addressing  non-indigenous  species,  eutrophication 
or  marine  litter  (even  though  these  measures  are 
reported under D2, D5 and D10 and will contribute 
to reducing the pressure).  
Extraction  of species from commercial  fisheries is 
covered,  in  addition  to  aquaculture  impacts.  No 
links are made between water column habitats and 
measures  addressing  non-indigenous 
species, 
eutrophication or contaminants (even though these 
measures  are  reported  under  D2,  D5  and  D8  and 
will contribute to reducing the pressure).  
Nutrient enrichment, contaminants, non-indigenous 
species,  marine  litter  and  hydrological  conditions 
are  addressed.  Spatial  protection  measures  will 
reduce pressures on water column habitats. 
Spatial  protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures 
on  water  column  habitats.  No  links  are  made 
between  water  column  habitats  and  measures 
addressing  non-indigenous  species,  commercial 
fish  and  shellfish,  eutrophication  or  contaminants 
(even  though  these  measures  are  reported  under 

51 

 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

D2, D3, D5 and D8 and will contribute to reducing 
the pressure). 
The  Member  State  refers  to  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish (D3) and eutrophication (D5) measures to 
address  pressures  on  water  column  habitats  (but 
does  not  specify  which  measures  are  relevant.  No 
links are made between water column habitats and 
measures  addressing  non-indigenous  species  or 
contaminants  (even  though  these  measures  are 
reported  under  D2  and  D8  and  will  contribute  to 
reducing the pressure).  
Nutrient enrichment, contaminants, non-indigenous 
species,  marine  litter  and  hydrological  conditions 
are  addressed.  Spatial  protection  measures  will 
reduce pressures on water column habitats. 
Extraction  of species from commercial  fisheries is 
covered.  The  impact  of noise is  covered.  No links 
are  made  between  water  column  habitats  and 
measures  addressing  non-indigenous 
species, 
eutrophication or contaminants (even though these 
measures  are  reported  under  D2,  D5  and  D8  and 
will  contribute  to  reducing  the  pressure).  Marine 
litter will be addressed indirectly. 
No  water  column  habitat  measures  have  been 
reported.  But  spatial  protection  measures  will 
reduce  pressures  on  water  column  habitats.  No 
links are made between water column habitats and 
species, 
measures  addressing  non-indigenous 
commercial 
or 
fisheries, 
contaminants  (even  though  these  measures  are 
reported  under  D2,  D3,  D5  and  D8  and  will 
contribute to reducing the pressure).  
Nutrient  enrichment  is  covered  by  the  measures. 
No  links  are  made  between  water  column  habitats 
and measures addressing non-indigenous species or 
contaminants  (even  though  these  measures  are 
reported  under  D2  and  D8  and  will  contribute  to 
reducing the pressure). 

eutrophication 

UK 
(Gibraltar) 

Partially 
addressed 

ES 

Addressed 

FR 

Partially 
addressed 

IT 

Partially 
addressed 

Mediterranean 
Sea 

Partially 
addressed 

MT 

HR 
SI 
EL 

CY 

Partially 
addressed 

Spatial  protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures 
on  water  column  habitats.  No  links  are  made 
between  water  column  habitats  and  measures 
addressing  non-indigenous  species,  eutrophication 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

or  contaminants  (even  though  these  measures  are 
reported under D2, D5 and D8 and will contribute 
to reducing the pressure).  
Spatial  protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures 
on  water  column  habitats.  No  links  are  made 
between  water  column  habitats  and  measures 
addressing  non-indigenous  species,  eutrophication 
or  contaminants  (even  though  these  measures  are 
reported under D2, D5 and D8 and will contribute 
to reducing the pressure).  

Black Sea 

Partially 
addressed 

BG 

RO 

Table 12 Assessment conclusions of coverage of pressures by Member States for water column habitats (D1, 4) 

Conclusions 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
  Member States address pressures on water column habitats via measures reported for 
s
h
other descriptors (namely D2, D5, D7, D8 and D10). Few Member State clearly report 
t
g
n
the group of measures that are directly relevant to water column habitats and how these 
e
r
will contribute to achieving GES and targets for this habitat type.  
t
S

s
e
s
s
e
n
k
a
e
W

Member  States  do  not  explicitly  report  which  measures  in  their  programmes  will 
contribute to addressing pressures on water column habitats. It is thus not always clear 
how measures will contribute to progress towards targets and GES (as defined by each 
Member State).   

The  water  column,  although  considered  in  other  descriptors,  is  mainly  covered  by 
Member States in terms of water quality. Plankton is a key feature of the terminology 
in the monitoring programmes, which is rarely referenced in the biodiversity measures. 
Additionally, the water column is a key transfer route for the majority of non-seabed 
species  and  needs  to  be  considered  as  part  of  the  broader  ecological  coherence  of 
Member  States  waters,  within  MPAs  and  for  foodwebs.  The  water  column  is  often 
discounted from such measures due to a lack of scientific knowledge of these habitat 
types. 

  Member  States  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  address  pressures  for 
s
n
these  habitats,  and  describe  how  GES  and  targets  for  water  column  habitats  are 
o
i
t
expected to be achieved. 
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
R

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
vi.  D1, 4, 6 Seabed habitats 

Have the pressures been covered by Member States? 

Coherence of the programmes in the coverage of pressures and associated activities for seabed 
habitats (D1, 4, 6) is assessed to be moderate across the EU, as pressures other than physical 
pressures are not addressed in a consistent manner. 

Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

FI 

Addressed 

Physical loss from fisheries is addressed indirectly 
but the Member State reports that it is not relevant 
within its waters. Physical loss and damage caused 
by  dredging  are  addressed.  Nutrient  enrichment 
impacts are partially covered. 

EE 

LV 

LT 

PL 

DE 

DK 

SE 

SE 

DK 

DE 

Partially 
addressed 

Physical  damage  from  fisheries  is  addressed. 
loss  caused  by  dumping  of  dredge 
Physical 
material is partially covered.  

Addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

loss  and  damage  from  fisheries 

Physical  damage  from  fisheries  is  addressed. 
Pollution  caused  by  dumping  of  dredge  material 
and discharge of waste water is covered. 
Physical 
is 
addressed.  Also,  habitat  loss  is  covered.  But, 
marine  hydrocarbon  extraction,  marine-based 
renewable energy generation, solid waste disposal, 
are not directly addressed (although reported under 
Article 8). 

Partially 
addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

Physical  damage  and  loss  from  fisheries  and 
dredging  are  addressed.  Impacts  from  renewable 
energy, solid waste disposal and shipping are likely 
to  be  addressed  by  spatial  protection  measures 
(reported  under  Article 8).  Physical  damage  from 
shipping has not been addressed (although reported 
under Article 8).  
Physical  damage  and  loss  from  fisheries  and 
dredging  are  addressed.  Impacts  from  renewable 
energy, solid waste disposal and shipping are likely 
to  be  addressed  by  spatial  protection  measures 
(reported  under  Article 8).  Physical  damage  from 
shipping has not been addressed (although reported 
under Article 8). 

Partially 
addressed 

Physical 
is 
addressed.  Also,  habitat  loss  is  covered.  But, 

loss  and  damage  from  fisheries 

Baltic Sea 

North-East 
Atlantic 
Ocean 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

NL 

Addressed 

BE 

Partially 
addressed 

UK 

Partially 
addressed 

IE 

Partially 
addressed 

FR 

Partially 
addressed 

ES 

Partially 
addressed 

are 

and 

energies, 

hydrocarbon 

coastal  defence 

marine  hydrocarbon  extraction,  marine-based 
renewable energy generation, solid waste disposal, 
are not directly addressed (although reported under 
Article 8). 
Physical damage and loss from fisheries is covered. 
Impacts  from  land  claim  and  coastal  defence  and 
sand and gravel extraction are addressed. 
Physical damage and loss from fisheries is covered. 
Impacts from and gravel extraction and land claim 
and  coastal  defence  are  not  covered  by  the 
programme.  Pollution  is  covered  for  shipping. 
Furthermore,  severe  pollution  from  shipping  will 
be  covered,  in  addition  to  selective  extraction  of 
gravel Land claim activities are not addressed.  
Physical  damage  and  loss  from  fisheries  and  land 
addressed. 
claim 
Uncertainties  exist  on  the  coverage  of  marine 
renewable 
extraction 
dredging,  and  sand  and  gravel  extraction  are 
covered by the programme. 
Physical  damage  and  loss  from  fisheries,  land 
claim  and  coastal  defence,  offshore  structures  and 
submarine  cables  are  not  sufficiently  covered. 
Impacts  from  dredging,  hydrocarbon  exploitation 
and  aquaculture  are  addressed.  Contaminants  and 
marine litter are covered.  
Physical  damage  and  loss  from  fisheries  and 
dredging are primarily addressed in MPAs and the 
deep  sea.  Also,  dredging,  aquaculture,  land  claim 
and  coastal  defence,  port  operations,  submarine 
cables and pipeline operations, solid waste disposal 
and recreational activities (mooring and anchoring) 
are  covered  in  the  Celtic  Seas  and  Bay  of  Biscay. 
In  the  North  Sea,  land  claim/coastal  defence,  port 
operations,  research  and  seaweed  harvesting  are 
not covered (although reported under Article 8).   
Physical  damage  and  loss  from  fisheries  and 
dredging  are  addressed  (primarily  in  MPAs). 
Impacts  from hydrocarbon exploitation, renewable 
energies, dredging, underwater cables and pipelines 
and  aquaculture  are  covered  by  spatial  protection 
measures.  However,  it  is  not  clear  how  much  the 
pressures will be reduced across the large areas of 
seabed habitats where the pressures occur and thus 
whether  the  measures  will  reduce  impacts  on 

55 

 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

PT 

Not 
addressed 

UK 
(Gibraltar) 

Partially 
addressed 

ES 

Partially 
addressed 

FR 

Partially 
addressed 

IT 

Partially 
addressed 

MT 

Partially 
addressed 

HR 

Mediterranean 
Sea 

affected seabed habitats. 
The measures do not directly address physical loss 
and  damage  pressures.  Measures  are  linked  to 
seabed  mapping  and  monitoring  activities  rather 
than protection measures.  
Spatial  protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures 
on  seabed  habitats.  But,  pressures  from  transport, 
tourism  and  recreation  (incl.  anchoring)  and 
dredging are not addressed. 
Physical  damage  and  loss  from  fisheries  and 
dredging  are  addressed  (primarily  in  MPAs). 
Impacts  from hydrocarbon exploitation, renewable 
energies, dredging, underwater cables and pipelines 
and  aquaculture  are  covered  by  spatial  protection 
measures.  However,  it  is  not  clear  how  much  the 
pressures will be reduced across the large areas of 
seabed habitats where the pressures occur and thus 
whether  the  measures  will  reduce  impacts  on 
affected seabed habitats. 
Physical  damage  and  loss  from  fisheries  and 
dredging are primarily addressed in MPAs and the 
deep  sea.  Also,  marine  mining,  submarine  cables, 
aquaculture  and  port  operations  are  not  covered, 
although they could be addressed by  the measures 
that do not target any specific activity. 
Physical  damage  and  loss  from  fisheries  are 
territorial  waters  only.  Spatial 
addressed 
protection  measures  will  reduce  pressures  on 
seabed  habitats.  Impacts  from  underwater  cables 
and  pipelines,  port  operations,  land  claim,  coastal 
defence,  solid  waste  disposal  are  addressed 
indirectly.  
Physical damage and loss from fisheries (mainly in 
MPAs  and  deep  sea,  not  in  Malta’s  entire  waters) 
and dredging are addressed, in addition to offshore 
disposal,  marine 
operations, 
hydrocarbon 
operations, 
port 
aquaculture  and  tourism.  However,  industry  and 
urban  activities  are  not  addressed  by  seabed-
specific  measures 
reported  under 
Article 8).  They  are  likely  to  be  covered  by 
measures 
descriptors. 
under 
However, the link about how these measures would 
affect seabed habitats is no clearly made.  

solid  waste 
extraction, 

(although 

defined 

other 

in 

56 

 
 
 
 
Region 

Member 
State 

Assessment 
against 
pressures 

Explanation 

SI 
EL 

CY 

BG 

RO 

Black Sea 

Partially 
addressed 

Partially 
addressed 

Physical  damage  and  loss  from  fisheries  and 
dredging  are  addressed.  Impacts  from  land  claim, 
coastal  defence  and  port  operations  are  partly 
covered. 
Physical  damage  and  loss  from  fisheries  and 
dredging  are  addressed.  Physical  loss  and  damage 
caused  by  port  operations,  land  claim  and  coastal 
defence are partially covered. 

Table 12 Assessment conclusions of coverage of pressures by Member States for seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6) 

Conclusions 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats: strengths, weaknesses and recommendations 

s
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S

s
e
s
s
e
n
k
a
e
W

Several Member States report measures to regulate and reduce pressures resulting from 
recreational  activities,  particularly  in  MPAs,  which  can  be  destructive  to  seabed 
habitats (i.e. vessel mooring, recreational fisheries and diving).  

Few  Member  States  report  existing  and  new  measures  that  target  destructive  fishing 
practices  within  and  outside  spatially  protected  areas,  such  as  via  the  use  of  less 
destructive gears by fishing vessels.  

Seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6) is normally well represented within the programmes, but in 
varying levels of progress towards the 2020 target, with some indicating that GES will 
not be achieved by 2020. 

Most Member States consider trawling restrictions within spatial protection measures, 
which are often lacking in detail on their area coverage, temporal ranges of restrictions 
and  minimal  consideration  is  given  to  the  broader  issues  of  trawling  outside  of  these 
spatially protected areas. 

Other pressures on seabed habitats are also mostly addressed through spatial protection 
measures,  which  will  limit  the  extent  of  geographical  area  of  where  restrictions  of 
certain practices are applied and the extent to which seabed habitats are protected.  

In  several  cases,  the  Member  States  do  not  address  all  the  pressures  reported  under 
Article 8 or only cover these partly or through indirect measures.  

The  majority  of  pressures  discussed  relate  to  physical  loss  and  damage  to  seabed 
habitat, with minimal consideration of other pressures such as non-indigenous species, 
eutrophication and marine litter. 

Some  important  pressures,  particularly  on  coastal  development  and  mineral/aggregate 
extraction  from  the  seabed,  are  not  considered  in  enough  detail  across  most  Member 
States under D1, 4, 6, with most measures focus on trawling limitation. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats: strengths, weaknesses and recommendations 

s
n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
R

Member  States  should  establish  measures  that  address  pressures  reported  under 
Article 8  relevant  to  seabed  habitats  more  extensively.  In  addition,  measures  should 
extend beyond spatially protected areas (and MPAs) to ensure a wider spatial coverage 
for these habitats, when not done so. 

Member  States  should  address  coastal  development  and  aggregate  extraction  better 
within  programmes  as  both  are  frequently  highlighted  as  major  threats  to  seabed 
habitats. 

Member  States  should  provide  timescales  and  estimates  of  how  spatial  restrictions  of 
seabed damaging activities will allow for GES to be achieved.  

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
B. Member State conclusions and recommendations 

1.  Belgium 

General conclusions on Belgium’s programme of measures 

Strengths and weaknesses 

-  The programme of measures addresses GES and targets for commercial fish 

and shellfish (D3), contaminants (D8) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

-  The  Member  State  considers  that  GES  will  be  achieved  by  2020  for  all 
descriptors,  except  for  hydrographical  changes  (D7)  and  water  column 
habitats (D1, 4). 

-  The  programme  includes  measures  that  are  based  on  commitments  to 
existing European policies, such as Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 (D2), the 
Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP;  D3,  D1,  4,  6),  the  Water  Framework 
Directive  (WFD;  D5,  D8),  Urban  Wastewater  Treatment  Directive 
(UWWTD;  D5,  D8),  as  well  as  international  instruments  such  as  the 
International  Maritime  Organisation’s  (IMO)  —  International  Convention 
for  the  Prevention  of  Pollution  from  Ships  (MARPOL)  (D8)  or  the  IMO-
Ballast  Water  Management  Convention  (D2)  and  regional  actions  such  as 
the OSPAR action plan for marine litter (D10) or OSPAR Joint Assessment 
and Monitoring Programme (JAMP) (D5, D8). 

-  The programme includes both existing and new measures that complement 
those  already  in  place  to  specifically  target  pressures  on  the  marine 
environment which were not otherwise covered. 

-  The  programme  includes  spatial  protection  measures.  These  measures 
address more than one descriptor and therefore contribute towards GES and 
targets for several descriptors. Measures include the strengthening of MPA 
networks and the establishment of management measures within MPAs. 

-  The  programme  combines  direct  and  indirect  measures,  thus  directly 
addressing  pressures  on  the  marine  environment  while  simultaneously 
implementing  measures  which  complement  the  direct  measures  through 
governance and coordination actions, as well as awareness raising efforts. 
-  Based on the information reported by the Member State on cost and resource 
allocations, timelines of implementation of measures as well as responsible 
bodies for implementation, the likelihood of implementation is high — most 
measures  have  secured  funding  and  the  timeline  for  implementing  them  is 
2016-2020 (except for one measure to be implemented in 2021). 

-  In this first implementation cycle of the MSFD, in relation to descriptors for 
which  knowledge  gaps  exist  (i.e.  D10),  the  Member  State  reports  research 
efforts.  This  will  allow  knowledge  gaps  to  be  addressed,  but  also  to  build 
upon  the  results  to  enable  the  design  of  measures  which  will  contribute 
directly  to  tackling  the  pressures  in  the  MSFD’s  second  implementation 
cycle.  

-  The  programme  of  measures  partially  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  non-
indigenous species (D2), eutrophication (D5), contaminants in seafood (D9), 
marine  litter  (D10),  underwater  noise  and  energy  (D11),  birds,  fish,  and 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

59 

 
 
 
mammals (D1, 4). 

-  The  programme  does  not  include  any  specific  measure  for  water  column 
habitats  (D1,  4)  and  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  except  a  WFD  measure 
that may address D7 in the coast, which partially addresses GES and targets 
definitions. 

-  In  some  cases,  the  programme  does  not  include  sufficient  links  to  existing 
European  policies  as  well  as  international  instruments.  It  is  especially  the 
case for D1, 4, 6, D9 and D11. 

-  The  Member  State  does  not  always  provide  sufficient  details  about  the 
measures to understand how they will contribute to progress towards targets 
and GES (as defined by the Member State). 

-  The programme includes spatial measures that do not always provide clear 
and  specific  information  on  the  management  efforts  in  place  (or  to  be 
implemented  in  the  future).  Information  gaps  include  the  representation  of 
species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number,  and  location  of 
MPAs, the conservation objectives of the MPAs. 

-  While impact assessments were carried out for new measures, the results do 
not allow for a quantification of what the measures will achieve; i.e. to what 
extent  the  relevant  pressure  will  be  addressed,  and  whether  the  measures 
will be sufficient to achieve GES. 

-  The  spatial  scope  of  the  measures  is  not  specified  consistently  across  the 

programme. 

-  The Member State does not make sufficient links between the measures for 
the pressure descriptors and how they might benefit the state descriptors (i.e. 
biodiversity  descriptors  D1,  4,  6),  especially  in  the  case  of  the  existing 
measures.  This  prevents  understanding  how  state  descriptors  benefit  from 
these  measures,  which  are  likely  to  contribute  in  addressing  pressures  on 
species and habitats. 

-  The programme sometimes includes data collection efforts, as measures. 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  introductions  of  non-indigenous  species through 
the 

shipping  via  ballast  water  management 
(measures 
implementation of the BWMC) and anti-fouling measures. 

linked 

to 

-  The  programme  does  not  address  introductions  of  non-indigenous  species 
from  aquaculture.  It  is  also  unclear  whether  the  measures  also  address 
recreational vessels. 

-  The programme does not include early warning systems for introductions of 

non-indigenous species as measures. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  from  commercial  and 

recreational fishing. 

-  The  programme  includes  seasonal  and/or  spatial  fishing  bans  (for  several 
purposes,  including;  stock  management,  biodiversity  conservation,  and 
protection  of  over-exploited  stocks)  in  addition  to  many  existing  CFP 
measures. 

-  The measures cover stocks managed at the national level as well as aspects 

that relate to age/size structure of species. 

Weaknesses  -  The programme does not cover aquaculture (an activity specified as relevant 

60 

 
 
by Belgium). 

D5 — Eutrophication 

-  The programme addresses nutrient inputs from urban areas. 
-  The  measures  for  eutrophication  draw  from  Member  State’s  WFD  River 
Basin  Management  Plans.  In  the  framework  of  the  MSFD,  most  are 
considered likely to be sufficient to address pressures of nutrient and organic 
matter  enrichment  in  the  marine  environment  and  cover  relevant  human 
activities. However, considering the extent to which the MSFD programme 
of  measures  relies  on  WFD  measures,  this  statement  is  subject  to  the 
RBMPs being assessed as adequate under the WFD assessment. 
-  The programme does not address nutrient inputs from agriculture. 
-  It also does not address atmospheric deposition of nutrients (NOx) from sea-
based and land-based sources (for example, no link to IMO-MARPOL). 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

Strengths 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  None identified. 
-  The  programme  does  not  include  measures  to  tackle  hydrographical 
changes.  It  is  possible  that  pressures  on  hydrographical  changes  are 
addressed  via  measures  reported  for  non-indigenous  species  (D2), 
eutrophication  (D5)  and  contaminants  (D8);  but  how  the  programme  will 
contribute 
to  addressing  pressures  on  hydrographical  changes  (D7) 
specifically cannot be determined based on the information reported. 

Weaknesses 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  introduction  of  contaminants  and  accidental 
pollution through measures that target shipping and marine-based renewable 
energy generation. 

-  The  programme  addresses  contaminant  inputs  to  the  sea  from  land-based 
(e.g. industry, urban areas) and sea-based sources (e.g. shipping, fisheries), 
as well as the biological effect of contaminants. 

-  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  programme  addresses  atmospheric  deposition  of 

contaminants. 

-  The programme includes dedicated contaminants in seafood (D9) measures, 

Weaknesses 

but they do not address pressures directly. 

-  It also does not explain how measures for contaminants (D8) will contribute 
to  addressing  pressures  for  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9)  and  allow  for 
progress towards D9 GES and targets. 

D10 — Marine litter 

-  The programme addresses marine litter, by covering fisheries, shipping, and 

tourism/recreational activities. 

-  It  addresses  the  reduction  of  marine  litter  input  in  coastal  areas  and  in  the 

open sea, as well as the removal of existing litter. 

-  The  programme  specifically  covers  macro-litter  with  measures  targeting 

litter removal. 

-  The programme  includes indirect measures to raise  awareness and  monitor 
micro-litter,  which,  while  not  yet  fully  addressing  the  problem,  will 
positively  contribute  to  better  characterising  the  pressure  and  its  potential 
impact on fauna. 

-  The  programme  does  not  yet  fully  address  micro-litter,  referring  to 

knowledge gaps which the indirect measures will address.  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

61 

 
 
-  Although  the  Member  State  makes  references  to  ‘degradation  products’  in 
its GES and target definitions (in a general way), no direct measures are in 
place to tackle this aspect. 

-  Due to the lack of knowledge and reporting on the effects of marine litter on 
biota,  it  is  unclear  how  the  Member  State  will  interpret  the  issue  of  ‘not 
cause harm to the coastal and marine environment’, although this aspect has 
been included in its GES definition. 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  impulsive  noise  through  measures  that  cover 

marine renewable energy production. 

-  It includes research initiatives to model/measure continuous noise. 
-  The  programme  links  to  international  organisations  (Agreement  on  the 
conservation  of  Small  Cetaceans  of  the  Baltic  and  North  Seas  —  
ASCOBANS). 

-  The  programme  does  not  address  continuous  noise,  as  shipping  is  not 
covered (only  covered  indirectly through  awareness  raising  efforts).  It also 
does not address other energy inputs (such as heat or light). 

-  It does not refer to recommendations of TG Noise. 
-  The  programme  does  not  refer  to  EIA  Directive  and  IMO  Guidelines  on 

underwater noise.  

D1, 4 — Birds 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

D1, 4 — Fish 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  selective  extraction  of  species  (incl.  accidental 
by-catch),  contamination  from  oil  and  chemical  spills  as  well  as  noise  and 
light pollution. Fisheries, shipping, and recreational activities are covered. 
-  There  are  inconsistencies  between  GES  and  targets  definitions  and  the 
programme  of  measures;  the  GES  and  target  definitions  seem  to  include 
more birds’ species than what is discussed within the programme. 

-  It  does  not  explain  how  the  effects  of  non-indigenous  species  and  marine 
litter  on  seabirds  are  addressed.  It  is  possible  that  these  pressures  are 
addressed  by  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  non-indigenous  species 
(D2)  and  marine  litter  (D10),  but  based  on  the  information  reported  this 
cannot be determined. This does not allow for an understanding of how the 
state descriptors will benefit from these measures. 

-  The  programme  addresses  selective  extraction  of  species  (incl.  accidental 
by-catch),  contamination  from  oil  and  chemical  spills  as  well  as  abrasion 
(physical damage), caused by fisheries and shipping. 

-  It is not clear whether the programme includes spatial protection measures 
that complement commercial fish and shellfish (D3) and protect both non-
commercial species as well as functional fish habitats. 

-  Most  targets  and  GES  definitions  consider  non-commercial  fish  species  in 
their  text,  but  only  limited  actions  are  provided  in  the  measures  (beyond 
those for commercial stocks). 

-  The  programme  provides  little  information  on  where  and  how  fish  species 

present within the Member State’s territorial waters are protected. 

D1, 4 — Mammals 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  selective  extraction  of  species  (incl.  accidental 

by-catch) from fisheries.  

62 

 
 
Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  does  not  address  contaminants  and  impacts  on  mammals 

due to shipping (collisions). 

-  It does not explain how the pressures of marine litter and underwater noise 
on mammals are addressed. It is possible that these pressures are addressed 
by the groups of measures reported for marine litter (D10) and underwater 
noise  (D11),  but  based  on  the  information  reported  this  cannot  be 
determined.  This  does  not  allow  for  an  understanding  of  how  the  state 
descriptors will benefit from these measures. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
Strengths 

Weaknesses 

None identified. 
-  The  programme  does  not  include  dedicated  measures  addressing  water 
column  habitats.  It  may  be  that  pressures  on  water  column  habitats  are 
addressed  via  measures  reported  for  non-indigenous  species  (D2), 
eutrophication (D5), contaminants (D8) and marine litter (D10); but how the 
programme will contribute to addressing pressures on water column habitats 
(D1, 4) specifically cannot be assessed based on the information reported.  

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

-  The 

programme 

fisheries, 
dredging/dumping  of  dredge  material  and  submarine  cable  and  pipeline 
operations. 

addresses 

physical 

damage 

from 

Strengths 

-  It addresses physical loss and damage from marine-based renewable energy 

generation and marine mining. 

-  The programme includes existing and new measures that target destructive 

fishing practices (such as trawling restrictions).  

-  The programme partially addresses physical loss, as land claim and coastal 

defence operations are not covered. 

-  It  does  not  cover  recreational  activities  other  than  recreational  fishing  that 

could still be destructive to seabed habitats (e.g., vessels mooring). 

-  The  programme  mainly  includes  trawling  restrictions  mostly  within 
spatially protected areas. These measures are often lacking in detail on their 
area coverage, temporal ranges of restrictions and minimal consideration is 
given  to  the  broader  issues  of  trawling  outside  of  these  spatially  protected 
areas. 

-  The programme addresses other pressures on seabed habitats through spatial 
protection measures mostly, which will limit the extent of geographical area 
of where restrictions of certain practices are applied and the extent to which 
seabed habitats are protected. 

-  Most  measures  relate  to  physical  loss  and  damage  to  seabed  habitat,  with 
minimal  consideration  of  other  pressures  such  as  non-indigenous  species 
(D2),  eutrophication  (D5)  and  marine  litter  (D10).  It  is  possible  that 
pressures  on  seabed  habitats  are  addressed  by  the  groups  of  measures 
reported  for  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  eutrophication  (D5)  and  marine 
litter  (D10);  but  based  on  the  information  reported  this  cannot  be 
determined.  This  does  not  allow  for  an  understanding  of  how  the  state 
descriptors will benefit from these measures. 

Weaknesses 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
Recommendations for Belgium to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
-  In  general,  the  Belgium  should  better  address  certain  pressures  and  activities.  These  are 

specified in the descriptor specific recommendations below. 

-  GES  and  targets  definitions  should  be  better  addressed  for  non-indigenous  species  (D2), 
eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9),  marine 
litter (D10), underwater noise and energy (D11), birds, fish and mammals and water column 
habitats (D1, 4). 

-  The Member State should establish more links with existing EU policies and international 
instruments  for  the  biodiversity  descriptors,  contaminant  in  seafood  (D9)  and  underwater 
noise and energy (D11). 

-  The  Member  State  should  provide  more  information  about  its  spatial  protection  measures 
(representation  of  species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number  and  location  of 
MPAs, the conservation objectives of the MPAs). 

-  The  Member  State  should  quantify  the  pressures  present  in  its  waters  and  their  expected 
level of reduction as a result of the established measures. This could be facilitated by further 
efforts  to  address  knowledge  gaps  and  define  the  methodology  for  such  estimations  at 
regional or EU level. Such quantification will also contribute to linking the measures with 
the achievement of GES. 

-  The Member State should define the spatial scope of its measures (both existing and new) in 
detail.  Furthermore,  the  spatial  scope  of  measures  should  be  expanded  to  cover  marine 
waters  beyond  coastal  waters,  where  relevant  pressures  are  present.  The  Member  State 
should consider establishing additional measures beyond spatial protection efforts to address 
species and habitats. It is important that pressures are addressed across all marine waters. 
-  Belgium  should  make  better  links  between  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  pressure 
descriptors  and  their  effects  on  the  state  descriptors.  This  would  allow  a  comprehensive 
view of the impact of measures affecting all descriptors. 

-  The Member State should ensure better linkages between its programme of measures and its 
monitoring programmes, in order to ensure that the effects of the measures, and hence their 
efficiency  and  effectiveness  in  meeting  targets  and  GES,  are  measured  through  the 
monitoring programmes. 

-  The  Member  State  should  report  data  collection  efforts  under  the  MSFD  monitoring 
programmes (Article 11) and not under the Programme of Measures (Article 13). However, 
when knowledge is too scarce to design effective measures, it is useful to indicate actions 
taken to address these gaps via research measures. 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 
-  The Member State should cover aquaculture (reported under Article 8 as a relevant source 

of pressure). 

-  It  should  establish  early  warning  systems  for  introductions  of  non-indigenous  species  as 

measures. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 
-  The Member State should cover aquaculture (reported under Article 8 as a relevant source 

of pressure). 

D5 — Eutrophication 
-  Belgium should cover agriculture (reported under Article 8 as relevant sources of pressure). 
-  The Member State should establish measures that consider nutrient inputs from atmospheric 
deposition  and  that  could  be  linked  to  IMO-MARPOL  in  relation  to  shipping  (NOx 

64 

 
 
emissions). 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  to  tackle  hydrographical  changes;  or  clearly 
report  which  of  the  other  descriptor  measures  will  contribute  to  addressing  pressure,  GES 
and targets for hydrographical changes (D7) and how. 

-  It should utilise synergies with MSP for addressing cumulative impacts for D7. 
-  The Member State should better address pressures from activities not subject to local/project 
scale  EIAs  (e.g.  fishing,  maritime  transport).  In  some  cases  (e.g.  hydrological  changes 
where local dimension is important) this gap hampers the assessment of cumulative effects. 
-  The  Member  State  should  apply  SEA  procedures,  in  addition  to  EIA  procedures,  more 
consistently  to  ensure  that  hydrographical  changes  are  tackled  at  a  strategic  level,  rather 
than at the project level.   

D8/D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 
-  The Member State should address atmospheric deposition (from sea-based and land-based 

sources) better. 

-  The Member State should establish more direct measures for contaminants in seafood (D9). 
-  The Member State should better explain the way the contaminants (D8) measures contribute 

to contaminants in seafood D9 targets. 

D10 — Marine litter 
-  Belgium should address micro-litter better, preferably through direct measures. 
-  The Member State should establish measures that clearly address marine litter degradation 
products and ensure that litter does not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment, 
as suggested in its GES and targets definitions. 

-  The Member State should establish additional research efforts to address data gaps, increase 
knowledge and pave the way for direct action to address micro-litter as soon as possible.  
-  The  Member  State  should  make  efforts  to  prevent,  identify  and  tackle  pollution  hot  spots 

(e.g. from plastic pellets, lost fishing gear, single-use plastics, etc.). 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  direct  measures  to  cover  activities  that  are  known  to 

produce high levels of noise, as soon as possible (e.g. shipping for continuous noise). 

-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  that  address  additional  aspects  of  this 

descriptor, such as heat and light. 

-  The Member State should address data gaps and consolidate research results to move closer 
to characterising the noise pressure, in line with the recommendation of TG Noise. This will 
enable to then define more concrete and direct measures to address underwater noise in the 
second MSFD implementation cycle. 

D1, 4 — Birds 
-  The  Member  State  should  consider  in  its  programme  the  same  bird  species  that  those 

mentioned in the GES and targets definitions. 

-  The  Member  State  should  establish  additional  measures  to  address  pressures  on  birds 
beyond by-catch. Measures could target disturbances on nesting sites by predation, effects 
of  non-indigenous  species  and  litter  ingestion,  as  well  as  measures  covering  birds’  food 
sources.  If  these  are  to  be  addressed  via  measures  reported  for  other  descriptors,  the 
expected effect that measures are to have on birds should be explained. 

D1, 4 — Fish 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  that  extend  beyond  CFP  efforts,  and  cover 
additional  fish  species,  which  are  non-commercial  species  in  open  sea  areas,  as  well  as 
functional fish habitats (including spatial protection measures). 

65 

 
 
-  The Member State should establish measures to protect non-commercial fish species from 
various pressures (non-indigenous species, by-catch, noise and contaminants),if these are to 
be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors, the expected effect that measures 
are to have on fish should be explained. 

-  The  Member  State  should  provide  better  information  on  existing  MPAs  and  the  level  of 
protection they provide for fish (commercial and non-commercial), in relation to where fish 
species occur within the Member State’s territorial waters, and how they are protected. 

D1, 4 — Mammals 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  additional  measures,  including  spatial  protection 
measures,  to  address  relevant  pressures  on  mammals  beyond  by-catch  (e.g.  impacts  on 
mammal habitats due to shipping (collision), underwater noise, contaminants, entanglement, 
and  ingestion  of  litter).  If  these  are  to  be  addressed  via  measures  reported  for  other 
descriptors, the expected effect that measures are to have on mammals should be explained.  

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  to  tackle  the  pressure  associated  with  water 
column habitats. If these are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors, the 
expected effect that measures are to have on water column habitats should be explained. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  covering  land  claim  and  coastal  defence  as 

well as all aspects of recreational activities (e.g., fishing, vessels mooring, diving). 

-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  that  extend  beyond  spatially  protected  areas 

(and MPAs) to ensure a wider spatial coverage for these habitats. 

-  If seabed habitats are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors (e.g. D2, 
D5,  D10),  the  expected  effect  that  measures  are  to  have  on  seabed  habitats  should  be 
explained. 

-  The  Member  State  should  provide  timescales  and  estimates  of  how  spatial  restrictions  of 

seabed damaging activities will allow for GES to be achieved. 

66 

 
 
 
 
2.  Bulgaria 

General conclusions on Bulgaria’s programme of measures 

Strengths and weaknesses 

-  The programme of measures addresses GES and targets for non-indigenous 
species  (D2),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3),  contaminants  in  seafood 
(D9). 

-  The  programme  includes  measures  that  are  based  on  commitments  to 
existing European policies, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives (D1, 4, 
6),  Regulation  (EU)  No  1143/2014  (D2),  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy 
(CFP;  D3,  D1,  4,  6),  the  Nitrate  Directive  (D5),  the  Water  Framework 
Directive  (WFD;  D5,  D7,  D8,  D1,  4,  6),  Urban  Wastewater  Treatment 
Directive (UWWTD; D5, D8), the National Emission Ceiling Directive (D5, 
D8),  the  Strategic  Environmental  Assessment  (SEA;  D7),  the  Maritime 
Spatial  Planning  Directive  (D7),  Regulation  (EC)  No  782/2003  on  the 
prohibition  of  organotin  compounds  of  ships  (D8),  the  Port  Reception 
Facilities  Directive  (D8,  D10),  Regulation  (EC)  No  1881/2006  on  setting 
maximum  levels  for  certain  contaminants  in  foodstuffs  (D9),  the  Waste 
Framework  Directive  (D8,  D10),  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment 
(EIA) Directive (D7, D11), as well as international instruments such as the 
International  Maritime  Organisation’s  (IMO)  —  International  Convention 
for  the  Prevention  of  Pollution  from  Ships  (MARPOL)  (D8)  or  IMO  -
Ballast  Water  Management  Convention  (D2)  and  regional  actions  such  as 
the Black Sea action plan for marine litter (D10) or the Black Sea Strategic 
Action Plan (D8). 

-  The programme includes both existing and new measures that complement 
those  already  in  place  to  specifically  target  pressures  on  the  marine 
environment which were not otherwise covered. 

-  It  includes  spatial  protection  measures  (including  MPAs).  These  measures 
address more than one descriptor and therefore contribute towards GES and 
targets for several descriptors. Measures include the strengthening of MPA 
networks and the establishment of management measures within MPAs. 
-  The  programme  combines  direct  and  indirect  measures,  thus  directly 
addressing  pressures  on  the  marine  environment  while  simultaneously 
implementing  measures  which  complement  the  direct  measures  through 
governance  and  coordination  actions,  as  well  as  awareness  raising  and 
research efforts. 

-  The  spatial  scope  of  all  measures  is  specified  consistently  across  the 

programme. 

-  In this first implementation cycle of the MSFD, in relation to descriptors for 
which  knowledge  gaps  exist  (i.e.  D2,  D3,  D8,  D11),  the  Member  State 
reports research efforts. This will allow knowledge gaps to be addressed, but 
also  to  build  upon  the  results  to  enable  the  design  of  measures  which  will 
contribute  directly  to  tackling  the  pressures  in  the  MSFD’s  second 
implementation cycle.  

-  The programme partially addresses GES and targets for eutrophication (D5), 
hydrographical changes (D7), contaminants (D8), marine litter (D10), birds, 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

67 

 
 
 
fish, mammals and water column habitats (D1, 4) as well as seabed habitats 
(D1, 4, 6). 

-  Bulgaria has not provided GES and targets definitions for underwater noise 

and energy (D11). 

-  For  all  descriptors,  the  Member  State  reports  that  2020  is  an  ambitious 
timeline but does not specify whether or not this is expected to happen. The 
Member  State  reports  that  it  cannot  estimate  if  GES  will  be  achieved  by 
2020  because  of  knowledge  gaps  and  adds  that  no  quantitative  impact 
assessment  can  be  made  at  this  stage  to  estimate  when  GES  will  be 
achieved. 

-  In  some cases, the programme  does not include sufficient links  to  existing 
European policies and international instruments. It is especially the case for 
eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  (D8)  and 
underwater noise D11. 

-  Based  on  the  information  reported  by  Bulgaria  on  cost  and  resource 
allocations, timelines of implementation of measures as well as responsible 
bodies  for  implementation,  the  programme  is  likely  to  be  implemented. 
However,  the  lack  of  information  provided  on  the  costs  and  resource 
allocation, as well as the uncertainty in the timelines of implementation of 
measures, creates doubts about the timely implementation of the programme 
and thus its contribution to achieving progress towards GES. 

-  The  Member  State  does  not  always  provide  sufficient  details  about  the 
measures  (especially  the  existing  ones)  to  understand  how  they  will 
contribute to progress towards targets and GES (as defined by the Member 
State). 

-  The programme includes spatial measures that do not always provide clear 
and  specific  information  on  the  management  efforts  in  place  (or  to  be 
implemented  in  the  future).  Information  gaps  include  the  representation  of 
species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size  and  location  of  MPAs,  the 
conservation objectives of the MPAs. 

-  While impact assessments were carried out for new measures, the results do 
not allow for a quantification of what the measures will achieve; i.e. to what 
extent  the  relevant  pressure  will  be  addressed,  and  whether  the  measures 
will be sufficient to achieve GES. 

-  The Member State does not make sufficient links between the measures for 
the pressure descriptors and how they might benefit the state descriptors (i.e. 
biodiversity  descriptors  D1,  4,  6).  This  prevents  understanding  how  state 
descriptors  benefit  from  these  measures,  which  are  likely  to  contribute  in 
addressing pressures on species and habitats. 

-  The programme sometimes includes data collection efforts as measures. 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  introduction  of  non-indigenous  species 
through  aquaculture  and  shipping  via  ballast  water  management  (measures 
linked to the implementation of the BWMC) and anti-fouling measures. 
-  The  programme  includes  early  detection  systems  for  introductions  of  non-

indigenous species as measures. 

Weaknesses 
D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 

-  It is unclear whether the measures also address recreational vessels. 

68 

 
 
-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  from  commercial  and 

recreational fishing. 

-  It includes seasonal and spatial fishing bans (for several purposes, including 
stock  management  and  biodiversity  conservation,  protection  of  over-
exploited stocks) that are in addition to many existing CFP measures. 

Strengths 

-  The measures cover stocks managed at the national level as well as aspects 

that relate to age/size structure of species. 

-  The  programme  has  been  linked  to  a  Regional  Fisheries  Management 
the  Mediterranean 

Organisation:  General  Fisheries  Commission  for 
(GFCM). 

-  The  programme  includes  awareness  raising  measures  that  complement 

direct measures.  

Weaknesses 

None  (expect  the  lack  of  timeline  for  the  achievement  of  GES  mentioned 
above). 
D5 — Eutrophication 

-  The programme addresses nutrient inputs from urban areas. 
-  It  addresses  atmospheric  deposition  of  nutrients  from  sea-based  and  land-

based sources. 

-  The  programme  also  considers  additional  aspects,  such  as  improved 

aquaculture management practices. 

-  It  draws  from  the  Member  State’s  WFD  River  Basin  Management  Plans 
(RBMP). In the framework of the MSFD, most are considered likely to be 
sufficient to address pressures of nutrient and organic matter enrichment in 
the  marine  environment  and  cover  relevant  human  activities  (i.e.  mainly 
agriculture, industry, waste water and flood risks). However, considering the 
extent  to  which  the  MSFD  programme  relies  on  WFD  measures,  this 
statement  is  subject  to  the  RBMPs  being  assessed  as  adequate  under  the 
WFD assessment. 

-  The programme does not fully address nutrient inputs from agriculture and 
industry  (one  measure  concerns  diffuse  sources,  which  include  agriculture 
and industry without further information). 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  hydrographical  changes.  The  Member  State 
refers  to  existing  measures  stemming  from  other  legal  acts.  As  such,  all 
projects that are subject to existing authorisation and regulatory procedures 
are addressed in terms of hydrographical changes. 

-  It is not clear if the programme addresses cumulative impacts (i.e. impacts 
from  different/multiple  human  activities  on  hydrography).  Cumulative 
impacts  are  a  major  issue  for  the  MSFD;  assessing  cumulative  impacts 
would  require  Member  States 
individual 
assessments together to assess the overall scale of hydrographical changes.  

to  consolidate  results  of 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  of  measures  addresses  the  introduction  of  contaminants 

through measures that target industrial, agricultural and urban activities. 
-  It addresses accidental pollution by tackling port operation and shipping. 
-  It  addresses  contaminant  inputs  to  the  sea  from  land-based  (e.g.  industry, 
agriculture, urban areas) and sea-based sources (e.g. shipping, aquaculture), 
as well as the biological effect of contaminants. 

69 

 
 
 
-  The  programme  addresses  atmospheric  deposition  of  contaminants  (link  to 

the National Emission Ceiling Directive). 

-  It includes dedicated measures for contaminants in seafood (D9).  
-  The  programme  does  not  address  accidental  pollution  from  industrial 

activities. 

Weaknesses 

-  It  does  not  explain  how  measures  for  contaminants  (D8)  will  contribute  to 
addressing  pressures  for  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9)  and  allow  for 
progress towards D9 GES and targets. 

D10 — Marine litter 

-  The  programme  addresses  marine  litter  by  covering  fisheries,  urban  areas 

and shipping. 

Strengths 

-  It addresses both the reduction of marine litter input in coastal areas and in 
the open sea, as well as the removal of existing litter (good understanding of 
the main sources contributing to this problem). 

-  The  programme  specifically  covers  macro-litter  with  measures  targeting 

litter removal. 

Weaknesses 

-  Even though the Member State recognises the pressure of micro-litter as a 
relevant and very important issue for its marine waters, the programme does 
not yet fully address micro-litter. 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

-  The  programme  addresses  continuous  noise  through  measures  that  cover 

marine hydrocarbon extraction. 

Strengths 

-  It includes research efforts, which aim to collect additional data and conduct 
studies  to  better  characterise  the  pressure  of  noise,  and  impact  on  fauna 
(mainly marine mammals) in line with recommendation from TG Noise. 
-  The  programme  includes  measures  that  aim  to  implement  a  register  for 

impulsive and continuous sounds. 

-  It links to international organisations (Convention on environmental impact 

assessment in transboundary aspect (Espoo Convention)). 

-  The  programme  does  not  directly  address  all  sources  of  continuous  and 
impulsive  noise,  such  as  dredging,  land  claim  and  coastal  defence,  port 
operations,  tourism  and  shipping  (addressed  indirectly  through  research 
efforts). 

-  It does not address other energy inputs (such as heat or light). 
-  The programme moreover does not refer to IMO Guidelines on underwater 

Weaknesses 

noise.  

D1, 4 — Birds  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

D1, 4 — Fish  
Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  selective  extraction  of  species  (incl.  accidental 
by-catch), contaminants and marine litter. Various activities such as fisheries 
or tourism are covered. 

-  It covers bird habitats and their resting and feeding sites. 
-  Measures does not address the effect of non-indigenous species on seabirds. 
It may be that these are somewhat addressed by non-indigenous species (D2) 
measures, but how the they will contribute to addressing these pressures on 
birds  (D1,  4)  specifically  cannot  be  assessed  based  on  the  information 
reported. 

-  The  programme  addresses  selective  extraction  of  species  (incl.  accidental 

70 

 
 
by-catch),  contaminants,  marine  litter  as  well  as  underwater  noise  from 
several activities such as fisheries. 

-  It  complements  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3)  measures  with  spatial 
protection  measures  aiming  to  also  protect  non-commercial  species  and 
functional fish habitats. 

-  Most targets and GES definitions consider non-commercial fish species, and 
the programme covers both commercial and non-commercial fish species. 
-  The  programme  provides  little  information  on  where  and  how  fish  species 

present within the Member State’s territorial waters are protected. 

Weaknesses 

D1, 4 — Mammals  

-  The  programme  addresses  selective  extraction  of  species  (incl.  accidental 
by-catch),  contaminants,  marine  litter  and  underwater  noise  from  various 
activities such as fisheries. 

Strengths 

-  Measures  address  the  impact  on  mammal  habitats  due  to  fishing,  dredging 

and offshore structures. 

-  It includes spatial  protection measures to address several pressures such as 

by-catch and habitat damage/loss. 

-  The  programme  does  not  directly  address  impacts  on  mammals  due  to 

shipping (collisions).  

Weaknesses 

Strengths 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  None identified. 
-  Even  though  the  programme  includes  measures  that  are  relevant  to  water 
column habitats, they are either indirect (monitoring and research efforts) or 
cover  an  activity  that  has  marginal  impacts  on  water  column  habitats 
(fisheries). 

Weaknesses 

-  The  water  column,  although  considered  in  other  descriptors,  is  mainly 
covered  by  the  Member  State  in  terms  of  water  quality.  Plankton  is  a  key 
feature of the terminology in the monitoring programmes, which is referred 
to  in  the  water  column  habitats  GES  and  targets  definitions  but  not  in  the 
programme.  Additionally,  the  water  column  is  a  key  transfer  route  for  the 
majority  of  non-seabed  species  and  needs  to  be  considered  as  part  of  the 
broader  ecological  coherence  of  the  Member  State’s  waters,  within  MPAs 
and  in  relation  to  food  webs.  The  water  column  is  often  discounted  from 
such measures due to a lack of scientific knowledge of these habitat types. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

-  The programme of measures addresses physical damage from fisheries. 
-  It  includes  measures  that  target  destructive  fishing  practices  (trawling) 

Strengths 

within and outside spatially protected areas. 

-  The programme addresses other pressures such as contaminants and marine 

litter. 

-  The programme does not address physical loss and damage from land claim, 

coastal defence and port operations. 

Weaknesses 

-  It  does  not  cover  recreational  activities  other  than  recreational  fishing  that 

could also be destructive to seabed habitats (e.g. vessels mooring). 

-  The  programme  does  not  make  links  to  other  descriptors  such  as  non-

indigenous species (D2) and eutrophication (D5). 

71 

 
 
 
Recommendations for Bulgaria to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
-  In  general,  the  Bulgaria  should  better  address  certain  pressures  and  activities  in  its 
programme  of  measures.  These  are  specified  in  the  descriptor  specific  recommendations 
below. 

-  GES and targets definitions should be better addressed for eutrophication (D5), hydrological 
changes  (D7),  contaminants  (D8),  marine  litter  (D10),  birds,  fish,  mammals  and  water 
column habitats (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

-  The Member State should provide GES and targets definitions for underwater noise (D11). 
-  It should provide an assessment on when GES will be achieved. 
-  The Member State should establish more links with existing EU policies and international 
instruments for contaminant in seafood (D9), eutrophication (D5), hydrographical changes 
(D7) and underwater noise and energy (D11). 

-  The Member State should clearly identify the timelines for implementation of all measures 

as well as secured funding. 

-  Bulgaria’s  programme  should  provide  more  information  about  its  spatial  protection 
measures (representation of species and habitats within the MPAs, the size and location of 
MPAs, the conservation objectives of the MPAs). 

-  The  Member  State  should  quantify  the  pressures  present  in  its  waters  and  their  expected 
level of reduction as a result of the established measures. This could be facilitated by further 
efforts  to  address  knowledge  gaps  and  define  the  methodology  for  such  estimations  at 
regional or EU level. Such quantification will also contribute to linking the measures with 
the achievement of GES. 

-  Bulgaria  should  make  better  links  between  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  pressure 
descriptors  and  their  effects  on  the  state  descriptors.  This  would  allow  a  comprehensive 
view of the impact of measures affecting all descriptors. 

-  The Member State should ensure better linkages between its programme of measures and its 
monitoring programmes, in order to ensure that the effects of the measures, and hence their 
efficiency  and  effectiveness  in  meeting  targets  and  GES,  are  measured  through  the 
monitoring programmes. 

-  The  Member  State  should  report  data  collection  efforts  under  the  MSFD  monitoring 
programmes (Article 11) and not under the Programme of Measures (Article 13). However, 
when knowledge  is too scarce to design  effective measures, it is  useful to indicate actions 
taken to address these gaps via research measures. 

-  Bulgaria should provide more information on estimating the reductions of pressures that are 
expected  from  the  measures  and  how  this  will  benefit  species  and  habitats.  Many  of  the 
monitoring programmes included detailed ecological information on the dynamics of species 
and  habitats  and  deviations  from  natural  trends  and  it  is  important  that  this  information  is 
put  in  context  with  the  programme  and  when  such  measures  will  allow  for  GES  to  be 
achieved for species and habitats. 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 
-  The  Member  State  should  clearly  state  whether  recreational  vessels  are  covered  by  the 

measures. 

D5 — Eutrophication 
-  The Member State should cover agriculture and industry better. 
D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  The programme should address cumulative impacts.  

72 

 
 
-  Bulgaria’s programme should utilise synergies with MSP for addressing cumulative impacts 

for D7. 

-  The Member State should better address pressures from activities not subject to local/project 
scale  EIAs  (e.g.  fishing,  maritime  transport).  In  some  cases  (e.g.  hydrological  changes 
where local dimension is important) this gap hampers the assessment of cumulative effects. 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  on  accidental  pollution  due  to  industrial 

activities. 

-  The  Member  State  should  better  explain  the  manner  in  which  the  contaminants  (D8) 

measures contribute to contaminants in seafood D9 targets. 

D10 — Marine litter 
-  The Member State should address micro-litter better, through direct measures, in addition to 

indirect measures, in accordance with recommendations of TG Litter. 

-  The  Member  State  should  make  efforts  to  prevent,  identify  and  tackle  pollution  hot  spots 

(e.g. from plastic pellets, lost fishing gear, single-use plastics, etc.). 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 
-  Bulgaria should establish direct measures to cover activities that are known to produce high 

levels of noise, as soon as possible (e.g. dredging, shipping). 

-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  that  address  additional  aspects  of  this 

descriptor, such as heat and light. 

-  It  should  alsomake  more  efforts  to  address  data  gaps  and  consolidate  research  results  to 
move  closer  to  characterising  the  noise  pressure,  in  line  with  the  recommendation  of  TG 
Noise.  This  will  enable  to  then  define  more  concrete  and  direct  measures  to  address 
underwater noise in the second MSFD implementation cycle. 

D1, 4 — Birds 
-  The Member State should consider establishing additional measures to address pressures on 
birds beyond by-catch. Measures could target the effects of non-indigenous species. If these 
are  to  be  addressed  via  measures  reported  for  other  descriptors,  the  expected  effect  that 
measures are to have on birds should be explained. 

D1, 4 — Fish 
-  Bulgaria  should  provide  better  information  on  existing  MPAs  and  the  level  of  protection 
they  provide  for  fish  (commercial  and  non-commercial),  in  relation  to  where  fish  species 
occur within the Member State’s territorial waters, and how they are protected. 

D1, 4 — Mammals 
-  The  Member  State  should  consider  establishing  additional  measures,  including  spatial 
protection  measures,  to  address  relevant  pressures  on  mammals  beyond  by-catch  (e.g. 
impacts  on  mammal  habitats  due  to  shipping  (collision)).  If  these  are  to  be  addressed  via 
measures  reported  for  other  descriptors,  the  expected  effect  that  measures  are  to  have  on 
mammals should be explained.  
D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  that  have  a  more  direct  impact  on  water 

column habitats (and also on plankton) and cover relevant activities. 

-  The  Member  State  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other 
descriptors  address  pressures  for  water  column  habitats,  and  elaborate  on  how  GES  and 
targets for water column habitats are expected to be achieved. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  The Member State should establish measures covering land claim and coastal defence, port 
operations  as  well  as  all  aspects  of  recreational  activities  (e.g.,  fishing,  vessels  mooring, 

73 

 
 
diving). 

-  If seabed habitats are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors (e.g. D2), 
the Member State should explain the expected effect that measures have on seabed habitats. 
-  Bulgaria  should  provide  timescales  and  estimates  of  how  spatial  restrictions  of  seabed 

damaging activities will allow for GES to be achieved. 

74 

 
 
 
 
3.  Cyprus 

General conclusions on Cyprus’ programme of measures 

Strengths and weaknesses 

-  The  programme  of  measures  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  non-indigenous 
species  (D2)  (only  GES  since  no  targets  have  been  defined  for  D2), 
eutrophication (D5), hydrographical changes (D7) (only GES since no targets 
have  been  defined  for  D7),  contaminants  (D8)  and  contaminants  in  seafood 
(D9). 

-  The  Member  State  considers  that  GES  has  already  been  achieved  for 
eutrophication (D5), contaminants (D8) and contaminants in seafood (D9). 
-  The programme includes measures that are based on commitments to existing 
European and regional policies, such as the Habitats Directive (D1, 4, 6; D3), 
the Water Framework Directive (D5, D8), IMO-MARPOL and MEDPOL16 
related  activities  (not  specified)  (D5,  D8),  the  Offshore  Protocol  of  the 
Barcelona Convention (D8, D9, D11), the Directives 2014/52/EU (EIA) and 
2001/42/EC (SEA) (D8, D11), the Regulations 708/2007 (on the use of alien 
species  in  aquaculture)  (D2),  1380/2013  (on  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy) 
and  1343/2011  (on  provisions  for  fisheries),  Council  Regulation  No 
1967/2006 (sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean 
Sea)  and  the  ICCAT  (D3),  the  Nitrates  Directive  (D5),  the  REACH 
Regulation,  the  Directives  89/39/EEC  (on  occupational  Safety  and  Health 
Framework)  and  2013/39/EU  (on  priority  substances  in  water  policy)  (D8), 
Regulation  (EC)  1881/2006  (levels  of  contaminants  in  foodstuffs)  (D9),  the 
Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution from 
Land-Based  Sources 
the  Strategic  Action 
(Barcelona  Convention), 
Programme (SAP-MED) to combat land-based sources in the Mediterranean, 
the  Waste  Framework  Directive  and  the  Mediterranean  beach  cleaning  day 
(supported by UNEP/ MAP) (D10). 

-  The  programme  includes  both  existing,  and  new  measures  that  complement 
those  already  in  place  and  specifically  target  pressures  on  the  marine 
environment which were not otherwise covered. 

-  It includes spatial protection measures (including one existing MPA and other 
new ones which are already planned). These measures address more than one 
descriptor at a time (D1, 4, 6 and D3) and therefore contribute towards GES 
and targets for several descriptors. Measures include studies for the potential 
establishment  of  new  MPAs  and  Fisheries’  Protected  Areas  and  the 
development of management plans for the existing MPAs. 

-  The  programme  combines  direct  and  indirect  measures,  thus  directly 
addressing  pressures  on  the  marine  environment  while  simultaneously 
implementing  measures  which  complement  the  direct  measures  through 
governance and coordination actions, as well as awareness raising efforts. 
-  The  programme  partially  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  birds,  fish  and 
cephalopods,  marine  mammals  and  reptiles,  water  column  habitats  (D1,  4) 
and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6), commercial fish and shellfish (D3) and marine 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

16 The MEDPOL programme for the Assessment and Control of Marine Pollution in the Mediterranean. 

75 

 
 
 
                                                            
litter (D10). 

-  It does not address GES and targets for underwater noise and energy (D11). 
-  Cyprus does not provide a timeline for achieving GES for biodiversity (D1, 4, 
6), commercial fish and shellfish (D3), hydrographical changes (D7), marine 
litter (D10) and underwater noise and energy (D11). 

-  Cyprus considers that GES will not be achieved by 2020 for non-indigenous 

species (D2). 

-  In  some  cases,  the  programme  does  not  include  sufficient  links  to  existing 
European policies as well as regional instruments. It is especially the case for 
D3 and birds, fish and cephalopods (D1, 4). 

-  The spatial scope is not detailed for most of the measures. 
-  The  programme  of  measures  does  not  report  a 

the 
implementation  of  all  its  new  measures  (which  specifically  concerns  non-
indigenous  species  (D2),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3),  eutrophication 
(D5), hydrographical changes (D7), marine litter (D10) and biodiversity (D1, 
4 and D1, 4, 6)). 
D2 — Non-indigenous species 

timeline  for 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  introduction  of  non-indigenous  species  from 

aquaculture. 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  It  aims  to  reduce  the  existing  population  of  Lagocephalus  ssp  (non-
indigenous  species)  by  its  targeted  fishing  and  removal.  How  effective  this 
may be remains unclear. 

-  The programme does not address the introduction of non-indigenous species 
from shipping and, although a justification for this is provided related to Suez 
Canal, no additional efforts to address this issue are reported. 

-  The programme does not address the introduction of non-indigenous species 
due  to  land  claim  and  coastal  defence  activities  (identified  by  Cyprus  as 
relevant in its Article 8 report).  

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  from  commercial  and 

recreational fishing (this one only covered by one indirect measure). 

-  It also includes seasonal and spatial fishing bans, as well as the management 

or prohibition of fishing by mobile demersal gears that affect the seabed. 

-  The  programme  is  not  clearly  linked  with  the  CFP,  it  is  therefore  not  clear 

whether all commercially-exploited species are covered. 

D5 — Eutrophication 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  nutrient  inputs  from  sources  such  as  urban, 

aquaculture, agriculture and forestry, shipping, and industry. 

-  The  measures  for  eutrophication  draw  from  Member  State’s  WFD  River 
Basin  Management  Plans.  In  the  framework  of  the  MSFD,  most  are 
considered likely to be sufficient to address pressures of nutrient and organic 
matter  enrichment  in  the  marine  environment  and  cover  relevant  human 
activities.  However,  considering  the  extent  to  which  the  MSFD  programme 
relies  on  WFD  measures,  this  statement  is  subject  to  the  RBMPs  being 
assessed as adequate under the WFD assessment. 

-  The  programme  addresses  atmospheric  deposition  of  nutrients  (NOx)  from 

sea-based and land-based sources. 

Weaknesses  None identified. 

76 

 
 
D7 — Hydrographical changes 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  hydrographical  changes  from  port  activities, 

industry, coastal defence and desalinisation/water abstraction. 

-  It  also  includes  existing  measures  stemming  from  other  legal  acts.  As  such, 
all  projects  that  are  subject  to  existing  authorisations  and  regulatory 
procedures are addressed in terms of hydrographical changes. 

-  The programme utilises synergies with the EIA and SEA Directives, as well 

as with the WFD. 

-  The programme does not clearly address hydrographical changes from urban 
and agriculture/forestry related activities (identified by Cyprus as relevant in 
its  Article 8  report).  Although  these  activities  might  be  partially  covered  by 
the horizontal measure that relates to the implementation of the SEA and EIA 
Directives. 

-  It  does  not  explain  how  it  will  address  the  issue  of  cumulative  impacts,  i.e. 
impacts from different/multiple human activities on hydrography. Cumulative 
impacts are a major issue for the MSFD; assessing cumulative impacts would 
require  Member  States  to  consolidate  results  of  individual  assessments 
together  to  assess  the  overall  scale  of  hydrographical  changes.  This  is  not 
currently being done by Cyprus. 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood 

Strengths 

-  The programme addresses contaminant inputs to the sea from land-based (e.g. 
industry,  urban  areas),  as  well  as  sea-based  sources  (e.g.  shipping, 
aquaculture and marine hydrocarbon extraction). 

-  It addresses accidental pollution and atmospheric deposition. 

Weaknesses  None identified. 
D10 — Marine litter 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  marine  litter  from  urban  areas,  tourism  and 

recreation, commercial and recreational fishing.  

-  The  programme  does  not  address  marine  litter  from  shipping  or  industrial 

sources. 

Weaknesses 

-  It does not address micro-litter (no direct or indirect measures). 
-  The programme does not directly address the Cypriot target on reducing the 

mortality of turtles. 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  underwater  noise  from  marine  hydrocarbon 

extraction activities. 

-  It does not address shipping, fisheries, recreational activities, industry (oil and 
gas),  marine  research  (surveys  and  educational  activities)  nor  defence 
operation activities. 

-  The lack of GES definition and targets hinders the general assessment of the 

programme for this MSFD descriptor. 

D1, 4 — Birds  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme addresses the health of bird populations via spatial protection 

measures.   

-  The programme does not specify the bird species that are addressed. 
-  Few  measures  link  directly  to  birds  or  address  impacts  on  them  and  their 

habitats. 

-  It  does  not  address  specific  pressures  such  as  incidental  by-catch,  physical 

77 

 
 
disturbances (light pollution, oil pollution), effects of non-indigenous species 
on  seabirds, 
the  disturbance  of  nesting  sites  by  predation,  noise, 
contaminants,  and  litter  ingestion,  but  rather  mentions  vaguely  ‘various 
pressures on bird habitats’.  

D1, 4 — Fish and cephalopods 

Strengths 

-  The programme addresses the extraction of species by commercial fishing. 
-  It  also  includes  measures  on  fishing  bans  in  sensitive  areas  and  MPAs 

Weaknesses 

designation and management.  

-  The programme addresses the pressures with localised measures like artificial 
reefs and MPAs, it is therefore not clear how the diversity and abundance of 
species  will  be  maintained  in  Cypriot  waters,  as  a  whole,  from  these 
measures. 

-  It does not include specific measures or plans for cephalopods. 

D1, 4 — Mammals and reptiles 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  underwater  noise  (including  a  reference  to  the 
Agreement  on 
the  Black  Sea, 
the  Conservation  of  Cetaceans  of 
Mediterranean  Sea  and  contiguous  Atlantic  area  —  ACCOBAMS)  and 
‘various pressures’ on mammal and reptile habitats (not specified). 

-  The programme does not address marine mammals and reptiles by-catch from 

fishing activities. 

-  It does not address other pressures on mammals different than noise, such as 

collisions with ships. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The Member State addresses pressures on water column habitats via measures 

reported for other Descriptors (e.g., D5 and D8).  

-  Cyprus  does  not  clearly  report  all  the  group  of  measures  that  are  directly 
relevant to water column habitats and how these will contribute to achieving 
GES and targets for this habitat type. 

-  The  programme  does  not  directly  address  phytoplankton  and  zooplankton 
communities. The water column, although considered in other descriptors, is 
mainly  covered  in  terms  of  water  quality.  Plankton  is  a  key  feature  of  the 
terminology in the monitoring programmes, which is rarely referenced in the 
biodiversity measures. Additionally, the water column is a key transfer route 
for most non-seabed species and needs to be considered as part of the broader 
ecological coherence of waters, within MPAs and in relation to food webs. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  physical  damage  of  the  seafloor  from  fisheries, 

dredging and dumping of dredged material.  

-  The programme does not address physical damage from port operations, land 
claim  and  coastal  defence  (reported  as  relevant  by  the  Member  State  under 
Article 8),  as  well  as  aquaculture,  industry,  agriculture,  urban  areas,  and 
recreational activities; which are addressed by neighbouring countries. 

-  Cyprus  addresses  various  anthropogenic  impacts  on  seabed  habitats  through 
spatial  protection  measures,  which  are  often  lacking  detail  on  their  area 
coverage, temporal ranges of restrictions and minimal consideration is given 
to the broader issues of trawling outside of these spatially protected areas. 
-  The  majority  of  pressures  discussed  relate  to  physical  loss  and  damage  to 
seabed  habitat,  with  minimal  consideration  of  other  pressures  such  as  non-

78 

 
 
indigenous species, eutrophication and marine litter. 

Exceptions 
Cyprus  applies  an  exception  for  non-indigenous  species  (D2).  It  applies  Article 14(1)(a) 
(‘action  or  inaction  for  which  the  Member  State  concerned  is  not  responsible’).  Cyprus 
explains  that  the  pressure  of  introductions  of  non-indigenous  species  to  Cyprus’  marine 
waters  is  beyond  its  control  given  the  transboundary  aspects  of  these  introductions  in  the 
region, mainly coming from the Suez Canal. 
The assessment finds the justification provided by Cyprus to be grounded. 

Recommendations for Cyprus to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
-  In  general,  the  Cyprus  should  better  address  certain  pressures  and  activities  in  its 
programme  of  measures.  These  are  specified  in  the  descriptor  specific  recommendations 
below. 

-  The  Member  State  should  consider  whether  it  is  feasible  to  reduce  the  current  levels  of 
certain  pressures  in  the  marine  environment,  given  that  the  majority  of  direct  measures 
focus  on  preventing  ongoing  and  future  inputs  of  pressures.  It  is  observed  that  most 
measures  aim  to  address  ongoing  and  new  inputs  of  pressures,  whilst  very  few  seek  to 
remove or reduce what is already present in the marine environment due to past activities. 
More  specifically,  in  a  few  cases  (e.g.  marine  litter  (D10)  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  non-
indigenous species (D2)) measures address past, ongoing, and future inputs (e.g. removal of 
marine  litter  from  the  marine  environment,  in  addition  to  preventing  ongoing  and  future 
inputs of marine litter). In other cases (e.g. contaminants (D8)), the Member State considers 
that it is not feasible or cost-effective to remove contaminants which have been introduced 
in the past and are still present in the marine environment, but rather focus on controlling 
ongoing and future inputs. In these cases, contaminants will continue to act as sources of the 
pressure on the marine environment for years to come, depending on their degradation rates. 
-  GES  and  targets  definitions  should  be  better  addressed  for  birds,  fish  and  cephalopods, 
marine mammals and reptiles, water column habitats (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6), 
commercial fish and shellfish (D3), marine litter (D10) and underwater noise (D11). 

-  The  Member  State  should  strive  to  determine  the  timelines  for  achieving  GES  (especially 
for  D3,  D7,  D10,  D11,  D1,  4,  6).  Furthermore,  if  GES  is  not  expected  to  be  achieved  by 
2020,  then  the  Member  State  should  estimate  the  alternative  dates  by  when  GES  will  be 
achieved. 

-  Cyprus should establish  links with  existing EU policies and  international agreements  (e.g. 
for  D3  and  D11).  This  would  improve  the  overall  coherence  and  coverage  of  the 
programme. 

-  The Member State should define  the spatial scope of  measures in  detail. Furthermore, the 
spatial  scope  of  measures  should  be  expanded  to  cover  marine  waters  beyond  coastal 
waters,  where  relevant  pressures  are  present.  The  Member  State  should  consider 
establishing  additional  measures  beyond  spatial  protection  efforts  to  address  species  and 
habitats. It is important that pressures are addressed across its broader territory. 

-  It  should  clearly  identify  the  timelines  for  implementation  of  their  new  measures  (i.e.  for 
D2,  D3,  D5,  D7,  D10,  D1,  4,  6),  secured  funding,  and  the  entities  in  charge  of 
implementation for all their measures. 

-  The Member State should quantify pressures and their expected reduction as a result of the 
established measures. This could be facilitated by further efforts to address knowledge gaps 

79 

 
 
 
and  define  the  methodology  for  such  estimations  at  regional  or  EU  level.  Such 
quantification will also contribute to linking the measures with the achievement of GES. 
-  The  Member  State  should  ensure  coherence  of  its  determinations  of  GES,  environmental 
targets  and  the  programme.  This  would  allow  use  environmental  targets  systematically  as 
milestones towards achieving GES through the measures, and monitor this progress through 
the MSFD monitoring programmes. This is applicable mainly to birds, marine mammal and 
reptiles (D1, 4), non-indigenous species (D2), hydrographical changes (D7) and underwater 
noise and energy (D11). 

-  Cyprus  should  report  data  collection  efforts  under  the  MSFD  monitoring  programmes 
(Article 11)  and  not  under  the  Programme  of  Measures  (Article 13).  However,  when 
knowledge is too scarce to design effective measures, it is useful to indicate actions taken to 
address these gaps via research measures. 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 
-  The Member State should address the introduction of non-indigenous species in its marine 

waters from shipping, land claim and coastal defence activities.  

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 
-  The Member State should clarify the link of its programme of measures with the CFP. 
D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  Cyprus should establish measures to tackle hydrographical changes from additional human 

activities such as urban areas and agriculture. 

-  It should address cumulative impacts on habitats by multiple stressors. 
-  The Member State should utilise synergies with MSP for addressing cumulative impacts. 
-  Its  programme  should  better  address  pressures  from  activities  not  subject  to  local/project 
scale  EIAs  (e.g.  fishing,  maritime  transport).  In  some  cases  (e.g.  hydrological  changes 
where local dimension is important) this gap hampers the assessment of cumulative effects. 

D10 — Marine litter 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  to  address  marine  litter  from  shipping  or 

industrial sources. 

-  Its programme State should address micro-litter, preferably through direct measures. 
-  Cyprus  should  conduct  additional  research  to  address  data  gaps,  increase  knowledge  and 

pave the way for direct action as soon as possible.  

-  The  Member  State  should  make  efforts  to  identify  pollution  hot  spots  (e.g.  from  plastic 

pellets, lost fishing gear, etc.) and reduce the mortality of turtles. 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  direct  measures  to  cover  activities  that  are  known  to 
produce  high  levels  of  noise,  as  soon  as  possible  (e.g.  shipping,  fisheries,  recreational 
activities, industry (oil and gas), marine research activities). 

-  It should address data gaps and consolidate research results to move closer to characterising 
the noise pressure, in line with the recommendation of TG Noise. This will enable defining 
more  concrete  and  direct  measures  to  address  underwater  noise  in  the  second  MSFD 
implementation cycle. 

-  The Member State should consider establishing measures that target other energy inputs if 

possible (e.g. heat, light). 

D1, 4 — Birds 
-  Cyprus should establish additional measures targeting specific bird species. 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  additional  measures  to  address  pressures  on  birds, 
namely,  by-catch.  Additional  measures  could  target  disturbances  on  nesting  sites  by 
predation,  effects  of  non-indigenous  species  and  litter  ingestion,  as  well  as  measures 

80 

 
 
covering  birds’  food  sources.  If  these  are  to  be  addressed  via  measures  reported  for  other 
descriptors, the expected effect that measures are to have on birds should be explained. 

D1, 4 — Fish and cephalopods 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  that  extend  beyond  CFP  efforts,  and  cover 
additional  fish  species  and  cephalopods,  which  are  non-commercial  species  in  open  sea 
areas, as well as functional fish habitats (including spatial protection measures). 

-  It should establish measures that include additional MPAs in open sea areas to protect non-
commercial  fish  species  from  various  pressures  (non-indigenous  species,  by-catch,  noise 
and contaminants). If these are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors, 
the expected effect that measures are to have on fish should be explained. 

-  The  Member  State  should  provide  better  information  on  existing  MPAs  and  the  level  of 
protection they provide for fish (commercial and non-commercial), in relation to where fish 
species occur within Member States’ territorial waters, and how they are protected. 

D1, 4 — Mammals and reptiles 
-  Cyprus should establish additional measures covering by-catch from fishing activities. 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  additional  measures,  including  spatial  protection 
measures,  to  address  relevant  pressures  on  mammals  beyond  by-catch  (e.g.  impacts  on 
mammals  due  to  shipping  (collision),  underwater  noise,  entanglement,  and  ingestion  of 
litter). If these are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors, the expected 
effect that measures are to have on mammals should be explained.  

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  The Member State should more clearly indicate which measures address pressures for these 
habitats (as well as plankton communities), and elaborate on how GES and targets for water 
column habitats are expected to be achieved. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  covering  port  operations,  land  claim  and 
coastal  defence  as  well  as  all  aspects  of  recreational  activities  (e.g.,  fishing,  vessels 
mooring, diving), aquaculture, industry, agriculture and urban areas. 

-   It should provide more details on measures related to protected areas (and MPAs) such as 
their area of coverage or temporal ranges of restrictions. The Member State should provide 
timescales and estimates of how spatial restrictions of seabed damaging activities will allow 
for GES to be achieved. 

-  If seabed habitats are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors (e.g. D2, 
D5,  D10),  the  expected  effect  that  measures  are  to  have  on  seabed  habitats  should  be 
explained. 

81 

 
 
 
 
4.  Germany 

General conclusions on Germany’s programme of measures 

Strengths and weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  non-indigenous  species 
(D2),  commercial 
(D5), 
shellfish 
hydrographical changes (D7), contaminants (D8), contaminants in seafood 
(D9), marine litter (D10), birds, fish and mammals (D1, 4). 

(D3),  eutrophication 

fish  and 

Strengths 

-  Germany has brought together and coordinated existing national measures 
and  processes  (related  to  the  implementation  of  EU  legal  acts  and 
regulations,  as  well  as  regional  commitments  to  protect  the  marine 
environment  more  efficiently),  and  also  established  new  measures  that 
complement  those  already  in  place  to  specifically  target  pressures  on  the 
marine environment which were not otherwise covered. 

-  The  programme  includes  measures  that  are  based  on  commitments  to 
existing  European  policies  and  legislation,  such  as  the  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives (D1, 4, 6), Regulations (EU) No 1143/2014 and 708/2007 (D2), 
the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP; D3, D1, 4, 6), the WFD (D5, D7, D8, 
D1, 4, 6), the National Emission Ceilings Directive (D5, D8), the Nitrates 
Directive  (D5),  the  EIA  (D7,  D11),  Integrated  coastal  zone  management 
(D7), MSP Directive (D7), the IED17 (D8), Regulation (EC) 782/2003 (D8) 
as well as international instruments such as IMO-MARPOL (D5, D8) and 
the Gothenburg Protocol (D5), and regional actions such as HELCOM and 
OSPAR action plan for litter (D10). 

-  Germany’s  programme  includes  spatial  protection  measures  (including 
MPAs).  Often,  these  measures  address  more  than  one  descriptor  and 
therefore  contribute  towards  GES  and  targets  for  several  descriptors. 
Measures  especially  include  the  strengthening  of  MPA  networks  and  the 
establishment of management measures within MPAs. 

-  The  programme  combines  direct  and  indirect  measures,  thus  directly 
addressing  pressures  on  the  marine  environment,  while  simultaneously 
implementing  measures  complementing  the  direct  measures  through 
governance and coordination actions, as well as awareness raising efforts. 
-  The  Member  State  makes  links  between  the  measures  for  the  pressure 
descriptors  and  how  they  might  benefit  the  state  descriptors  (i.e. 
biodiversity descriptors D1, 4, 6). This allows for better understanding how 
state descriptors benefit from these measures, which are likely to contribute 
in addressing pressures on species and habitats. 

-  Based  on  the  information  reported  by  the  Germany  on  cost  and  resource 
allocations, timelines of implementation of measures as well as responsible 
bodies  for  implementation,  the  likelihood  of  implementation  is  high  — 
most  measures  have  secured  funding  and  the  timeline  for  implementing 
them is 2016 (with few being 2018). 

-  In this first implementation cycle of the MSFD, in relation to descriptors for 

17 Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions 
(integrated pollution prevention and control), OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17. 

82 

 
 
 
                                                            
Weaknesses 

which knowledge gaps exist (i.e. D11), the Member State reports research 
efforts.  This  will  allow addressing knowledge gaps but also to build upon 
the results to design measures, which will contribute directly to tackling the 
pressures in the MSFD’s second implementation cycle. 

-  The  spatial  scope  of  the  measures  is  specified  consistently  across  the 

programme of measures. 

-  The  programme  partially  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  underwater  noise 
and energy (D11), water column habitats (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 
4, 6). 

-  The  Member  State  reports  that  the  current  level  of  scientific  knowledge 
does not allow an assessment on whether GES will be achieved by 2020. 
-  In  rare  cases,  it  does  not  include  sufficient  links  to  existing  European 
policies and legislation as well as international instruments. It is the case for 
contaminants in seafood (D9) and underwater noise (D11). 

-  The programme includes spatial measures that do not always provide clear 
and specific information on the management efforts that were/are expected 
to  be  put  in  place.  Information  gaps  include  the  representation  of  species 
and habitats within the MPAs, the size, number and location of MPAs, the 
conservation  objectives  of  the  MPAs  and  the  policies  and  measures  that 
will be in place within these areas. 

-  While impact assessments were carried out for new measures, the results do 
not allow for a quantification of what the measures will achieve; i.e. to what 
extent  the  relevant  pressure  will  be  addressed,  and  whether  the  measures 
will be sufficient to achieve GES.  

D2 — Non-indigenous species 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  introduction  of  non-indigenous  species  by 
tackling aquaculture and shipping via ballast water management (link to the 
BWMC) and anti-fouling measures.  

-  It is unclear whether the measures cover recreational vessels. 
-  The programme does not include early warning systems for introductions of 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 

non-indigenous species as measures. 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  by  covering  fisheries 
(commercial  fishing  and  recreational  fishing)  and  aquaculture  (an  activity 
specified as relevant by Germany in its Article 8 report). 

-  It  also  includes  seasonal  and  spatial  fishing  bans  (for  several  purposes 
including  stock  management  and  biodiversity  conservation)  that  are  in 
addition to existing CFP measures. 

-  The  measures  cover  stocks  managed  at  the  national  level,  non-targeted 

species as well as age/size structure. 

Weaknesses 

-  None  (except  the  lack  of  timeline  for  the  achievement  of  GES  mentioned 

D5 — Eutrophication 

above). 

-  The  programme  addresses  nutrient  enrichment  by  tackling  agriculture, 

shipping and urban areas. 

Strength 

-  It  also  draws  from  the  Member  State’s  WFD  River  Basin  Management 
Plans (RBMP). In the framework of the MSFD, most are considered likely 
to  be  sufficient  to  address  pressures  of  nutrient  and  organic  matter 

83 

 
 
enrichment in the marine environment and cover relevant human activities 
(i.e.  mainly  agriculture,  industry,  wastewater  and  flood  risks).  However, 
considering  the  extent  to  which  the  MSFD  programme  relies  on  WFD 
measures,  this  statement  is  subject  to  the  RBMPs  being  assessed  as 
adequate under the WFD assessment. 

-  The programme addresses atmospheric deposition of nutrients (NOx) from 
sea-based  (link  to  IMO-MARPOL)  and  land-based  sources  (link  to  the 
Gothenburg Protocol and the NEC18 Directive). 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  does  not  consider  additional  aspects,  such  as  improved 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 

aquaculture management practices. 

-  The  programme  addresses  hydrographical  changes.  It  includes  existing 
measures  stemming  from  other  legal  acts.  As  such,  all  projects  that  are 
subject to existing authorisation and regulatory procedures are addressed in 
terms of hydrographical changes. 

-  The  programme  also  includes  MSFD  specific  measures  beyond  existing 

regulatory frameworks. 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  refers  to  MSP  and  Integrated  coastal  zone  management 

processes. 

-  It  also  addresses  cumulative  impacts,  i.e.  impacts  from  different/multiple 
human activities/projects on hydrography. Cumulative impacts are a major 
issue for the MSFD; assessing cumulative impacts would require Member 
States to consolidate results of individual assessments together to assess the 
overall scale of hydrographical changes. 

Weaknesses 
D8/D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 

-  The programme does not make a clear link to SEA procedures.  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme addresses the introduction of contaminants and accidental 
pollution through measures that target shipping, agriculture, industry and 
urban areas. 

-  It addresses contaminant inputs to the sea from land-based (e.g. agriculture, 
industry, urban areas), as well as sea-based sources (e.g. shipping, marine 
mining). 

-  The programme addresses atmospheric deposition of contaminants and 

biological effects of contaminants (oiled seabirds). 

-  The  programme  does  not  clearly  explain  how  measures  for  contaminants 
(D8)  will  contribute  to  addressing  pressures  for  contaminants  in  seafood 
(D9) and allow for progress towards D9 GES and targets. 

D10 — Marine litter 

-  The  programme  addresses  marine  litter  by  covering  land-based  (e.g. 
industry,  tourism)  and  sea-based  (e.g.  fisheries,  offshore  structures, 
shipping) sources of litter. 

Strengths 

-  It addresses the reduction of marine litter input in coastal areas and in the 

open sea, as well as the removal of existing litter. 
-  The programme covers both macro and micro-litter. 
-  Measures include awareness raising efforts in addition to direct measures. 

18 Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for 
certain atmospheric pollutants, OJ L 309, 27/11/2001 p. 21. 

84 

 
 
                                                            
Weaknesses 

-  The Member State does not seem to distinguish ‘decomposition/degradation 
products’  from  micro-litter  in  its  measures, although  this  differentiation  is 
included in its GES definition. 

-  Due to the lack of knowledge and reporting on the effects of marine litter 
on biota, it is unclear how the Member State will interpret and address the 
issue  of  having  ‘no  harmful  effects  on  marine  life  and  habitats’,  although 
this aspect has been included in the GES definition. 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  continuous  and  impulsive  underwater  noise  by 
covering  marine  based  renewable  energy,  marine  mining,  marine 
hydrocarbon exploitation, shipping, defence operations, marine research as 
well as fisheries. 

-  It addresses other energy inputs (i.e. heat and light). 
-  The  programme  includes  measures  that  aim  to  implement  a  register  for 

impulsive noise and develop standards for noise mapping. 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme includes research efforts on the impact of light on birds. 
-  The  programme  does  not  address  the  impact  of  electromagnetic  fields  on 

marine life (reported as part of the GES and targets definitions). 

D1, 4 — Birds  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

D1, 4 — Fish  

Strengths 

-  The programme addresses the extraction of species (incl. by-catch), habitat 
loss,  visual  disturbances  as  well  as  the  introduction  of  noise  and  energy. 
Fisheries,  marine  based  renewable  energy  and  offshore  activities  are 
covered. 

-  It  covers  birds’  food  sources  through  measures  targeting  fisheries 
management (that should also protect birds’ feeding grounds), especially in 
protected areas. 

-  The programme does not explain how the effects of non-indigenous species 
and  marine  litter  on  seabirds  are  addressed.  It  is  possible  that  these 
pressures  are  addressed  by  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  non-
indigenous  species  (D2)  and  marine  litter  (D10),  but  based  on  the 
information reported this cannot be determined. This does not allow for an 
understanding of how the state descriptors will benefit from these measures.  

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  (incl.  by-catch), 
physical loss and damage, fish habitat loss, obstacles for migration as well 
as the introduction of energy and noise. Various activities are covered such 
as fisheries and shipping. 

-  It includes spatial protection measures to complement commercial fish and 
shellfish (D3) and protect non-commercial species as well as functional fish 
habitats. 

-  The  Member  State  reports  that,  in  their  MPAs,  all  species  listed  in  the 
Habitats  Directive  and  on  the  HELCOM  and  OSPAR  lists  of  endangered 
species are covered. 

Weaknesses 

-  None  (except  the  lack  of  timeline  for  the  achievement  of  GES  mentioned 

D1, 4 — Mammals  

above). 

Strengths 

- The  programme  addresses  selective  extraction  of  species  (incl.  accidental 
by-catch),  physical  loss  and  damage,  as  well  as  the  introduction  of  energy 

85 

 
 
Weaknesses 

and noise. Various activities such as fisheries and shipping are covered. 

- It includes spatial protection measures to address several pressures such as 
underwater noise due to shipping, by-catch and protecting migratory species 
by ensuring a coherent network of MPAs. 

- The  programme  does  not  explain  how  contaminants  and  marine  litter  on 
mammals  is  addressed.  It  is  possible  that  these  pressures  are  addressed  by 
the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  contaminants  (D8)  and  marine  litter 
(D10),  but  based  on  the  information  reported  this  cannot  be  determined. 
This  does  not  allow  for  an  understanding  of  how  the  state  descriptors will 
benefit from these measures. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  includes  measures  that  are  relevant  to  water  column 
habitats  (spatial  protection  measures  and  measures  aiming  at  improving 
seabed habitat condition and reduce waste water runoff) although they are 
not specific to this habitat. 

-  The programme partially addresses pressures on water column habitats, as 
no  specific  water  column  habitat  measure  have  been  reported  and  the 
Member State does not clearly identify how measures reported under other 
descriptors (e.g. D2, D5, D8) will address relevant pressures on this habitat. 
-  The  water  column,  although  considered  in  other  descriptors,  is  mainly 
covered by the Member State in terms of water quality. Plankton is a key 
feature  of  the  terminology  in  the  monitoring  programmes,  which  is  rarely 
referenced in the biodiversity measures. Additionally, the water column is a 
key  transfer  route  for  the  majority  of  non-seabed  species  and  needs  to  be 
considered  as  part  of  the  broader  ecological  coherence  of  the  Member 
State’s  waters,  within  MPAs  and  in  relation  to  food  webs.  The  water 
column is often discounted from such measures due to a lack of scientific 
knowledge of these habitat types. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme addresses physical  damage from  fisheries,  marine mining 

(including sand and gravel extraction) and shipping. 

-  It addresses physical loss from offshore activities (among others). 
-  The programme includes existing and new measures that target destructive 
fishing  practices  particularly  in  MPAs  but  also  outside  spatially  protected 
areas. 

-  It addresses other pressures such as by-catch, habitat loss and noise. 
-  The  programme  does  not  address  physical  loss  from  marine-based 
renewable  energy  generation,  marine  hydrocarbon  extraction  and  solid 
waste disposal. 

-  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  measures  addresses  recreational activities  other 
than  recreational  fishing  that  could  still  be  destructive  to  seabed  habitats 
(e.g. vessels mooring). 

-  The  programme  mainly  includes  fisheries  restrictions  within  spatial 
protection  measures,  which  are  often  lacking  in  detail  on  their  area 
coverage,  temporal  ranges  of  restrictions  and  minimal  consideration  is 
given to the broader issues of trawling outside of these spatially protected 
areas. 

-  Most  measures  relate  to  physical  loss  and  damage  to  seabed  habitat,  with 

86 

 
 
minimal  consideration  of  other  pressures  such  as  non-indigenous  species, 
eutrophication and marine litter. 

Recommendations for Germany to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
- 

In general, the Germany should better address certain pressures and activities. These are 
specified in the descriptor specific recommendations below. 

-  GES  and  targets  definitions  should  be  better  covered  for  underwater  noise  and  energy 

(D11), water column habitats (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

-  The  Member  State  should  develop  more  efforts  to  fill  knowledge  gaps  and  provide  an 

assessment on when GES will be achieved. 

-  Germany’s  programme  should  establish  more  links  with  existing  EU  policies  and 
international instruments for contaminants in seafood (D9) and underwater noise (D11). 
-  The  programme  should  provide  more  information  about  its  spatial  protection  measures 
(representation of species and habitats within the MPAs, the size, number and location of 
MPAs, the conservation objectives of the MPAs and the policies and measures that will be 
in place within these areas). 

-  The Member State should quantify the pressures present in its waters and their expected 
level  of  reduction  as  a  result  of  the  established  measures.  This  could  be  facilitated  by 
further  efforts  to  address  knowledge  gaps  and  define  the  methodology  for  such 
estimations at regional or EU level. Such quantification will also contribute to linking the 
measures with the achievement of GES. 

D2 — non-indigenous species 
-  The  Member  State  should  clarify  whether  recreational  vessels  are  covered  by  the 

measures. 

-  The  Member  State  should  establish  early  warning  systems  for  introductions  of  non-

indigenous species as measures. 

D5 — Eutrophication 
-  The  Member  State  should  consider  covering  additional  aspects,  such  as  nutrient  inputs 

from aquaculture, if relevant. 
D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  Germany’s  programme  should  better  address  pressures  from  activities  not  subject  to 
local/project scale EIAs (e.g. fishing, maritime transport). In some cases (e.g. hydrological 
changes  where  local  dimension  is  important)  this  gap  hampers  the  assessment  of 
cumulative effects. 
It  should  apply  SEA  procedures,  in  addition  to  EIA  procedures,  more  consistently  to 
ensure  that  hydrographical  changes  are  tackled  at  a  strategic  level,  rather  than  at  the 
project level. 

- 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 
-  The Member State should better explain the manner in which the D8 measures contribute 

to D9 targets. 
D10 — Marine litter 
-  Germany should establish measures that clearly address marine litter degradation products 
and ensure that litter does not cause harm to marine life and habitats as suggested in the 
GES definition. 
It should establish research efforts to address data gaps, increase knowledge and pave the 
way for direct action to address degradation products as well as counter effects on marine 

- 

87 

 
 
 
species as specified in its GES and targets.  

-  The Member State should make efforts to prevent, identify and tackle pollution hot spots 

(e.g. from plastic pellets, lost fishing gear, single-use plastics, etc.). 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 
-  The Member State should establish measures that address the impact of electromagnetic 

fields on marine life.  

D1, 4 — Birds 
-  Germany should specify how pressures on birds beyond by-catch are addressed (or will be 

addressed), namely the effects of non-indigenous species and ingestion of litter. 

D1, 4 — Mammals  
-  The  Member  State  should  specify  how  pressures  on  mammals  beyond  by-catch  are 

addressed (or will be addressed), namely the contaminants and ingestion of litter. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  The  Member  State  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other 
descriptors  address  pressures  for  water  column  habitats  (including  plankton),  and 
elaborate on how GES and targets for water column habitats are expected to be achieved. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  Germany  should  establish  measures  addressing  marine-based  renewable  energy 
generation, marine hydrocarbon extraction and solid waste disposal as well as all aspects 
of recreational activities (e.g., fishing, vessels mooring). 
It  should  establish  more  measures  that  extend  beyond  spatially  protected  areas  (and 
MPAs) to ensure a wider spatial coverage for these habitats. 
Its  programme  should  provide  timescales  and  estimates  of  how  spatial  restrictions  of 
seabed damaging activities will allow for GES to be achieved. 

- 

- 

-  The  Member  State  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other 
descriptors address pressures for seabed habitats, and elaborate on how GES and targets 
for seabed habitats are expected to be achieved. 

88 

 
 
 
 
5.  Spain 

General conclusions on Spain’s programme of measures: 

Strengths and weaknesses 

-  The programme of measures addresses GES and targets for all descriptors. 
-  The  Member  State  considers  GES  is  already  achieved  for  eutrophication 

(D5) and hydrographical changes (D7) in all its regions. 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  includes  measures  that  are  based  on  commitments  to 
existing  European  policies  and  legislation,  such  as  the  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives (D1, 4, 6; D2, D5, D7, D9), WFD (D 1, 4, 6; D5, D7, D8, D10), 
Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive19  (D1,  4,  6;  D5,  D7,  D8,  D9, 
D10),  Directive  2015/720  on  reducing  the  consumption  of  lightweight 
plastic  carrier  bags  (D1,  4,  6;  D10),  Directive  94/62/EC  on  packaging  and 
packaging waste (D1, 4, 6; D10), the UWWTD (D1, 4, 6; D5, D7, D9, D10), 
the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (D3),  MSPD  (D7,  D9),  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1143/2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread 
of  invasive  alien  species  (D1,  4,  6;  D2),  Regulation  (EU)  No  508/2014  on 
the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (D1, 4, 6; D3), COM(2012) 665 
final Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gear 
(D1, 4, 6), Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 laying down measures concerning 
incidental  catches  of  cetaceans  in  fisheries  (D1,  4,  6),  the  Regulation  (EU) 
No  1343/2011  on  provisions  for  fisheries  (D3),  Regulations  (EC)  No 
1224/2009 and (EU) No 404/2011 concerning the mandatory fitting of ‘blue 
box’  devices  for  vessels  (D3),  Regulation  (EU)  No  1967/2006  concerning 
management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources 
in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  (D3),  the  Nitrates  Directive  (D5),  Directive 
2009/90/EC  on  the  technical  specifications  for  chemical  analysis  and 
monitoring of water status (D7, D10), Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (D7, 
D9), Directive 2009/16/EC on port State control (D7), Directive 2005/35/EC 
on  ship-source  pollution  and  on 
introduction  of  penalties  for 
infringements  (D7,  D9),  Directive  2009/17/EC  establishing  a  Community 
(D7),  Directive 
vessel 
2009/18/EC  establishing 
the 
investigation  of  accidents  in  the  maritime  transport  sector  (D7),  Directive 
2013/30/EU on safety of operations at sea in the hydrocarbons sector (D7), 
the REACH regulation (D8, D9), Directive 2013/30/EU Offshore Directive 
(D9),  Directive  2000/59/CE  on  port  reception  facilities  for  ship-generated 
waste  and  cargo  residues  (D10),  Directive  2002/96/EC  on  waste  electrical 
and electronic equipment (D10), and the EIA and SEA Directives (D11), as 
well  as  other  international  agreements  such  as  the  Agreement  on  the 
Conservation  of  Cetaceans  of  the  Black  Sea,  Mediterranean  Sea  and 
contiguous Atlantic area — ACCOBAMS (D1, 4, 6), the GFCM (D1, 4, 6; 
D3),  ICCAT  (D3),  IMO-MARPOL  (D8),  and  regional  actions  such  as 
references to the Barcelona and OSPAR conventions (all descriptors except 

fundamental  principles  governing 

traffic  monitoring  and 

information  system 

the 

the 

19 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 repealing 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. 

89 

 
 
 
                                                            
D11). 

-  The  Member  State  has  brought  together  and  coordinated  existing  national 
measures and processes (related to the implementation of EU legal acts and 
regulations,  as  well  as  regional  commitments  to  protect  the  marine 
environment  more  efficiently),  and  also  established  new  measures  that 
complement  those  already  in  place  to  specifically  target  pressures  on  the 
marine environment which were not otherwise covered. 

-  Its  programme  includes  spatial  protection  measures  (including  MPAs). 
Often,  these  measures  address  more  than  one  descriptor  and  therefore 
contribute  towards  GES  and  targets  for  several  descriptors.  Measures 
especially include the strengthening of MPA networks and the establishment 
of management measures within MPAs. 

-  The  programme  combines  direct  and  indirect  measures,  thus  directly 
addressing  pressures  on  the  marine  environment,  while  simultaneously 
through 
implementing  measures  complementing 
governance and coordination actions, as well as awareness raising efforts. 
-  The  Member  State  makes  links  between  the  measures  for  the  pressure 
descriptors and how they might benefit the state descriptors (i.e. biodiversity 
descriptors  D1,  4,  6).  This  allows  for  better  understanding  how  state 
descriptors  benefit  from  these  measures,  which  are  likely  to  contribute  in 
addressing pressures on species and habitats. 

the  direct  measures 

-  Based  on  the  information  reported  by  the  Spain  on  cost  and  resource 
allocations, timelines of implementation of measures as well as responsible 
bodies for implementation, the likelihood of implementation is high — most 
measures  have  secured  funding  and  the  timeline  for  implementing  them  is 
2016 (with very few being 2017). 

-  In this first implementation cycle of the MSFD, in relation to descriptors for 
which  knowledge  gaps  exist  (i.e.  D11),  the  Member  State  reports  research 
efforts. This will allow addressing knowledge gaps but also to build upon the 
results  to  design  measures,  which  will  contribute  directly  to  tackling  the 
pressures in the MSFD’s second implementation cycle. 

-  The  spatial  scope  of  the  measures  is  specified  consistently  across  the 

programme. 

-  The  Member  State  does  not  report  whether  GES  will  be  achieved  by  2020 
for  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3), 
contaminants  (D8),  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9),  marine  litter  (D10), 
underwater noise (D11), birds, fish and cephalopods, mammals and reptiles, 
seabed and water column habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

-  While impact assessments were carried out for new measures, the results do 
not allow for a quantification of what the measures will achieve; i.e. to what 
extent the relevant pressure will be addressed, and whether the measures will 
be sufficient to achieve GES.  

Weaknesses 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  introduction  of  non-indigenous  species  by 
tackling aquaculture and shipping via ballast water management (link to the 
BWMC) and anti-fouling measures. 
-  It also addresses recreational activities. 
-  The  programme  includes  early  warning  systems  of  non-indigenous  species 

90 

 
 
introductions as measures.  

Weaknesses 

-  None  (except  the  lack  of  timeline  for  the  achievement  of  GES  mentioned 

above). 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  by  covering  fisheries 

(commercial fishing and recreational fishing). 

-  It includes seasonal and spatial fishing bans (for several purposes including 
stock  management  and  biodiversity  conservation)  that  are  in  addition  to 
existing CFP measures. 

-  The  measures  cover  stocks  managed  at  the  national  level,  non-targeted 

species as well as age/size structure. 

Weaknesses 

-  None  (except  the  lack  of  timeline  for  the  achievement  of  GES  mentioned 

above). 
D5 — Eutrophication  

Strength 

-  The  programme  addresses  nutrient  enrichment  by  tackling  agriculture, 

shipping and urban activities, among many other activities. 

-  It  draws  from  the  Member  State’s  WFD  River  Basin  Management  Plans 
(RBMP).  In  the  framework  of  the  MSFD,  most  are  considered  likely to  be 
sufficient to address pressures of nutrient and organic matter enrichment in 
the  marine  environment  and  cover  relevant  human  activities  (i.e.  mainly 
agriculture, industry, wastewater and flood risks). However, considering the 
extent  to  which  the  MSFD  programme  relies  on  WFD  measures,  this 
statement  is  subject  to  the  RBMPs  being  assessed  as  adequate  under  the 
WFD assessment. 

-  The  programme  addresses  atmospheric  deposition  of  nutrients  (NOx)  from 

sea-based and land based sources. 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  of  measures  does  not  address  nutrient  enrichment  from 

fisheries.  

D7 — Hydrographical changes 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  hydrographical  changes.  It  includes  existing 
measures stemming from other legal acts. As such, projects that are subject 
to existing authorisation and regulatory procedures are addressed in terms of 
hydrographical changes. 

-  It  also  includes  MSFD  specific  measures  beyond  existing  regulatory 

frameworks. 

-  The  programme  refers  to  MSP  and  Integrated  coastal  zone  management 

processes. 

-  The  programme  does  not  address  cumulative  impacts,  i.e.  impacts  from 
different/multiple  human  activities/projects  on  hydrography.  Cumulative 
impacts  are  a  major  issue  for  the  MSFD;  assessing  cumulative  impacts 
would  require  Member  States 
individual 
assessments together to assess the overall scale of hydrographical changes.  

to  consolidate  results  of 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  introduction  of  contaminants  and  accidental 
pollution  through  measures  that  target  shipping,  agriculture,  industry  and 
urban activities among others. 

-  It addresses contaminant inputs to the sea from land-based (e.g. agriculture, 
industry,  urban  areas),  as  well  as  sea-based  sources  (e.g.  shipping,  marine 

91 

 
 
mining). 

-  The  programme  addresses  atmospheric  deposition  of  contaminants  and 

biological effects of contaminants (oiled seabirds). 

-  The  programme  addresses  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9)  via  D8  and  D9 
measures  and  clearly  explains  how  measures  for  contaminants  (D8)  will 
contribute  to  addressing  pressures  for  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9)  and 
allow for progress towards D9 GES and targets. 

Weaknesses  None  (except  the  lack  of  timeline  for  the  achievement  of  GES  mentioned 

above). 
D10 — Marine litter 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  marine  litter  by  covering  land-based  (e.g. 
industry, tourism, port operations, urban areas) and sea-based (e.g. fisheries, 
offshore structures, shipping) sources of litter. 

-  It addresses the reduction of marine litter input in coastal areas and in the 

open sea, as well as the removal of existing litter. 

-  The programme of measures covers both macro and micro-litter. 
-  The  programme  includes  indirect  measures  focused  on  awareness  raising, 
training  and  education,  which,  while  not  yet  fully  addressing  the  problem, 
will  positively  contribute  to  better  characterising  the  pressure  and  its 
potential impact on fauna. 

Weaknesses 

-  None  (except  the  lack  of  timeline  for  the  achievement  of  GES  mentioned 

above).  

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  continuous  and  impulsive  underwater  noise  by 
recreational),  sub-marine 

(both  commercial  and 

covering  shipping 
cables/pipelines and marine research. 

-  It includes measures that aim to implement a register for impulsive noise and 

develop standards for noise mapping. 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme includes research efforts to cover gaps. 
-  The  programme  addresses  fisheries  by  a  measure  that  only  has  an  indirect 

effect on the pressure (its aim is to raise awareness). 

-  It  does  not  address  marine  hydrocarbon  extraction,  port  operations  and 
extraction activities /solid waste disposal (identified as relevant by Spain in 
its Article 8 report).  

D1, 4 — Birds  

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  by-catch,  habitat  loss,  as  well  as  biological 
disturbances  from  non-indigenous,  pollution  (contaminants  and  light)  and 
marine litter. 

-  It  covers  birds’  food  sources 

targeting  fisheries 
management (that should also protect birds’ feeding grounds), especially in 
protected areas. 

through  measures 

Weaknesses 

-  None  (except  the  lack  of  timeline  for  the  achievement  of  GES  mentioned 

above). 

D1, 4 — Fish and cephalopods 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  by-catch  from  fisheries,  fish  habitat  loss  from 

various activities, pollution and marine litter. 

-  It addresses aquaculture. 
-  The  programme  includes  spatial  protection  measures  to  complement 

92 

 
 
commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3)  and  protect  non-commercial  species  as 
well as functional fish habitats. 

-  It includes specific plans for cephalopods. 
-  None  (except  the  lack  of  timeline  for  the  achievement  of  GES  mentioned 

Weaknesses 

above). 

D1, 4 — Mammals and reptiles 

Strengths 

- The  programme  of  measures  addresses  accidental  by-catch,  pollution, 
collisions with ships, marine litter as well as the introduction of energy and 
noise  (on  mammals)  and  various  other  pressures  on  mammal  habitats. 
Various activities such as fisheries and shipping are covered. 

- It  includes  spatial  protection  measures  to  address  several  pressures  such  as 
underwater noise due to shipping, by-catch and protecting migratory species 
by ensuring a coherent network of MPAs. 

Weaknesses 

- None  (except  the  lack  of  timeline  for  the  achievement  of  GES  mentioned 

above). 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme includes measures that are relevant to water column habitats 
(spatial  protection  measures  and  measures  aiming  at  improving  seabed 
habitat  condition  and  reduce  waste  water  runoff)  although  they  are  not 
specific to this habitat. 

-  The  water  column,  although  considered  in  other  descriptors,  is  mainly 
covered  by  the  Member  State  in  terms  of  water  quality.  Plankton  is  a  key 
feature  of  the  terminology  in  the  monitoring  programmes,  which  is  rarely 
referenced in the biodiversity measures. Additionally, the water column is a 
key  transfer  route  for  the  majority  of  non-seabed  species  and  needs  to  be 
considered  as  part  of  the  broader  ecological  coherence  of  the  Member 
State’s waters, within MPAs and in relation to food webs. The water column 
is often discounted from such measures due to a lack of scientific knowledge 
of these habitat types. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

-  The  programme  addresses  physical  damage 

operations/dredging/solid  waste  disposal, 
shipping and tourism/recreational activities. 

from 

fisheries,  port 
land  claim/coastal  defence, 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  It  addresses  physical  loss  from  land  claim/coastal  defence  and  offshore 
activities  (such  as  mining,  port  operations/dredging/solid  waste  disposal, 
underwater cables, artificial reefs). 

-  The  programme  includes  existing  and  new  measures  that  target  destructive 
fishing practices particularly in MPAs, and sometimes outside of MPAs. 
-  It  also  addresses  other  pressures  such  as  pollution,  marine  litter  and  non-
indigenous  species  (even  though  fewer  measures  have  been  reported  for 
these pressures in relation to seabed habitats). 

-  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  programme  addresses  physical  damage  from 
hydrocarbon  extraction  (reported  as  relevant  in  Article 8  by  the  Member 
State). 

-  The  programme  of  measures  mainly  includes  fisheries  restrictions  within 
spatial  protection  measures,  which  are  often  lacking  in  detail  on  their  area 
coverage, temporal ranges of restrictions and minimal consideration is given 
to the broader issues of trawling outside of these spatially protected areas. 

93 

 
 
Recommendations for Spain to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
-  In general, Spain should better address certain pressures and activities. These are specified 

in the descriptor specific recommendations below. 

-  The  Member  State  should  specify  by  when  it  expects  GES  to  be  achieved  for  all 
descriptors  in  all  regions  (except  D5  and  D7  because  the  Member  State  specifies  in  the 
programme that GES is already achieved for these descriptors). 

-  Spain’s programme should quantify the pressures present in its waters and their expected 
level  of  reduction  as  a  result  of  the  established  measures.  This  could  be  facilitated  by 
further efforts to address knowledge gaps and define the methodology for such estimations 
at  regional  or  EU  level.  Such  quantification  will  also  contribute  to  linking  the  measures 
with the achievement of GES. 

-  The  Member  State  should  develop  more  research  efforts  to  fill  knowledge  gaps  and 

provide an assessment on when GES will be achieved. 

D5 — Eutrophication 
-  The  Member  State  should  consider  covering  additional  aspects,  such  as  nutrient  inputs 

from fisheries, if relevant. 
D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  The programme should better address pressures from activities not subject to local/project 
scale  EIAs  (e.g.,  fishing,  maritime  transport).  In  some  cases  (e.g.,  hydrological  changes 
where  local  dimension  is  important),  this  gap  hampers  the  assessment  of  cumulative 
effects. 

-  The  Member  State  should  apply  SEA  procedures,  in  addition  to  EIA  procedures,  more 
consistently  to  ensure  that  hydrographical  changes  are  tackled  at  a  strategic  level,  rather 
than at the project level. 

D10 — Marine litter 
-  The programme should make efforts to prevent, identify and tackle pollution hot spots (e.g. 

from plastic pellets, lost fishing gear, single-use plastics, etc.). 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 
-  The Member State should establish measures addressing fisheries, hydrocarbon extraction, 
port  operations  and  extraction  activities  /solid  waste  disposal  (identified  as  relevant  by 
Spain in its Article 8 report), that have direct effects on the pressure. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  Spain’s  programme  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other 
descriptors  address  pressures  for  water  column  habitats  (and  plankton  communities),  and 
elaborate on how GES and targets for water column habitats are expected to be achieved. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  The Member State should clearly explain how the measures address physical damage from 

hydrocarbon extraction (reported as relevant in Article 8 by the Member State). 

-  It should establish more measures that extend beyond spatially protected areas (and MPAs) 

to ensure a wider spatial coverage for these habitats. 

-  The  programme  should  provide  timescales  and  estimates  of  how  spatial  restrictions  of 

seabed damaging activities will allow for GES to be achieved. 

94 

 
 
 
6.  Finland 

General conclusions on Finland’s programme of measures 

Strengths and weaknesses 

Strengths 

-  The programme of measures addresses GES and targets for birds, mammals, 
fish  (D1.4),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3),  eutrophication  (D5), 
hydrographical changes (D7), and contaminants and contaminants in seafood 
(D8, D9). 

-  The  Member  State  considers  that  GES  will  be  achieved  by  2020  for  seabed 
habitats  (D1,  4,  6),  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  marine  litter  (D10)  and 
underwater  noise  and  energy  (D11).  The  Member  State  considers  that  GES 
has already been achieved for hydrographical changes (D7). 

-  The programme includes measures that are based on commitments to existing 
European  policies  and  regional  conventions,  such  as  the  Habitats  Directive, 
the  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Directive  (D1,  4,  6,  D7),  HELCOM  (D1.4.6, 
D10,  D11),  the  IMO-BMW  Convention  (D2),  the  National  eel  management 
plan (among other species-specific regulations), the Common Fisheries Policy 
(D3),  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (D5,  D7),  EIA  and  SEA  Directives 
(D7),  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  and  the  Stockholm 
Convention (D8, D9). 

-  It  also  includes  both  existing  and  new  measures  that  complement  those 
already in place that specifically target pressures on the marine environment 
which were not otherwise covered. 

-  The programme includes spatial protection measures. These measures address 
more  than  one  descriptor  at  a  time  (D1,  4,  6,  D2,  D3,  D7  and  D11)  and 
therefore  contribute  towards  GES  and  targets  for  several  descriptors. 
Measures  include  studies  for  the  potential  establishment  of  new  MPAs  and 
management plans for the existing MPAs. 

-  The  programme  combines  direct  and  indirect  measures.  Most  measures 
directly  address  pressures  on  the  marine  environment.  Indirect  measures 
complement the direct ones, including awareness raising and dissemination. 
-  Based  on  the  information  reported  by  Finalnd  on  cost  and  resource 
allocations,  timelines  of  implementation  of  measures  as  well  as  responsible 
bodies for implementation, the likelihood of implementation is high — most 
measures  have  secured  funding  and  the  timeline  for  implementing  them  is 
2016 (with few being 2017). 

-  In this first implementation cycle of the MSFD, in relation to descriptors for 
which  knowledge  gaps  exist  (i.e.  D11),  the  Member  State  reports  research 
efforts. This will allow addressing knowledge gaps but also to build upon the 
results  to  design  measures,  which  will  contribute  directly  to  tackling  the 
pressures in the MSFD’s second implementation cycle. 

-  The  spatial  scope  of  the  measures  is  specified  consistently  across  the 

programme. 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  partially  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  water  column  and 
seabed  habitats  (D1,  4,  6),  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  marine  litter  (D10) 
and underwater noise and energy (D11). 

-  The Member State considers that GES will not be achieved by 2020 for birds, 

95 

 
 
 
fish, mammals, water column habitats (D1, 4), commercial fish and shellfish 
(D3), eutrophication (D5), contaminants (D8) and for contaminants in seafood 
(D9).  Exceptions  are  applied  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3), 
eutrophication  (D5)  and  for  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9),  but  not  for  the 
other descriptors for which doubts about achieving GES by 2020 are raised. 
-  In  rare  cases,  sufficient  links  with  existing  EU  policies  and  international 

agreements are not made (e.g. D9 and D11). 

-  The  programme  includes  spatial  measures  that  do  not  always  provide  clear 
and specific information on the representation of species and habitats within 
the  MPAs,  the  size,  number  and  location  of  MPAs  and  the  conservation 
objectives of the MPAs. 

-  While impact assessments were carried out for new measures, the results do 
not allow for a quantification of what the measures will achieve; i.e. to what 
extent the relevant pressure will be addressed, and whether the measures will 
be sufficient to achieve GES. 

-  The  Member  State  does  not  make  sufficient  links  between  the  existing 
measures  for  the  pressure  descriptors  and  how  they  might  benefit  the  state 
descriptors 
(i.e.  biodiversity  descriptors  D1,  4,  6).  This  prevents 
understanding  how  state  descriptors  benefit  from  these  measures,  which  are 
likely to contribute in addressing pressures on species and habitats. 

-  The  Member  State  often  refers  to  regional  agreements  without  providing 

details on actions that are/will be put in place. 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  introduction  of  non-indigenous  species  by 

tackling shipping via ballast water management (link to the BWMC). 

-  The programme does not address the introduction of non-indigenous species 
from  aquaculture  (identified  as  a  source  of  this  pressure  by  Finland  in  its 
Article 8 report). 

-  It is unclear if hull-fouling in relation to shipping is addressed. 
-  It is unclear whether the measures cover recreational vessels. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish  

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  selective  extraction  of  species  (including 

incidental by-catch) from fisheries, including recreational fishing. 

-  It  includes  seasonal  and  spatial  fishing  bans  (for  several  purposes  including 
stock  management  and  biodiversity  conservation)  that  are  in  addition  to 
existing CFP measures. 

-  The  measures  cover  stocks  managed  at  the  national  level,  non-targeted 

species as well as age/size structure. 

Weaknesses 

-  None  (except  the  fact  that  GES  will  not  be  achieved  by  2020,  mentioned 

above, which is explained by a grounded justification, detailed below). 

D5 — Eutrophication 

Strengths 

-  The  programme 

-  The  programme  of  measures  addresses  nutrient  enrichment 
agriculture/forestry, industry, urban activities, shipping and fisheries. 
is  consistently  based  on 

the  WFD.  Measures  for 
eutrophication  draw  from  Finland’s  River  Basin  Management  Plan.  In  the 
framework  of  the  MSFD,  most  are  considered  likely  to  be  sufficient  to 
address  pressures  of  nutrient  and  organic  matter  enrichment  in  the  marine 
environment  and  cover  relevant  human  activities  (i.e.  mainly  agriculture, 

from 

96 

 
 
industry,  wastewater  and  flood  risks).  However,  considering  the  extent  to 
which  the  MSFD  programme  relies  on  WFD  measures,  this  statement  is 
subject to the RBMPs being assessed as adequate under the WFD assessment. 

-  The programme addresses atmospheric deposition of nutrients. 
-  None  (except  the  fact  that  GES  will  not  be  achieved  by  2020,  mentioned 

above, which is explained by a grounded justification, detailed below). 

Weaknesses 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 

-  The  programmeaddresses  interferences  with  hydrological  processes  from 

dredging and marine mining. 

Strengths 

-  It  refers  to  existing  measures  stemming  from  other  legal  acts.  As  such,  all 
projects  that  are  subject  to  existing  authorisation  and  regulatory  procedures 
are addressed in terms of hydrographical changes. 

-  The programme exploits synergies with the EIA and SEA Directives, as well 

as with the WFD. 

-  The programme addresses acidification. 
-  The programme does not explain how it will address the issue of cumulative 
impacts, i.e. impacts from different/multiple human activities on hydrography. 
Cumulative  impacts  are  a  major  issue  for  the  MSFD;  assessing  cumulative 
impacts  would  require  Member  States  to  consolidate  results  of  individual 
assessments  together  to  assess  the  overall  scale  of  hydrographical  changes. 
This is not currently being done by Finland. 

Weaknesses 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  introduction  of  contaminants  and  accidental 
pollution through measures that target shipping, industry and urban activities. 
-  It  addresses  contaminant  inputs  to  the  sea  from  land-based  (e.g.  industry, 
urban areas) and sea-based sources (e.g. shipping), as well as their impacts on 
marine ecosystems. 

-  The programme addresses atmospheric deposition of contaminants. 
-  The  Member  State  does  not  clearly  explain  how  measures  for  contaminants 
(D8) will contribute to addressing pressures for contaminants in seafood (D9) 
and allow for progress towards D9 GES and targets. 

D10 — Marine litter 

Strengths 

-  The programme addresses marine litter by covering land-based (e.g. industry, 

tourism) and sea-based (e.g. fisheries, shipping) sources of litter. 

-  It  addresses  the  reduction  of  marine  litter  input  in  coastal  areas  and  in  the 

open sea, as well as the removal of existing litter. 
-  The programme covers both macro and micro-litter. 
-  The  programme  includes  awareness  raising  efforts  in  addition  to  direct 

measures. 

-  None (except the fact that GES and targets are partially addressed, mentioned 

Weaknesses 

above). 
D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  underwater  noise  from  shipping  and  port 

operations. 

-  It  identifies  heat  as  a  local  pressure  but  no  measures  seem  to  address  this 

aspect. 

D1, 4 — Birds  

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  (incl.  by-catch)  from 

97 

 
 
fisheries. 

-  It addresses impacts on breeding and refuge areas and biological disturbance 
caused  by  various  activities  (e.g.  from  shipping,  fishing,  recreation,  private 
boat traffic). 

-  Finland’s  programme  does  not  explain  how  the  effects  of  non-indigenous 
species  and  marine  litter  on  seabirds  are  addressed.  It  is  possible  that  these 
pressures  are  addressed  by  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  non-
indigenous species (D2) and marine litter (D10), but based on the information 
reported this cannot be determined. This does not allow for an understanding 
of how the state descriptors will benefit from these measures. 

Weaknesses 

D1, 4 — Fish  

-  The  programme  addresses  biological  disturbances  from  various  activities 
(shipping,  fishing,  recreation  and  private  boat  traffic,  activities  with  impacts 
on flow conditions and other). 

-  It  includes  spatial  protection  measures  to  complement  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish (D3) and protect non-commercial  species as  well as  functional fish 
habitats. 

-  The programme only addresses the extraction of species (incl. by-catch) from 

fisheries, indirectly. 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

D1, 4 — Mammals  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme addresses selective extraction of species (incl. accidental by-
catch),  physical  loss  and  damage,  as  well  as  impacts  from  contaminants. 
Various activities (e.g. fisheries and shipping, private boat traffic). 

-  It  includes  spatial  protection  measures  to  address  several  pressures  such  as 
by-catch and protecting migratory species by ensuring a coherent network of 
MPAs. 

-  The  programme  does  not  fully  explain  how  impacts  of  marine  litter  and 
underwater  noise  on  mammals  are  addressed  (underwater  noise  is  indirectly 
addressed). It is possible that these pressures are addressed by the groups of 
measures  reported  for  marine  litter  (D10)  and  underwater  noise  and  energy 
(D11), but based on the information reported this cannot be determined. This 
does not allow for an understanding of how the state descriptors will benefit 
from these measures. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme includes measures that are relevant to water column habitats 
(spatial protection measures and measures aiming at improving seabed habitat 
condition and reduce waste water runoff) although they are not specific to this 
habitat. 

-  The programme partially addresses pressures on water column habitats, as no 
specific  water  column  habitat  measure  have  been  reported  and  the  Member 
State does not clearly identify how measures reported under other descriptors 
(e.g., D2, D5, D8) will address relevant pressures on this habitat. 

-  The  water  column,  although  considered  in  other  descriptors,  is  mainly 
covered  by  the  Member  State  in  terms  of  water  quality.  Plankton  is  a  key 
feature  of  the  terminology  in  the  monitoring  programmes,  which  is  rarely 
referenced in  the  biodiversity  measures.  Additionally,  the  water  column  is  a 
key  transfer  route  for  the  majority  of  non-seabed  species  and  needs  to  be 
considered  as  part  of  the  broader  ecological  coherence  of  the  Finland’s 

98 

 
 
waters, within MPAs and in relation to food webs. The water column is often 
discounted from such measures due to a lack of scientific knowledge of these 
habitat types. 
D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

-  The programme addresses physical loss from fisheries (indirectly, but bottom 
trawl  fisheries  are  not  occurring  within  Finnish  waters  and  therefore  these 
activities  do  not  impact  the  seabed),  dredging  and  other,  not  reported, 
activities. 

-  It addresses physical damage from dredging, shipping and other, not reported, 

Strengths 

activities. 

-  The programme addresses nutrient enrichment in relation to seabed habitats. 
-  It  is  not  clear  whether  theprogramme  addresses  marine-based  renewable 
energy generation (reported in Article 8 by most of the neighbouring Member 
States). 

-  The  programme  of  measures  mainly  includes  fisheries  restrictions  within 
spatial  protection  measures,  which  are  often  lacking  in  detail  on  their  area 
coverage, temporal ranges of restrictions and minimal consideration is given 
to the broader issues of trawling outside of these spatially protected areas. 
-  Most  measures  relate  to  physical  loss  and  damage  to  seabed  habitat,  with 
minimal consideration of other pressures such as non-indigenous species and 
marine litter. 

Weaknesses 

Exceptions 
Finland  applies  an  exception  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3).  It  applies 
Article 14(1)(e) (‘natural conditions which do not allow timely improvement in the status of 
the  marine  waters  concerned’).  It  will  take  time  for  the  measures  to  actually  reduce 
exploitation rates and allow for fish species, such as sea trout, pike, perch and other migratory 
whitefish species, to achieve a sustainable stock status. Finland points to an expected time-lag 
between measure implementation and a noticeable increase in fish abundance, thus it applies 
this exception. 
This assessment finds the justification to be grounded. Nevertheless, the Member State does 
not specify when GES is expected to be achieved as per the MSFD requirements (in relation 
to Article 14(1)(e)).   
The  Member  State  applies  an  exception  for  eutrophication  (D5).  It  applies  Article 14 
(1)(e) (‘natural conditions which do not allow timely improvement in the status of the marine 
waters  concerned’).  Due  to  natural  conditions,  historically  contaminated  seabed  sediments 
will recover slowly and continue to cause eutrophication effects for several years. 
This  assessment  finds  the  justification  to  be  grounded.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  Member 
State does not specify when GES is expected to be achieved as per MSFD requirements (in 
relation to Article 14(1)(e)). It explains that nutrient loads to the sea will not be met until the 
end of the next MSFD implementation cycle (2018-2024). 
The  Member  State  applies  an  exception  for  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9).  It  applies 
Article 14(1)(a) and (e) (‘action or /inaction for which the Member State is not responsible’ 
and  ‘natural  conditions  which  do  not  allow  timely  improvement  in  the  status  of  the  marine 
waters  concerned’).  According  to  Finland,  persistent  pollutants  are  still  found  in  high 
concentrations  in  sediments  and  biota,  namely  dioxins  and  polychlorinated  biphenyls.  The 
sources  of  these  are  identified  as  being  past  pollution  events  in  Finland  and  continuing 
pollution from other countries in the Baltic Sea (transboundary pollution). Current pollution 
from Finland is addressed through the D8/D9 measures. 

99 

 
 
This assessment finds the justification to be grounded. Nevertheless, the Member State does 
not specify when GES is expected to be achieved as per MSFD requirements (in relation to 
Article 14(1)(e)). 

Recommendations for Finland to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
-  In general, the Finland’s programme of measures should better address certain pressures and 

activities. These are specified in the descriptor specific recommendations below. 

-  The  Member  State  should  fully  address  GES  and  targets  for  water  column  and  seabed 
habitats (D1, 4, 6), non-indigenous species (D2), marine litter (D10) and underwater noise 
and energy (D11). 

-  The  Member  State  should  strive  to determine  the  timelines  for  achieving  GES  and,  where 
there  are  delays  beyond  2020,  to  report  exceptions  provided  these  are  adequately  justified 
(relevant to D8 and biodiversity-related descriptors). Furthermore, if GES is not expected to 
be achieved by 2020, then the Member State should estimate the alternative dates by when 
GES will be achieved (relevant also to D3, D5 and D9). 

-  The  programme  of  measures  should  establish  more  links  with  existing  EU  policies  and 

international instruments for D9 and D11. 

-  Finland  should  provide  more 

its  spatial  protection  measures 
information  about 
(representation  of  species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number  and  location  of 
MPAs, the conservation objectives of the MPAs and the policies and measures that will be 
in place within these areas). 

-  The  Member  State  should  quantify  the  pressures  present  in  its  waters  and  their  expected 
level of reduction as a result of the established measures. This could be facilitated by further 
efforts  to  address  knowledge  gaps  and  define  the  methodology  for  such  estimations  at 
regional or EU level. Such quantification will also contribute to linking the measures with 
the achievement of GES. 

-  The  Member  State  should  make  better  links  between  the  groups  of  existing  measures 
reported for pressure descriptors and their effects on the state descriptors. This would allow 
a comprehensive view of the impact of measures affecting all descriptors. 

-  The  Member  State  should  provide  more  details  on  actions  put  in  place  under  regional 

agreements. 

-  The  Member  State  should  ensure  coherence  of  its  determinations  of  GES,  environmental 
targets  and  the  programme  of  measures.  This  would  allow  for  the  use  of  environmental 
targets  systematically  as  milestones  towards  achieving  GES  through  the  measures,  and 
monitor this progress through the MSFD monitoring programmes. This is applicable mainly 
to birds, mammals, fish, water column habitats and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 
-  The Member State should establish measures to address the introduction of non-indigenous 

species from aquaculture. 

-  It should establish measures to address hull-fouling in relation to shipping. 
-  The Member State should establish measures to address recreational activities.  
D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  The Member State should address cumulative impacts on habitats by multiple stressors. 
-  Finland  should  better  address  pressures  from  activities  not  subject  to  local/project  scale 
EIAs  (e.g.  fishing,  maritime  transport).  In  some  cases  (e.g.  hydrological  changes  where 
local dimension is important) this gap hampers the assessment of cumulative effects. 

100 

 
 
 
D8/D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 
-  The Member State should explain better the manner in which the D8 measures contribute to 

D9 targets. 

-  It  should  also  provide  better  justifications  for  the  reported  risks  of  not  achieving  GES  by 

2020, for contaminants (D8). 

D10 — Marine litter 
-  Finland  should  make  efforts  to  identify  pollution  hot  spots  (e.g.  from  plastic  pellets,  lost 

fishing gear, etc.). 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  to  address  heat  pollution  (local  pressure 

identified by Finland). 

D1, 4 — Birds 
- The Member State should specify how pressures on birds beyond by-catch are addressed (or 

will be addressed), namely the effects of non-indigenous species and ingestion of litter. 

D1, 4 — Fish 
- It should establish measures directly addressing the extraction of species from fisheries. 
D1, 4 — Mammals 
-  Finland should specify how pressures on mammals beyond by-catch are addressed (or will 

be addressed), namely litter and underwater noise. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  The  Member  State  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other 
descriptors  address  pressures  for  water  column  habitats  (and  plankton  communities),  and 
elaborate on how GES and targets for water column habitats are expected to be achieved. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  The Member State should clearly address marine-based renewable energy generation. 
-  It  should  provide  timescales  and  estimates  of  how  spatial  restrictions  of  seabed  damaging 

activities will allow for GES to be achieved. 

-  The  Member  State  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other 
descriptors  address  pressures  for  seabed  habitats,  and  further  elaborate  on  how  GES  and 
targets for seabed habitats are expected to be achieved. 

Exceptions 
The Member State should specify when it expects GES to be achieved in relation to Article 14 
(1)(e) (relevant for D3, D5, D9). 

101 

 
 
 
 
7.  France 

General conclusions on France’s programme of measures 

Strengths and weaknesses 

Strengths 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  of  measures  addresses  GES  and 
targets for non-indigenous species (D2), commercial fish and shellfish (D3), 
contaminants  in  seafood  (D9),  marine  litter  (D10),  underwater  noise  and 
energy (D11),  birds,  fish, and  mammals  (D1, 4) and seabed habitats  (D1, 4, 
6). 

-  In  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  the  programme  of  measures  addresses  GES  and 
targets for contaminants in seafood (D9), underwater noise and energy (D11), 
birds, fish, and mammals (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

-  The  Member  State  considers  that  GES  will  be  achieved  by  2020  for  all 

descriptors in both regions. 

-  The programme includes measures that are based on commitments to existing 
European  policies,  such  as  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  (D1,  4,  6), 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1143/2014  (D2),  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP; 
D3, D1, 4, 6), the Water Framework Directive (WFD; D5, D7, D8, D1, 4, 6), 
the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA; D7), the Industrial Emissions 
Directive (D8), Regulation (EC) No 782/2003 on the prohibition of organotin 
compounds  of  ships  (D8),  Regulation  (EC)  No  1881/2006  on  setting 
maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (D9, in the North-East 
Atlantic),  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  (EIA)  Directive  (D7),  as 
well  as  international  instruments  such  as  the  International  Maritime 
Organisation’s  (IMO)  —  International  Convention  for  the  Prevention  of 
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (D8), the IMO-Ballast Water Management 
Convention  (D2)  or  IMO  —  Guidelines  on  underwater  noise  and  energy 
(D11,  in  the  North-East  Atlantic)  and  regional  actions  such  as  the 
UNEP/MAP action plan for marine litter (D10). 

-  The  programme  includes  both  existing  and  new  measures  that  complement 
those  already  in  place  to  specifically  target  pressures  on  the  marine 
environment which were not otherwise covered. 

-  It  includes  spatial  protection  measures  (including  MPAs).  These  measures 
address  more  than  one  descriptor  and  therefore  contribute  towards  GES  and 
targets  for  several  descriptors.  Measures  include  the  strengthening  of  MPA 
the  establishment  of 
networks, 
management measures within MPAs. 

the  designation  of  new  MPAs  and 

-  The  programme  combines  direct  and  indirect  measures,  thus  directly 
addressing  pressures  on  the  marine  environment  while  simultaneously 
implementing  measures,  which  complement  the  direct  measures  through 
governance  and  coordination  actions,  as  well  as  awareness  raising  and 
research efforts. 

-  Based on the information reported by France on cost and resource allocations, 
timelines  of  implementation  of  measures  as  well  as  responsible  bodies  for 
implementation,  the  likelihood  of  implementation  is  high  —  most  measures 
have  secured  funding  and  the  timeline  for  implementing  them  is  2015-2020 
(except for two measure to be implemented by 2021). 

102 

 
 
 
-  In this first implementation cycle of the MSFD, in relation to descriptors for 
which knowledge gaps exist (i.e. D8, D9 and D11), the Member State reports 
research efforts. This will allow knowledge gaps to be addressed, but also to 
build upon the results to enable the design of measures which will contribute 
directly  to  tackling  the  pressures  in  the  MSFD’s  second  implementation 
cycle.  

-  The programme provides the spatial scope of all measures. 
-  The  Member  State  makes  links  between  the  measures  for  the  pressure 
descriptors and how they might benefit the state descriptors (i.e. biodiversity 
descriptors  D1,  4,  6).  This  allows  for  better  understanding  how  state 
descriptors  benefit  from  these  measures,  which  are  likely  to  contribute  in 
addressing pressures on species and habitats. 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  partially  addresses  GES  and 
targets  for  eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants 
(D8) and water column habitats (D1, 4). 

-  In the Mediterranean Sea, the it partially addresses GES and targets for non-
indigenous  species  (D2),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3),  eutrophication 
(D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  (D8),  marine  litter  (D10) 
and water column habitats (D1, 4). 

-  In  some  cases,  the  programme  does  not  include  sufficient  links  to  existing 
European  policies  and  international  instruments.  It  is  especially  the  case  for 
eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  (D8), 
contaminants in seafood (D9) and underwater noise (D11). 

-  France’s  programme  includes  spatial  measures  that  do  not  always  provide 
clear  and  specific  information  on  the  management  efforts  in  place  (or  to  be 
implemented  in  the  future).  Information  gaps  include  the  representation  of 
species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number,  and  location  of 
MPAs and the conservation objectives of the MPAs. 

-  While impact assessments were carried out for new measures, the results do 
not allow for a quantification of what the measures will achieve; i.e. to what 
extent the relevant pressure will be addressed, and whether the measures will 
be sufficient to achieve GES. 

Weaknesses 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  addresses  introductions  of  non-
indigenous species through aquaculture and shipping (including recreational) 
via ballast water management (measures linked to the implementation of the 
BWMC) and anti-fouling measures. 

Strengths 

-  In  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  the  programme  addresses  introductions  of  non-
indigenous  species  through  fisheries,  aquaculture  and  shipping  (including 
recreational)  via  ballast  water  management  (measures 
the 
implementation of the BWMC). 

linked 

to 

-  It  includes  warning  systems  for  introductions  of  non-indigenous  species  as 

measures in both regions. 

-  In  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  the  programme  does  not  cover  hull-fouling  in 

relation to shipping.  

Weaknesses 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  of  measures  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  from 

commercial and recreational fishing in the North-East Atlantic. 

103 

 
 
-  It includes seasonal and spatial fishing bans (for several purposes, including; 
stock  management,  biodiversity  conservation,  and  protection  of  over-
exploited stocks) in addition to existing CFP measures in both regions. 

-  The measures cover stocks managed at the national level (including non-TAC 
species) as well as aspects that relate to age/size structure of species in both 
regions. 

-  The  programme  does  not  include  sufficient  efforts  to  fully  cover  fisheries 

(commercial and recreational) in the Mediterranean Sea. 

Weaknesses 

D5 — Eutrophication 

-  In  both  regions,  the  programme  addresses  nutrient  inputs  from  industry, 

agriculture, shipping and urban areas. 

-  It  draws  from  the  Member  State’s  WFD  River  Basin  Management  Plans 
(RBMP),  ensuring  synergies  with  the  implementation  of  the  WFD.  In  the 
framework  of  the  MSFD,  most  are  considered  likely  to  be  sufficient  to 
address  pressures  of  nutrient  and  organic  matter  enrichment  in  the  marine 
environment  and  cover  relevant  human  activities  (i.e.  mainly  agriculture, 
industry,  wastewater  and  flood  risks).  However,  considering  the  extent  to 
which  the  MSFD  programme  relies  on  WFD  measures,  this  statement  is 
subject to the RBMPs being assessed as adequate under the WFD assessment. 
-  It  addresses  atmospheric  deposition  of  nutrients  (NOx)  from  various  sea-

based and land-based sources. 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  does  not  address  nutrient  inputs 

from aquaculture. 

-  In the Mediterranean Sea, it does not address nutrient inputs from recreational 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

activities. 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme addresses hydrographical changes 
due to urban areas, aquaculture, industry, agriculture, land claim and coastal 
defence.  

-  In the Mediterranean Sea, the programme addresses hydrographical changes 

due to land claim and coastal defence.  

Strengths 

-  It  includes  existing  measures  stemming  from  other  legal  acts.  As  such,  all 
projects  that  are  subject  to  existing  authorisation  and  regulatory  procedures 
are addressed in terms of hydrographical changes. 

-  The  programme  also  includes  MSFD  specific  measures  beyond  existing 

regulatory frameworks. 

-  The  programme  addresses  cumulative 

from 
different/multiple  human  activities/projects  on  hydrography.  Cumulative 
impacts are a major issue for the MSFD; assessing cumulative impacts would 
require  Member  States  to  consolidate  results  of  individual  assessments 
together to assess the overall scale of hydrographical changes. 

impacts, 

impacts 

i.e. 

Weaknesses 

-  In the Mediterranean Sea, the programme does not addresses hydrographical 

changes from industry and agriculture. 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood 

Strengths 

-  The programme of  measures addresses the introduction of contaminants and 
accidental pollution through measures that target industry, agriculture, urban 
area,  port  operations,  the  dumping  of  munitions,  shipping  and  solid  waste 
disposal  in  both  regions  (it  also  includes  measures  on  wrecks  in  the 

104 

 
 
Mediterranean Sea). 

-  The programme addresses contaminant inputs to the sea from land-based (e.g. 

industry, urban areas) and sea-based sources (e.g. shipping). 

-  The  programme  addresses  atmospheric  deposition  of  contaminants  in  both 

regions. 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, it includes dedicated measures for contaminants in 

seafood (D9). 

-  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  programme  addresses  the  biological  effect  of 

contaminants. 

-  In  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  the  programme  does  not  include  dedicated 

Weaknesses 

contaminants in seafood (D9) measures. 

-  Again  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  it  does  not  explain  how  measures  for 
contaminants (D8) will contribute to addressing pressures for contaminants in 
seafood (D9) and allow for progress towards D9 GES and targets. 

D10 — Marine litter 

-  The  programme  addresses  marine  litter,  by  covering  fisheries,  aquaculture, 
industry,  urban  areas,  port  operations,  shipping  and  tourism/recreational 
activities in both regions. 

Strengths 

-  It  addresses  the  reduction  of  marine  litter  input  in  coastal  areas  and  in  the 

open sea, as well as the removal of existing litter in both regions. 

-  The  programme  addresses  macro-litter  with  few  measures  targeting  litter 

Weaknesses 

removal in both regions. 

-  The  programme  does  not  yet  fully  address  micro-litter  in  both  regions 

(knowledge gaps are mentioned). 

-  Although  France  refers  to  ‘degradation  products’  in  its  GES  and  target 
definitions,  no  direct  measures  are  in  place  to  tackle  these  degradation 
products. 

-  Due to the lack of knowledge and reporting on the effects of marine litter on 
biota, it is unclear how France will interpret and address the issue of having 
‘no harmful effects on marine life and habitats’, although this aspect has been 
included in the GES definition. 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

Strengths 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  addresses  impulsive  and 
continuous  noise  through  measures  that  cover  marine  mining,  offshore 
structures, urban areas, seismic research and shipping. 

-  In the Mediterranean Sea, the programme addresses impulsive and continuous 
noise  through  measures  that  cover  port  operations,  seismic  research  and 
shipping. 

-  In  both  regions,  the  programme  includes  research  efforts  that  aim  to  collect 
additional  data  and  conduct  studies  to  better  characterise  the  pressure  of 
noise,  and  impact  on  fauna  (mainly  marine  mammals)  in  line  with 
recommendation from TG Noise. 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme links to international organisations 
(Agreement on the conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North 
Seas — ASCOBANS), especially in the North-East Atlantic. 

-  Again in the North-East Atlantic, the programme refers to IMO Guidelines on 

underwater noise. 

Weaknesses  -  The  programme  addresses  impacts  of  other  energy  inputs  (such  as  heat  or 

105 

 
 
light) only regarding seabirds in the Mediterranean region (other species and 
the North-East Atlantic are not covered). 

-  In both regions, the programme does not refer to the EIA Directive. 
-  In  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  it  does  not  refer  to  IMO’s  Guidelines  on 

underwater noise. 

D1, 4 — Birds  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme addresses the extraction of species 

(incl. by-catch) and effects of marine litter on birds. 

-  In the Mediterranean Sea, the programme addresses the extraction of species 
(incl.  by-catch),  underwater  noise,  non-indigenous  species,  and  disturbances 
from light. 

-  The measures covers birds’ food sources in both regions. 
-  The  programme  does  not  explain  how  the  effects  of  non-indigenous  species 
(in  the  North-East  Atlantic)  and  marine  litter  (in  the  Mediterranean  Sea)  on 
seabirds are addressed. It is possible that these pressures are addressed by the 
groups of measures reported for non-indigenous species (D2) and marine litter 
(D10), but based on the information reported this cannot be determined. This 
does not allow for an understanding of how the state descriptors will benefit 
from these measures. 

D1, 4 — Fish and cephalopods 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme addresses the extraction of species 
(incl. accidental by-catch), physical loss and damage, impact on fish habitats 
and marine litter from fisheries, marine mining and aquaculture. 

Strengths 

-  In  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  the  programme  addresses  selective  extraction  of 
species 
habitats, 
by-catch), 
hydromorphological changes and contaminants from various activities such as 
fisheries or industry. 

accidental 

impact 

(incl. 

fish 

on 

-  It includes spatial protection measures to complement measures reported for 
commercial fish and shellfish (D3) addressing functional fish habitats in both 
regions. 

-  The programme of measures does not specify which non-commercial species 

it addresses. 

-  In  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  it  does  not  include  specific  measures  or  plans  for 

Weaknesses 

cephalopod species. 

D1, 4 — Mammals  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme addresses the extraction of species 
(incl.  accidental  by-catch),  impacts  on  mammal  habitats  and  marine  litter 
from fisheries and aquaculture. 

-  In the Mediterranean Sea, the programme addresses the extraction of species 
(incl. accidental by-catch), impacts on mammal habitats (due for example to 
shipping)  and  underwater  noise  from  fisheries,  shipping  and  recreational 
activities. 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  does  not  address  the  effects  of 
underwater  noise  and  contaminants  on  mammals  as  well  as  impacts  of 
shipping (collisions with mammals). 

-  In  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  the  programme  does  not  address  the  effects  of 
contaminants and marine litter on mammals. It is possible that these pressures 
are  addressed  by  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  contaminants  (D8), 

106 

 
 
marine litter (D10) and underwater noise and energy (D11), but based on the 
information  reported  this  cannot  be  determined.  This  does  not  allow  for  an 
understanding of how the state descriptors will benefit from these measures. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 

Strengths 

-  In  both  regions,  the  programme  incudes  specific  measures  addressing  water 

column habitats. 

-  Despite the fact that specific measures address these habitats in both regions, 
the  programme  of  measures  partially  addresses  pressures  on  water  column 
habitats, as the Member State does not clearly identify how measures reported 
under other descriptors (e.g. D2, D5, D8) will address relevant pressures on 
this habitat. 

Weaknesses 

-  The  water  column,  although  considered  in  other  descriptors,  is  mainly 
covered  by  the  Member  State  in  terms  of  water  quality.  Plankton  is  a  key 
feature  of  the  terminology  in  the  monitoring  programmes,  which  is  rarely 
referenced in the biodiversity measures. Additionally, the water column is a 
key  transfer  route  for  the  majority  of  non-seabed  species  and  needs  to  be 
considered as part of the broader ecological coherence of the Member State’s 
waters, within MPAs and in relation to food webs. The water column is often 
discounted from such measures due to a lack of scientific knowledge of these 
habitat types. 
D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  addresses  physical  damage  from 
fisheries, marine mining, dredging, submarine cable, tourism and recreational 
activities. 

-  In  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  the  programme  addresses  physical  damage  from 
tourism  and  recreational  activities,  and  offshore 

fisheries,  dredging, 
structures. 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, it addresses physical loss from dredging and solid 

waste disposal, aquaculture and submarine cable. 

-  In  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  the  programme  addresses  physical  loss  from  land 

claim and coastal defence and solid waste disposal. 

-  The  programme  includes  existing  measures  that  target  destructive  fishing 

practices (trawling), within and outside spatially protected areas. 

-  The  programme  covers  recreational  activities  other  than  recreational  fishing 

that could still be destructive to seabed habitats (e.g. vessels mooring). 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme does not address physical damage 

from seaweed harvesting and marine research. 

-  In  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  it  is  not  clear  whether  the  programme  addresses 
physical  damage  from  marine  mining  and  submarine  cable  (they  should  be 
covered by general measures). 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  does  not  address  physical  loss 
from  seaweed  harvesting,  land  claim  and  coastal  defence  as  well  as  port 
operations. 

-  In  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  it  is  not  clear  whether  the  programme  addresses 
physical loss due to aquaculture, port operations and submarine cables (they 
should be covered by general measures). 

-  Spatial protection measures are often lacking in detail on their area coverage, 

temporal ranges of restrictions. 

107 

 
 
-  The  majority  of  pressures  discussed  relate  to  physical  loss  and  damage  to 
seabed  habitat,  with  minimal  consideration  of  other  pressures  such  as  non-
indigenous  species  (D2)  and  eutrophication  (D5)  in  both  regions  as  well  as 
marine litter (D10) in the Mediterranean Sea. 

Recommendations for France to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
-  In  general,  the  Member  State  should  better  address  certain  pressures  and  activities.  These 

are specified in the descriptor specific recommendations below. 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  GES  and  targets  definitions  should  be  better  addressed  for 
eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  (D8)  and  water  column 
habitats  (D1,  4).  In  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  GES  and  targets  definitions  should  be  better 
addressed  for  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3), 
eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  (D8),  marine  litter  (D10) 
and water column habitats (D1, 4). 

-  The  programme  should  establish  more  links  with  existing  EU  policies  and  international 
instruments  for  eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  (D8), 
contaminant in seafood (D9) and underwater noise and energy (D11). 

-  The  Member  State  should  provide  more  information  about  its  spatial  protection  measures 
(representation  of  species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number  and  location  of 
MPAs, the conservation objectives of the MPAs). 

-  France  should  quantify  the  pressures  present  in  its  waters  and  their  expected  level  of 
reduction as a result of the established measures. This could be facilitated by further efforts 
to address knowledge gaps and define the methodology for such estimations at regional or 
EU  level.  Such  quantification  will  also  contribute  to  linking  the  measures  with  the 
achievement of GES. 

-  The Member State should ensure better linkages between its programme of measures and its 
monitoring programmes, in order to ensure that the effects of the measures, and hence their 
efficiency  and  effectiveness  in  meeting  targets  and  GES,  are  measured  through  the 
monitoring programmes. 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 
-  The  Member  State  should  cover  hull-fouling  in  relation  to  shipping  in  the  Mediterranean 

Sea. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 
-  The Member State should establish more measures to fully cover fisheries (both commercial 
and recreational) in the Mediterranean Sea, where it exerts a significant pressure on stocks. 

D5 — Eutrophication 
-  France’s  programme  should  cover  aquaculture  in  the  North-East  Atlantic  and  recreational 

activities in the Mediterranean Sea. 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  The  Member  State  should  cover  industry  and  agriculture  in  the  Mediterranean  region;  or 
clearly report which of the other descriptor measures will contribute to addressing pressure, 
GES and targets for hydrographical changes (D7) and how. 

-  It should consider assessing the scale of past impacts. 
-  The Member State should clarify how it will address pressures from activities not subject to 
local/project  scale  EIAs  (e.g.  fishing,  shipping).  In  some  cases  (e.g.  hydrological  changes 
where  local  dimension  is  important),  this  uncertainty  may  jeopardise  the  assessment  of 

108 

 
 
 
cumulative effects. 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  clear  measures  to  address  the  biological  effect  of 

contaminants. 

-  The  Member  State  should  establish  more  dedicated  measures  for  contaminants  in  seafood 

(D9) in the Mediterranean Sea. 

-  The  Member  State  should  better  explain  the  way  the  measures  for  contaminants  (D8) 

contribute to contaminants in seafood (D9) targets, in the Mediterranean Sea especially. 

D10 — Marine litter 
-  The  programme  should  address  micro-litter  better,  preferably  through  direct  measures,  in 

addition to indirect measures, in accordance with recommendations of TG Litter. 

-  France should establish measures that clearly address marine litter degradation products and 
ensure that litter does not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment, as suggested in 
its GES and targets definitions. 

-  The Member State should establish additional research efforts to address data gaps, increase 

knowledge and pave the way for direct action.  

-  The  Member  State  should  make  efforts  to  prevent,  identify  and  tackle  pollution  hot  spots 

(e.g. from plastic pellets, lost fishing gear, single-use plastics, etc.). 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 
-  France’s  programme  should  establish  measures  that  address  additional  aspects  of  this 

descriptor, such as heat and light for several species groups and in both regions. 

-  The Member State should make more efforts to address data gaps and consolidate research 
results  in  all  regions  to  move  closer  to  characterising  the  noise  pressure,  in  line  with  the 
recommendation  of  TG  Noise.  This  will  enable  to  then  define  more  concrete  and  direct 
measures to address underwater noise in the second MSFD implementation cycle. 

D1, 4 — Birds 
-  The Member State should consider establishing additional measures to address pressures on 
birds beyond by-catch. Measures could target disturbances on nesting sites by predation in 
the  North-East  Atlantic,  effects  of  non-indigenous  species  in  the  North-East  Atlantic  and 
litter ingestion in the Mediterranean Sea. If these are to be addressed via measures reported 
for  other  descriptors,  the  expected  effect  that  measures  are  to  have  on  birds  should  be 
explained. 

D1, 4 — Fish and cephalopods 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  that  include  additional  MPAs  in  open  sea 
areas  to  protect  non-commercial  fish  species  from  various  pressures  (non-indigenous 
species,  by-catch,  noise  and  contaminants).  If  these  are  to  be  addressed  via  measures 
reported for other descriptors, the expected effect that measures are to have on fish should 
be explained. 

-  In the Mediterranean Sea, France should establish specific measures or plans for cephalopod 

species. 

-  The  programme  should  provide  better  information  on  existing  MPAs  and  the  level  of 
protection they provide for fish (commercial and non-commercial), in relation to where fish 
species occur within the Member State’s territorial waters, and how they are protected. 

D1, 4 — Mammals 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  additional  measures,  including  spatial  protection 
measures,  to  address  relevant  pressures  on  mammals  beyond  by-catch  (e.g.  impacts  on 
mammal  habitats  due  to  shipping  (collision),  underwater  noise  and  contaminants  in  the 
North-East Atlantic; contaminants and marine litter in the Mediterranean Sea). If these are 

109 

 
 
to  be  addressed  via  measures  reported  for  other  descriptors,  the  expected  effect  that 
measures are to have on mammals should be explained.  

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  The  Member  State  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other 
descriptors  address  pressures  for  water  column  habitats,  and  elaborate  on  how  GES  and 
targets for water column habitats are expected to be achieved. 

-  France’s programme should establish measures targeting plankton. 
D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  Member  State  should  establish  measures  covering  the 
impacts  of  seaweed  harvesting  and  marine  research  on  physical  damage,  as  well  as 
measures  targeting  the  effects  of  seaweed  harvesting,  land  claim  and  coastal  defence  and 
port operations on physical loss. In the Mediterranean Sea, the Member State should clearly 
specify whether the measures cover the impacts of marine mining and submarine cables on 
physical damage, as well as the effects of aquaculture, port operations and submarine cable 
on physical loss. 

-  The  Member  State  should  provide  timescales  and  estimates  of  how  spatial  restrictions  of 

seabed damaging activities will allow for GES to be achieved. 

-  If seabed habitats are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors (e.g. D2, 
D5, D10 in the Mediterranean Sea), the expected effect that measures are to have on seabed 
habitats should be explained. 

110 

 
 
 
 
8.  Ireland 

General conclusions on Ireland’s programme of measures 

Strengths and weaknesses 

-  Ireland’s  programme  of  measures  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  birds  (no 
targets  are  defined),  fish,  mammals  (D1,  4),  non-indigenous  species  (D2), 
commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3),  eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical 
changes  (D7),  contaminants  (D8),  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9)  and 
underwater noise and energy (D11). 

-  The  Member  State  considers  that  GES  will  be  achieved  by  2020  for 
biodiversity  (D1,  4,  6),  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish (D3), marine litter (D10) and underwater noise (D11). The Member 
State  considers  GES  is  already  achieved  for  eutrophication  (D5)  and 
contaminants in seafood (D9). 

-  The  programme  exploits  synergies  with  existing  international,  EU  and 
regional  measures  and  processes  in  all  descriptors.  For  example:  the  Birds 
and Habitats Directives (D1, 4, 6; D2), the IMO-Ballast Water Management 
Convention  (D2),  OSPAR  Convention  (D2,  D3,  D7,  D9,  D10),  the  Water 
Framework  Directive  (D2,  D3,  D5,  D7,  D8,  D9),  the  Common  Fisheries 
Policy (D1.4; D3) the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) 
(D5,  D10),  the  Nitrates  Directive  (D5),  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive 
(D5),  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  Directive  (D5),  the  Strategic 
Environmental  Assessment  Directive  (D5,  D7),  the  Maritime  Spatial 
Planning  Directive  (D1,  4,  6,  D5,  D7,  D11)  and  the  National  Emissions 
Ceiling  Directive  (D5),  IMO-MARPOL  and  the  Stockholm  Convention 
(D8),  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  (D8),  the  REACH 
Regulation  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  1881/2006  (levels  of  contaminants  in 
foodstuffs) (D9). 

-  The  programme  includes  spatial  protection  measures.  These  measures 
address  more  than  one  descriptor  at  a  time  (D1,  4,  6;  D3  and  D7)  and 
therefore  contribute  towards  GES  and  targets  for  several  descriptors. 
Measures include studies for the potential establishment of new MPAs and 
management plans for the reported MPAs. 

-  IT  combines  direct  and  indirect  measures.  Most  measures  directly  address 
pressures  on  the  marine  environment.  Indirect  measures  complement  the 
direct ones, focusing on awareness raising, dissemination and governance.  
-  The programme only partially addresses GES and targets for water column 

habitats (D1, 4), seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6), and marine litter (D10). 

-  The Member State does not provide a timeline for when GES is expected to 

be achieved for hydrographical changes (D7) and contaminants (D8). 

-  The Member State does not provide sufficient details about the measures to 
understand how they will contribute to progress towards targets and GES (as 
defined by the Member State). 

-  The programme includes spatial measures that do not always provide clear 
and  specific  information  on  the  management  efforts  in  place  (or  to  be 
implemented  in  the  future).  Information  gaps  include  the  representation  of 
species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number,  and  location  of 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

111 

 
 
 
MPAs and the conservation objectives of the MPAs. 

-  The spatial scope of the measures is not specified for any measures. 
-  It sometimes includes data collection efforts, as measures. 
-  The programme does not include a quantification of what the measures will 
achieve;  i.e.  to  what  extent  the  relevant  pressure  will  be  addressed,  and 
whether the measures will be sufficient to achieve GES. 

-  The  Member  State  does  not  report  on  cost  and  resource  allocations, 
timelines  of  implementation  of  measures  as  well  as  responsible  bodies  for 
implementation. No conclusions are therefore possible  on the likelihood of 
the programme of measures being implemented. 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 

Strengths 

-  The programme addresses the introduction of non-indigenous species from 
tourism  and 

aquaculture,  shipping  (ballast  water  and  hull-fouling), 
recreation, including recreational yachting. 

Weaknesses  None identified. 
D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  by  commercial  and 

recreational fishing. 

-  It proposes seasonal and spatial fishing bans (for several purposes including 
stock  management  and  biodiversity  conservation,  protection  of  over-
exploited stocks) that are in addition to existing CFP measures. 

-  The programme does not address the extraction of species by seaweed and 
other  sea-based  harvesting,  although  it  was  identified  it  as  relevant 
pressures/activities. 

-  It  lacks  sufficient  detail  to  determine  whether  commercially-important 
stocks  that  are  not  covered  by  the  CFP  will  be  addressed  through  the 
reported measures. 

D5 — Eutrophication 

Strengths 

-  Ireland’s programme addresses nutrient enrichment from agriculture, urban 

activities, industry, aquaculture, shipping. 

-  It  draws  from  the  Member  State’s  WFD  River  Basin  Management  Plans 
(RBMP). In the framework of the MSFD, most are considered likely to be 
sufficient to address pressures of nutrient and organic matter enrichment in 
the  marine  environment  and  cover  relevant  human  activities  (i.e.  mainly 
agriculture, industry, wastewater and flood risks). However, considering the 
extent  to  which  the  MSFD  programme  relies  on  WFD  measures,  this 
statement  is  subject  to  the  2016  RBMPs  being  assessed  as  adequate  under 
the WFD assessment. 

-  The programme addresses atmospheric deposition of nutrients (NOx) from 
sea-based (linked to IMO-MARPOL) and land-based (linked to the IED and 
NEC Directives) sources. 

-  None identified. 
Weaknesses 
D7 — Hydrographical changes 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  interference  of  hydrological  processes  from 
renewable energy, dredging port operations, land claim and coastal defence, 
as well as marine hydrocarbon extraction. 

-  It  includes  existing  measures  stemming  from  other  legal  acts.  As  such,  all 
projects that are subject to existing authorisation and regulatory procedures 

112 

 
 
Weaknesses 

are addressed in terms of hydrographical changes. 

-  The  programme  does  not  addresses  cumulative  impacts,  i.e.  impacts  on 
hydrography  from  different/multiple  human  activities/projects.  Cumulative 
impacts  are  a  major  issue  for  the  MSFD;  assessing  cumulative  impacts 
individual 
would  require  Member  States 
assessments together to assess the overall scale of hydrographical changes. 

to  consolidate  results  of 

D8-D9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood (D9) 

-  The  programme  addresses  contaminant  inputs  to  the  sea  from  land-based 
(e.g.  agriculture,  industry,  urban  activities  and  port  operations)  and  sea-
based  (e.g.  shipping,  marine  mining,  hydrocarbon  extraction,  dredging  and 
aquaculture) sources, as well as the biological effect of contaminants. 

Strengths 

-  It  addresses  accidental  pollution  from  fisheries,  shipping,  hydrocarbon 

extraction, placement and operation of offshore structure and industry. 

-  The programme addresses atmospheric deposition of contaminants. 
-  It  addresses  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9)  via  both  D8-  and  D9-specific 

measures. 

Weaknesses 

-  It  however  does  not  clearly  explain  how  measures  for  contaminants  (D8) 
will contribute to addressing pressures for contaminants in seafood (D9) and 
allow for progress towards D9 GES and targets. 

D10 — Marine litter 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  marine  litter  from  fisheries,  shipping,  port 
tourism,  offshore  activities,  urban, 

operations,  aquaculture, 
dredging and hydrocarbon extraction. 

industry, 

-  It addresses macro- and micro-litter. 
-  The programme includes awareness-raising efforts. 
-  Due to the lack of knowledge and reporting on the effects of marine litter on 
biota, it is unclear how Ireland will interpret and address the issue of having 
‘no  harmful  effects  on  marine  life  and  habitats’,  although  this  aspect  has 
been included in the GES definition. 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  underwater  noise  from  hydrocarbon  extraction, 
pile  driving  and  seismic  surveys,  shipping,  marine  research  surveys  and 
educational activities, fisheries, dredging, land claim and coastal defence. 
-  The  programme  includes  a  measure  that  implements  a  register  for 

underwater noise events. 

Weaknesses  -  The programme does not address other energy inputs (such as heat or light). 
D1, 4 — Birds  

-  The  programme  addresses  incidental  by-catch  from  fisheries  and  habitat 
loss. It also covers biological disturbance from fisheries, the introduction of 
non-indigenous  species,  hunting,  wildlife  watching,  contaminants  from  the 
use of pesticides, marine operations potentially causing accidental pollution, 
and offshore oil and gas production. 

-  The programme does not explain how the effects of marine litter on seabirds 
are  addressed.  It  is  possible  that  these  pressures  are  addressed  by  the 
measures  reported  for  marine  litter  (D10),  but  based  on  the  information 
reported this cannot be confirmed. 

-  The  programme  addresses  incidental  by-catch  from  fisheries  and  habitat 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

D1, 4 — Fish  
Strengths 

113 

 
 
loss. It also covers biological disturbance from fisheries, contaminants from 
the  use  of  pesticides,  marine  operations  potentially  causing  accidental 
pollution, and offshore oil and gas production. 

-  It  includes  spatial  protection  measures  to  complement  measures  on 
commercial fish and shellfish (D3) and to protect non-commercial species as 
well as functional fish habitats. 

Weaknesses 
D1, 4 — Mammals  

-  None identified. 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme address incidental by-catch from fisheries and habitat loss. 
It  covers  biological  disturbance  from  fisheries,  hunting,  wildlife  watching, 
underwater  noise,  contaminants  from  the  use  of  pesticides,  marine 
operations potentially causing accidental pollution, and offshore oil and gas 
production. 

-  The  programme  does  not  explain  how  impacts  from  marine  litter  on 
mammals are addressed. It is possible that these pressures are addressed by 
the measures reported for marine litter (D10), but based on the information 
reported this cannot be confirmed. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme includes measures that are relevant to water column habitats 
(spatial protection measures) although they are not specific to water column 
habitat. 

-  The programme only partially addresses pressures on water column habitats, 
as  no  specific  water  column  habitat  measure  have  been  reported  and  the 
Member State does not clearly identify how measures reported under other 
descriptors  (e.g.,  D2,  D5,  D8)  will  address  relevant  pressures  on  water 
column habitats. 

-  The  water  column,  although  considered  in  other  descriptors,  is  mainly 
covered  by  the  Member  State  in  terms  of  water  quality.  The  plankton 
communities  of  the  water  column  are  a  key  feature  of  the  Ireland’s 
monitoring  programmes,  but  are  rarely  referenced  in  the  biodiversity 
measures.  Additionally,  the  water  column  is  a  key  transfer  route  for  the 
majority  of  non-seabed  species  and  needs  to  be  considered  as  part  of  the 
broader  ecological  coherence  of  the  Member  State’s  waters,  including  in 
relation  to  food  webs.  The  water  column  is  often  discounted  from  such 
measures due to a lack of scientific knowledge of these habitat types. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  physical  loss  and  damage  from  fisheries, 
dredging  and  disposal,  marine  hydrocarbon  extraction  (oil  and  gas),  land 
claim  and  coastal  defence,  placement  and  operation  of  offshore  structures, 
submarine  cable  and  pipeline  operations,  solid  waste  disposal  including 
dredge material and other non-specified activities. 

-  The  programme  addresses  contaminants  and  marine  litter  due  to  industry 

and aquaculture, in respect to seabed habitats. 

-  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  Ireland’s  programme  of  measures  addresses 

recreational activities. 

Weaknesses 

-  It  mainly  includes  fisheries  restrictions  within  spatial  protection  measures, 
which are often lacking in detail on their area coverage, temporal ranges of 
restrictions  and  minimal  consideration  is  given  to  the  broader  issues  of 

114 

 
 
bottom trawling outside of these spatially protected areas. 

Recommendations for Ireland to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
-  In general, Ireland should better address certain pressures and activities in its programme of 

measures. These are specified in the descriptor-specific recommendations below. 

-  Ireland  should  establish  measures  to  better  address  GES  and  targets  for  water  column 

habitats (D1, 4), seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6) and marine litter (D10) better. 

-  The Member State should develop more research efforts to fill knowledge gaps and provide 

an assessment of when GES will be achieved. 

-  It  should  strive  to  determine  the  timelines  for  achieving  GES  and,  where  there  are  delays 
beyond  2020,  to  report  exceptions  provided  these  are  adequately  justified.  Furthermore,  if 
GES  is  not  expected  to  be  achieved  by  2020,  then  the  Member  State  should  estimate  the 
alternative dates by when GES will be achieved. 

-  The  Member  State  should  ensure  coherence  of  its  determinations  of  GES,  environmental 
targets  and  the  programme  of  measures.  This  would  allow  to  use  environmental  targets 
systematically as milestones towards achieving GES through the measures, and monitor this 
progress  through  the  MSFD  monitoring  programmes.  This  is  specially  missing  for  birds, 
mammals and water column habitats (D1, 4). 

-  Irealnd  should  provide  more  information  about  its  measures  and  its  spatial  protection 
measures  (representation  of  species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number  and 
location of MPAs, the conservation objectives of the MPAs). 

-  The Member State should define the spatial scope of its measures in detail. Furthermore, the 
spatial scope of measures should be expanded to cover marine waters beyond coastal waters, 
where  relevant  pressures  are  present.  The  Member  State  should  consider  establishing 
additional  measures  beyond  spatial  protection  efforts  to  address  species  and  habitats.  It  is 
important that pressures are addressed across all marine waters. 

-  It should report data collection efforts under the MSFD Monitoring Programmes (Article 11) 
and  not  under  the  Programme  of  Measures (Article 13).  However,  when  knowledge  is  too 
scarce  to  design  effective  measures,  it  is  useful  to  indicate  actions  taken  to  address  these 
gaps via research measures. 

-  The  Member  State  should  quantify  the  pressures  present  in  its  waters  and  their  expected 
level of reduction as a result of the measures being implemented. This could be facilitated 
by  further  efforts  to  address  knowledge  gaps  and  define  the  methodology  for  such 
estimations  at  regional  or  EU  level.  Such  quantification  will  also  contribute  to  linking  the 
measures to the targets and hence to the achievement of GES. 

-  Ireland’s  programme  should  clearly  identify  the  timelines  for  implementation,  secured 

funding, and the entities in charge of implementation for all their measures.  

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 
-  The Member State should address the extraction of seaweed and other species for sea-based 

food harvesting. 

-  It should provide more detail in order to determine whether commercially important stocks 

that are not covered by the CFP are addressed through the reported measures. 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  Ireland should address cumulative impacts on habitats by multiple activities/developments. 
-  It should address better pressures from activities which are not subject to local/project scale 
EIAs  (e.g.  fishing,  maritime  transport).  In  some  cases  (e.g.  hydrological  changes  where 

115 

 
 
 
local dimension is important) this gap hampers the assessment of cumulative effects. 

D8/9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood 
-  The Member State should better explain the way the contaminants (D8) measures contribute 

to contaminants in seafood D9 targets. 

D10 — Marine litter 
-  Ireland’s programme should address litter impacts on marine biota. 
-  It should make efforts to prevent, identify and tackle pollution hot spots (e.g. from plastic 

pellets, lost fishing gear, single-use plastics, etc.). 

D11 — Underwater noise 
-  Ireland should establish measures addressing other energy inputs (e.g. heat or light). 
D1, 4 — Birds 
-  The Member State should specify how impacts on birds from marine litter are addressed (or 

will be addressed). 
D1, 4 — Mammals 
-  The  Member  State  should  specify  how  impacts  on  mammals  from  marine  litter  are 

addressed (or will be addressed). 
D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  The  Member  State  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other 
descriptors  address  pressures  on  water  column  habitats  (and  plankton),  and  elaborate  on 
how GES and targets for water column habitats are expected to be achieved. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  Ireland should establish measures clearly covering recreational activities. 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  more  measures  that  extend  beyond  spatially  protected 

areas to ensure a wider spatial coverage of measures for seabed habitats. 

-  Its programme should provide timescales and estimates of how spatial restrictions on seabed 

damaging activities will allow for GES to be achieved. 

-  The  Member  State  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other 
descriptors address pressures for seabed habitats, and elaborate on how GES and targets for 
seabed habitats are expected to be achieved. 

116 

 
 
 
 
9.  Italy 

General conclusions on Italy’s programme of measures 

Strengths and weaknesses 

-  Italy’s  programme  of  measures  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  birds, 
mammals and reptiles (D1, 4), non-indigenous species (D2), eutrophication 
(D5), contaminants in seafood (D9), marine litter (D10). 

-  The  Member  State  has  brought  together  and  coordinated  existing  national 
measures and processes (related to the implementation of EU legal acts and 
regulations,  as  well  as  regional  commitments  to  protect  the  marine 
environment  more  efficiently),  and  also  established  new  measures  that 
complement  those  already  in  place  to  specifically  target  pressures  on  the 
marine environment which were not otherwise covered. 

-  The  programme  includes  measures  that  are  based  on  commitments  to 
existing  European  policies  and  legislation,  as  well  as  regional  and 
international  agreements,  such  as  the  Barcelona  Convention  (D2,  D3,  D5, 
D10,  D1,  4,  6),  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  (D1,  4,  6,  D2,  D3),  the 
the  Black  Sea, 
the  Conservation  of  Cetaceans  of 
Agreement  on 
Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area — ACCOBAMS (D1.4.6), 
Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 on the use of alien species aquaculture (D2), 
Regulation (EU)  No  1143/2014  on the prevention  and  management  of the 
introduction  and  spread  of  invasive  alien  species  (D2),  the  General 
Fisheries  Commission  for  the  Mediterranean  (GFCM;  D1,  4,  6;  D3),  the 
Common  Fisheries  Policy  (D1,  4,  6;  D3),  the  Bern  Convention  on  the 
Conservation  of  European  Wildlife  and  Natural  Habitats  (D3),  the  CITES 
Convention (D3), the Water Framework Directive (WFD; D5, D7, D8), the 
SEA  and  EIA  Directive  (D7,  D10),  the  MSP  Directive  (D7),  the  REACH 
regulation  (D8),  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  (D8),  the 
Bathing  Water  Directive  (D8),  the  Waste  Directive  and  Directive 
2000/59/EC on port reception facilities (D10). 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  includes  spatial  protection  measures  (including  MPAs). 
Often,  these  measures  address  more  than  one  descriptor  and  therefore 
contribute  towards  GES  and  targets  for  several  descriptors.  Measures 
especially 
the 
establishment of management measures within MPAs. 

the  strengthening  of  MPA  networks  and 

include 

-  It combines direct and indirect measures, thus directly addressing pressures 
on  the  marine  environment,  while  simultaneously  implementing  measures 
complementing  the  direct  measures  through  governance  and  coordination 
actions, as well as awareness raising efforts. 

-  Based on the information reported by Italy on cost and resource allocations, 
timelines of implementation of measures as well as responsible bodies for 
implementation, the likelihood of implementation is high — most measures 
have secured funding and the timeline for implementing them is 2016. 

-  The  spatial  scope  of  the  measures  is  specified  consistently  across  the 

programme of measures. 

-  In this first implementation cycle of the MSFD, in relation to descriptors for 
which knowledge gaps exist (i.e. D2, D8, D10), the Member State reports 

117 

 
 
 
Weaknesses 

research  efforts.  This  will  allow  addressing  knowledge  gaps  but  also  to 
build upon the results to design measures, which will contribute directly to 
tackling the pressures in the MSFD’s second implementation cycle. 

-  The  programme  partially  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  fish  and 
cephalopods, water column habitats (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6), 
commercial 
(D7), 
contaminants (D8), underwater noise and energy (D11). 

(D3),  hydrological  changes 

fish  and  shellfish 

-  The Member State does not make sufficient links between the measures for 
the  pressure  descriptors  and  how  they  might  benefit  the  state  descriptors 
(i.e.  biodiversity  descriptors  D1,  4,  6).  This  prevents  understanding  how 
state descriptors benefit from these measures, which are likely to contribute 
in addressing pressures on species and habitats. 

-  Italy reports that the current level of scientific knowledge does not allow an 

assessment on whether GES will be achieved by 2020. 

-  The Member State does not report a timeline for the achievement of GES 

for any descriptor. 

-  The programme does not include a quantification of what the measures will 
achieve;  i.e.  to  what  extent  the  relevant  pressure  will  be  addressed,  and 
whether the measures will be sufficient to achieve GES. 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  introduction  of  non-indigenous  species  by 
tackling  aquaculture,  fisheries,  tourism/recreational  activities  and  shipping 
(including ballast water). 

-  The programme addresses hull-fouling in relation to shipping, indirectly. 
-  It  includes  early  warning  systems  of  non-indigenous  species  introductions 

as measures. 

Weaknesses 

-  None (except the lack of timeline for the achievement of GES, mentioned 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 

above). 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  by  tackling  fisheries 

(incl. recreational fishing). 

Strengths 

-  It includes seasonal and spatial fishing bans (for several purposes including 
stock  management  and  biodiversity  conservation,  protection  of  over-
exploited stocks) that are in addition to existing CFP measures. 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  does  not  directly  target  sharks,  as  specified  in  Italy’s 

D5 — Eutrophication  

targets. 

Strength 

-  The  programme  addresses  nutrient  enrichment  by  tackling  agriculture, 

urban areas, aquaculture, tourism and industry. 

-  It draws from the Italy’s WFD River Basin Management Plans (RBMP). In 
the framework of the MSFD, most are considered likely to be sufficient to 
address  pressures  of  nutrient  and  organic  matter  enrichment  in the  marine 
environment  and  cover  relevant  human  activities  (i.e.  mainly  agriculture, 
industry,  wastewater  and  flood  risks).  However,  considering  the  extent  to 
which  the  MSFD  programme  of  measures  relies  on  WFD  measures,  this 
statement  is  subject  to  the  RBMPs  being  assessed  as  adequate  under  the 
WFD assessment. 

-  The programme addresses atmospheric deposition.  

118 

 
 
Weaknesses 

-  None (except the lack of timeline for the achievement of GES, mentioned 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 

above). 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme addresses hydrological processes from various activities. 
-  It includes existing measures stemming from other legal acts. As such, all 
projects that are subject to existing authorisation and regulatory procedures 
are addressed in terms of hydrographical changes. 

-  The  programme  includes  MSFD  specific  measures,  in  addition  to  WFD 

measures. 

-  It refers to EIA and SEA procedures, in addition to MSP.  
-  Italy does not explain how it will address the issue of cumulative impacts, 
i.e.  impacts  from  different/multiple  human  activities  on  hydrography. 
Cumulative impacts are a major issue for the MSFD; assessing cumulative 
impacts  would  require  Member  States  to  consolidate  results  of  individual 
assessments together to assess the overall scale of hydrographical changes.  

D8-D9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood  

Strengths 

-  The programme of measures addresses the introduction of contaminants 

and accidental pollution through measures that target shipping, hydrocarbon 
extraction, offshore structures, agriculture aquaculture and fisheries. 

-  It addresses contaminant inputs to the sea from land-based (agriculture), as 

well as sea-based sources (e.g. shipping, fisheries). 

-  The programme also addresses accidental pollution. Measures link to the 

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (IMO-
MARPOL). 

-  It addresses contaminants in seafood (D9) via both D8 and D9 measures. 
-  Several measures in the programme specifically address contaminants in 
seafood (D9) through introduction of contaminants by tackling industry, 
aquaculture, fisheries, agriculture and shipping. 

-  It clearly explains how measures for contaminants (D8) will contribute to 

addressing pressures for contaminants in seafood (D9) and allow for 
progress towards D9 GES and targets. 

Weaknesses 
D10 — Marine litter 

-  The programme does not address urban activities nor port operations. 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  marine  litter  by  covering  land-based  (e.g. 
tourism, urban activities) and sea-based (e.g. shipping, aquaculture) sources 
of litter. 

-  It addresses the reduction of marine litter input in coastal areas and in the 

open sea, as well as the removal of existing litter. 

Weaknesses 

-  It also covers both macro and micro-litter, including micro-plastics. 
- The  programme  only  indirectly  covers  tourism/recreational  activities 

(despite being reported as a relevant source of litter in Article 8). 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  continuous  and  impulsive  underwater  noise  by 
covering  marine  hydrocarbon  extraction,  marine  research  and  port 
operations. 

-  It  includes  measures  that  aim  to  implement  a  register  for  impulsive  noise 

and develop standards for noise mapping. 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme does not cover impacts of underwater noise on marine life. 

119 

 
 
-  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  programme  addresses  other  energy  inputs  (e.g. 

D1, 4 — Birds  

heat and light). 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  of  measures  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  (incl.  by-

catch) and habitat loss. It also addresses trade of endangered species. 

-  The programme does not explain how the effects of non-indigenous species 
and  marine  litter  on  seabirds  are  addressed.  It  is  possible  that  these 
pressures  are  addressed  by  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  non-
indigenous  species  (D2)  and  marine  litter  (D10),  but  based  on  the 
information reported this cannot be determined. This does not allow for an 
understanding of how the state descriptors will benefit from these measures. 

D1, 4 — Fish and cephalopods 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  (incl.  by-catch)  and 
habitat  loss.  It  also  addresses  trade  of  endangered  species  and  pollution 
impacts on fish. 

-  It includes spatial protection measures to complement commercial fish and 
shellfish (D3) and protect non-commercial species as well as functional fish 
habitats. 

-  The Member State reports that, in their MPAs, they protect all species listed 
in  the  Habitats  Directive  and  on  the  Barcelona  Convention  list  of 
endangered species. 

-  The programme of measures includes awareness raising efforts. 
-  The Member State’s gap analysis identified a need to stimulate and increase 
sustainable  practices  for  the  exploitation  of  coastal  fish  species  and  to 
implement more rigorous management measures for fisheries control. It is 
unlikely that the awareness raising measure will be sufficient to address this 
gap for coastal fish. 

-  It is unclear if the programme includes specific plans for cephalopods. 

D1, 4 — Mammals and reptiles 

Strengths 

- The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  (incl.  by-catch)  and 
habitat loss. It also addresses underwater noise and contaminants and their 
direct effects on mammals and reptiles. Various activities covered, including 
shipping and fisheries. 

- It includes spatial protection measures to address several pressures such as 
underwater noise due to shipping, by-catch and protecting migratory species 
by ensuring a coherent network of MPAs. 

Weaknesses 

- The  programme  does  not  explain  how  the  impact  of  marine  litter  on 
mammals  and  reptiles  is  addressed.  It  is  possible  that  these  pressures  are 
addressed  by  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  marine  litter  (D10),  but 
based on the information reported this cannot be determined. This does not 
allow  for  an  understanding  of  how  the  state  descriptors  will  benefit  from 
these measures. 
D1, 4 — Water column habitats 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  includes  measures  that  are  relevant  to  water  column 
habitats  (spatial  protection  measures  and  measures  aiming  at  improving 
seabed  habitat  condition  and  reduce  wastewater  runoff)  although  they  are 
not specific to this habitat. 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme partially addresses pressures on water column habitats, as 

120 

 
 
no specific water column habitat measure have been reported and Italy does 
not  clearly  identify  how  measures  reported  under  other  descriptors  (e.g., 
D2, D5, D8) will address relevant pressures on this habitat. 

-  The  water  column,  although  considered  in  other  descriptors,  is  mainly 
covered by the Member State in terms of water quality. Plankton is a key 
feature  of  the  terminology  in  the  monitoring  programmes,  which  is  rarely 
referenced in the biodiversity measures. Additionally, the water column is a 
key  transfer  route  for  the  majority  of  non-seabed  species  and  needs  to  be 
considered  as  part  of  the  broader  ecological  coherence  of  the  Member 
State’s  waters,  within  MPAs  and  in  relation  to  food  webs.  The  water 
column is often discounted from such measures due to a lack of scientific 
knowledge of these habitat types. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  physical  loss  and  damage  from  fisheries, 

hydrocarbon exploitation and dredging. 

-  It  includes  existing  and  new  measures  that  target  destructive  fishing 

practices particularly in MPAs. 

-  The programme includes measures that focus on territorial waters (but also 

include other spatial scopes). 

-   The  programme  indirectly  addresses  physical  loss  and  damages  from 
underwater  cables  and  pipelines,  port  operations,  land  claim,  coastal 
defence, solid waste disposal. 

-  It mainly includes fisheries restrictions within spatial protection measures, 
which are often lacking in detail on their area coverage, temporal ranges of 
restrictions  and  minimal  consideration  is  given  to  the  broader  issues  of 
trawling outside of these spatially protected areas. 

-  Most  measures  relate  to  physical  loss  and  damage  to  seabed  habitat,  with 
minimal  consideration  of  other  pressures  such  as  non-indigenous  species, 
eutrophication and marine litter. 

Recommendations for Italy to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
- 

In general, Italy should better address certain pressures and activities in its programme of 
measures. These are specified in the descriptor specific recommendations below. 

-  GES  and  targets  definitions  should  be  better  addressed  for  fish  and  cephalopods,  water 
column  habitats  (D1,  4),  seabed  habitats  (D1.4.6),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3), 
hydrographical changes (D7), contaminants (D8), underwater noise and energy (D11). 
Its  programme  should  make  better  links  between  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for 
pressure  descriptors  and  their  effects  on  the  state  descriptors.  This  would  allow  a 
comprehensive view of the impact of measures affecting all descriptors. 

- 

-  The  Member  State  should  develop  more  research  efforts  to  fill  knowledge  gaps  and 

- 

provide an assessment on when GES will be achieved. 
Italy  should  quantify  the  pressures  present  in  its  waters  and  their  expected  level  of 
reduction  as  a  result  of  the  established  measures.  This  could  be  facilitated  by  further 
efforts  to  address  knowledge  gaps  and  define  the  methodology  for  such  estimations  at 
regional or EU level. Such quantification will also contribute to linking the measures with 
the achievement of GES. 

121 

 
 
 
D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  specifically  for  sharks,  as  specified  in  its 

targets. 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 
- 

Italy’s  programme  should  better  address  pressures  from  activities  not  subject  to 
local/project  scale  EIAs  (e.g.,  fishing,  maritime  transport).  In  some  cases  (e.g., 
hydrological  changes  where  local  dimension  is  important)  this  gap  hampers  the 
assessment of cumulative effects. 

D8-D9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  addressing  urban  activities  and  port 

operations. 

D10 — Marine litter  
- 
-  The Member State should make efforts to prevent, identify and tackle pollution hot spots 

Italy should establish direct measures covering tourism/recreational activities. 

(e.g. from plastic pellets, lost fishing gear, single-use plastics, etc.). 

D11 — Underwater noise 
-  The Member State should establish measures addressing the impact of underwater noise 

on marine life and other energy inputs (e.g., heat and light). 

D1, 4 — Birds 
- 

Italy  should  specify  how  pressures  on  birds  beyond  by-catch  are  addressed  (or  will  be 
addressed), namely the effects of non-indigenous species and ingestion of litter. 

D1, 4 — Fish and cephalopods 
-  The  Member  State  should  consider establishing  measures  to  directly  support  sustainable 
practices  for  the  exploitation  of  coastal  fish  species,  as  well  as  implementing  more 
rigorous management for fisheries control, beyond awareness raising measures. 
It should clearly indicate whether it developed measures for cephalopods. 

- 
D1, 4 — Mammals 
-  The  Member  State  should  specify  how  pressures  on  mammals  beyond  by-catch  are 

addressed (or will be addressed), namely the effects of ingestion of litter. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  The  Member  State  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other 
descriptors address pressures for water column habitats (and plankton), and elaborate on 
how GES and targets for water column habitats are expected to be achieved. 

-  The Member State should address water column habitats beyond water quality indicators. 
D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
- 

Italy  should  establish  direct  measures  covering  underwater  cables  and  pipelines,  port 
operations, land claim, coastal defence, solid waste disposal. 
It  should  establish  more  measures  that  extend  beyond  spatially  protected  areas  (and 
MPAs) to ensure a wider spatial coverage for these habitats. 

- 

-  The  programme  should  provide  timescales  and  estimates  of  how  spatial  restrictions  of 

seabed damaging activities will allow for GES to be achieved. 

-  The Member State should address pressures beyond physical loss and damage to seabed 
habitats and more clearly indicate which measures reported under other descriptors (e.g., 
non-indigenous  species,  eutrophication  and  marine  litter)  address  pressures  for  seabed 
habitats,  and  elaborate  on  how  GES  and  targets  for  seabed  habitats  are  expected  to  be 
achieved. 

122 

 
 
 
 
10.  Latvia 

General conclusions on Latvia’s programme of measures 

General strengths and weaknesses 

-  Latvia’s  programme  of  measures  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  commercial 
fish and shellfish (D3), eutrophication (D5), contaminants (D8), contaminants 
in seafood (D9) and marine litter (D10). 

-  It  includes  measures  that  are  based  on  commitments  to  existing  European 
policies, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives (D1, 4, 6), Regulation (EU) 
No  1143/2014  (D2),  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP;  D3,  D1,  4,  6),  the 
Nitrate  Directive  (D5),  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD;  D5,  D8), 
Urban  Wastewater  Treatment  Directive  (UWWTD;  D5),  the  National 
Emission Ceiling Directive (D5, D8), the Industrial Emissions Directive (D5, 
D8),  the  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Directive  (all  descriptors),  Regulation 
(EC) No 782/2003 on the prohibition of organotin compounds of ships (D8) 
as  well  as  international  instruments  such  as  the  International  Maritime 
Organisation’s  (IMO)  —  International  Convention  for  the  Prevention  of 
Pollution  from  Ships  (MARPOL)  (D5,  D8)  or  the  IMO-Ballast  Water 
Management Convention (D2) and regional actions such as HELCOM action 
plan  on  marine  litter  (D10)  or  the  HELCOM  Baltic  Sea  action  plan  (all 
descriptors). 

-  The  programme  includes  both  existing  and  new  measures  that  complement 
those  already  in  place  to  specifically  target  pressures  on  the  marine 
environment which were not otherwise covered. 

-  It  combines  direct  and  indirect  measures,  thus  directly  addressing  pressures 
on  the  marine  environment  while  simultaneously  implementing  measures 
which complement the direct measures through governance and coordination 
actions, as well as awareness raising efforts. 

-  In this first implementation cycle of the MSFD, in relation to descriptors for 
which  knowledge  gaps  exist  (i.e.  all  descriptors),  the  Member  State  reports 
research efforts. This will allow knowledge gaps to be addressed, but also to 
build upon the results to enable the design of measures which will contribute 
directly  to  tackling  the  pressures  in  the  MSFD’s  second  implementation 
cycle.  

-  The programme partially addresses GES and targets for birds, fish, mammals 

and water column habitats (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

-  Th measures do not address GES and targets for non-indigenous species (D2), 

hydrographical changes (D7), underwater noise and energy (D11). 

-  Latvia  does  not  report  any  timeline  for  achieving  GES  for  non-indigenous 
species  (D2),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3),  contaminants  in  seafood 
(D9), water column habitats (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). This may 
jeopardise  the  ability  of  the  Member  State  to  determine  progress  toward 
achieving GES by 2020. 

-  Latvia reports that GES will not be achieved by 2020 for eutrophication (D5). 
-  It  also  does  not  define  GES  for  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants 
(D8),  marine  litter  (D10),  underwater  noise  (D11),  birds,  fish  and  mammals 
(D1, 4). 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

123 

 
 
 
 
-  In  some  cases,  the  programme  does  not  include  sufficient  links  to  existing 
European  policies  as  well  as  international  instruments.  This  is  the  case  for 
biodiversity  (D1,  4,  6),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  (D8), 
contaminants in seafood (D9) and underwater noise (D11). 

-  The programme includes spatial protection measures. These measures address 
more  than  one  descriptor  and  therefore  contribute  towards  GES  and  targets 
for  several  descriptors,  through  the  strengthening  of  MPA  networks  and  the 
establishment  of  management  measures  within  MPAs.  However,  they  have 
indirect impacts on the pressure (research). 

-  Even  though,  based  on  the  information  reported  by  Latvia  on  cost  and 
resource  allocations,  timelines  of  implementation  of  measures  as  well  as 
responsible  bodies  for  implementation,  the  likelihood  of  implementation  is 
high,  most  new  measures  have  indirect  impacts  on  the  pressures  and  the 
timeline  for  implementing  them  is  2020.  This  may  compromise  the 
achievement of GES by 2020. 

-  The  Member  State  does  not  always  provide  sufficient  details  about  the  new 
measures to understand how they will contribute to progress towards targets 
and GES (as defined by the Member State). 

-  The  programme  includes  spatial  measures  that  do  not  always  provide  clear 
and  specific  information  on  the  management  efforts  in  place  (or  to  be 
implemented  in  the  future).  Information  gaps  include  the  representation  of 
species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number,  and  location  of 
MPAs and the conservation objectives of the MPAs. 

-  While impact assessments were carried out for new measures, the results do 
not allow for a quantification of what the measures will achieve; i.e. to what 
extent the relevant pressure will be addressed, and whether the measures will 
be sufficient to achieve GES. 

-  The spatial scope of the measures is only specified for the new measures (not 
for the existing ones). It is therefore not clear whether all waters are covered. 

-  The programme sometimes includes data collection efforts, as measures. 
-  It  over-relies  on  indirect  measures  for  several  descriptors  (most  of  the  new 

measures have indirect impacts). 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  introductions  of  non-indigenous  species  through 

aquaculture.  

-  The  programme  does  not  directly  address  introduction  of  non-indigenous 
species  from  shipping  (ballast  water  and  anti-fouling).  It  is  also  unclear 
whether the measures also concern recreational vessels. 

-  It does not include early warning systems for introductions of non-indigenous 

species as measures. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  from  commercial  and 

recreational fishing. 

-  It refers to existing CFP measures. 
-  The  measures  cover  stocks  managed  at  the  national  level  as  well  as  aspects 

that relate to age/size structure of species. 

Weaknesses 

-  It is not clear whether the programme includes seasonal and/or spatial fishing 
bans (that could be used for several purposes, including; stock management, 

124 

 
 
 
biodiversity conservation, and protection of over-exploited stocks). 

-  The  new  measure  aiming  to  develop  research  studies  for  the  creation  of  a 
possible new MPA and to assess important fish spawning and nursery areas, 
will  only  be  implemented  in  2020,  which  is  not  in  line  with  the  MSFD 
timeline. 

D5 — Eutrophication 

-  The  programme  of  measures  addresses  nutrient  inputs  from  agriculture, 

industry and urban areas. 

-  It  draws  from  the  Member  State’s  WFD  River  Basin  Management  Plans 
(RBMP).  In  the  framework  of  the  MSFD,  most  are  considered  likely  to  be 
sufficient  to  address  pressures  of  nutrient  and  organic  matter  enrichment  in 
the  marine  environment  and  cover  relevant  human  activities  (i.e.  mainly 
agriculture,  industry,  wastewater  and  flood  risks).  However,  considering  the 
extent  to  which  the  MSFD  programme  relies  on  WFD  measures,  this 
statement is subject to the RBMPs being assessed as adequate under the WFD 
assessment. 

-  The programme addresses atmospheric deposition of nutrients (NOx) (link to 
the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  and  the  National  Emission  Ceiling 
Directive). 

-  The  programme  does  not  consider  additional  aspects,  such  as  improved 

aquaculture management practices. 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 
Strengths  None identified. 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme does not include measures to tackle hydrographical changes. 
It  may  be  that  pressures  on  hydrographical  changes  are  addressed  via 
measures reported for non-indigenous species (D2), eutrophication (D5) and 
contaminants  (D8);  but  how  the  programme  will  contribute  to  addressing 
pressures  on  hydrographical  changes  (D7)  specifically  cannot  be  assessed 
based on the information reported. 

-  Even though the programme includes a measure on cumulative impacts (i.e. 
impacts  from  different/multiple  human  activities  on  hydrography),  it  has  an 
indirect  impact  on  the  pressures  (research  measure  to  define  a  methodology 
for spatial cumulative impact assessment for a variety of marine space uses). 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood 

-  The programme addresses the introduction of contaminants through measures 

that target industry and urban areas. 

-  It  also  addresses  accidental  pollution  through  measures  that  target  shipping 

and port operations. 

Strengths 

-  The programme addresses contaminant inputs to the sea from land-based (e.g. 

industry, urban areas) and sea-based sources (e.g. shipping). 

-  In  its  programme,  Latvia  addresses  atmospheric  deposition  of  contaminants 
(link  to  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  and  the  National  Emission  Ceiling 
Directive). 

-  The  programme  does  not  include  specific  measures  for  contaminants  in 

seafood (D9). 

Weaknesses 

-  It  does  not  explain  how  measures  for  contaminants  (D8)  will  contribute  to 
addressing  pressures  for  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9)  and  allow  progress 
towards GES and targets for this descriptor. 

125 

 
 
D10 — Marine litter 

-  The  programme  addresses  marine 

litter  by  covering  shipping  and 

tourism/recreational activities. 

-  It  addresses  the  reduction  of  marine  litter  input  in  coastal  areas  and  in  the 

open sea, as well as the removal of existing litter. 

Strengths 

-  The programme specifically covers macro-litter with measures targeting litter 

removal. 

-  It  includes  efforts  to  address  knowledge  gaps  for  micro-litter,  which,  while 
not  yet  fully  addressing  the  problem,  will  positively  contribute  to  better 
characterising the pressure and its potential impact on fauna. 

-  The  programme  does  not  yet  fully  address  micro-litter,  referring  to 

knowledge gaps which the indirect measures will address.  

Weaknesses 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

Strengths 

-  The programme of  measures includes efforts to address knowledge gaps for 

underwater noise. 

-  The  programme  does  not  address  continuous  and  impulsive  noise  from  any 

Weaknesses 

human activity. 

-  It however does not address other energy inputs (such as heat or light).  

D1, 4 — Birds  

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  accidental  by-catch  and  other  pressures  on  bird 
species and habitats through fisheries management measures, to some extent. 
-  The  programme  only  includes  general  biodiversity  measures  and  does  not 

Weaknesses 

include dedicated measures addressing bird species. 

-  It does not explain how the effects of non-indigenous species, contaminants, 
marine litter as well as noise and light pollution on seabirds, disturbances on 
nesting  sites  by  predation  on  birds  are  addressed,  and  does  not  cover  birds’ 
food sources. It is possible that these are addressed by the groups of measures 
for non-indigenous species (D2), contaminants (D8), marine litter (D10) and 
underwater  noise  and  energy  (D11),  but  based  on  the  information  reported 
this cannot be determined. This does not allow for an understanding of how 
the state descriptors will benefit from these measures. 

D1, 4 — Fish  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme addresses selective extraction of species (incl. accidental by-
catch)  and  other  pressures  on  fish  species  and  habitats  through  fisheries 
management measures, to some extent. 

-  The  programme  only  includes  general  biodiversity  measures  and  does  not 
include  dedicated  measures  addressing  fish  species  (commercial  and  non-
commercial),  as  the  effect  of  measures  under  other  descriptors  for  fish 
biodiversity is unclear. 

-  Even  though  the  programme  includes  a  spatial  protection  measure  to 
complement  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3),  it  is  a  research  effort  to 
determine  justifications  for  the  designation  of  new  MPAs,  in  particular  for 
functional fish habitats (i.e. spawning grounds and fish juvenile habitats). 

-  Latvia’s programme provides little information on where and how fish species 

present within the Member State’s territorial waters are protected. 

D1, 4 — Mammals 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  accidental  by-catch  and  other  pressures  on 
mammal  species  and  habitats  through  fisheries  management  measures,  to 

126 

 
 
some extent.  

-  The  programme  only  includes  general  biodiversity  measures  and  does  not 

include dedicated measures addressing mammals. 

-  It  does  not  address  impacts  of  contaminants  and  of  shipping  (collisions, 

underwater noise) on mammals. 

-  The  programme  does  not  explain  how  contaminants  and  marine  litter  on 
mammals  are  addressed.  It  is  possible  that  these  pressures  are  addressed  by 
the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  marine  litter  (D10),  but  based  on  the 
information  reported  this  cannot  be  determined.  This  does  not  allow  for  an 
understanding of how the state descriptors will benefit from these measures. 
-  The  programme  does  not  include  spatial  protection  measures  to  protect 

Weaknesses 

mammals.  

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  contaminants  and  nutrient  enrichment  and  other 
pressures  regarding  water  column  habitats  (although  no  specific  human 
activity has been mentioned), to some extent. 

-  The  programme  only  includes  general  biodiversity  measures  and  does  not 
include  dedicated  measures  addressing  water  column  habitats.  It  is  possible 
that pressures on water column habitats are addressed via measures reported 
for non-indigenous species (D2), eutrophication (D5), contaminants (D8) and 
marine  litter  (D10);  but  how  the  programme  will  contribute  to  addressing 
pressures on water column habitats (D1, 4) specifically cannot be determined 
based on the information reported. 

-  The  water  column,  although  considered  in  other  descriptors,  is  mainly 
covered in terms of water quality. Plankton is a key feature of the terminology 
in the monitoring programmes, which is rarely referenced in the biodiversity 
measures.  Additionally,  the  water  column  is  a  key  transfer  route  for  the 
majority  of  non-seabed  species  and  needs  to  be  considered  as  part  of  the 
broader ecological coherence of Member State’s waters, within MPAs and in 
relation  to  food  webs.  The  water  column  is  often  discounted  from  such 
measures due to a lack of scientific knowledge of these habitat types. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

-  The programme is likely to address physical loss from the dumping of dredge 

material. 

Strengths 

-  It addresses physical damage through fisheries management measures. 
-  The  programme  includes  existing  measures  that  target  destructive  fishing 

Weaknesses 

practices (trawling) especially in coastal areas. 

-  It is not clear whether the programme covers recreational activities other than 
recreational  fishing  that  could  still  be  destructive  to  seabed  habitats  (e.g. 
vessels mooring). 

-  Some  important  pressures,  particularly  relating  to  coastal  development  and 
mineral/aggregate  extraction  from  the  seabed,  are  not  considered  in  enough 
detail in the programmeof measures. 

-  Spatial protection measures are often lacking in detail on their area coverage, 

temporal ranges of restrictions. 

-  Other  pressures  such  eutrophication  (D5)  and  marine  litter  (D10)  have  not 
been considered. It is possible that pressures on seabed habitats are addressed 
via  measures  reported  for  eutrophication  (D5)  and  marine  litter  (D10);  but 

127 

 
 
how the programme will contribute to addressing pressures on seabed habitats 
(D1,  4,  6)  specifically  cannot  be  determined  based  on  the  information 
reported. 

Exceptions 
The Member State applies an exception for eutrophication (D5). It applies Article 14(1)(e) 
(‘natural conditions which do not allow timely improvement in the status of the marine waters 
concerned’). Latvia states that GES cannot be achieved by 2020 because of natural conditions 
(very slow water exchange rates between the Baltic Sea and the North Sea). 
This assessment finds the justification to be grounded. The Member State has estimated that it 
will  take  at  least  30  to  50  years  to  achieve  GES  (this  time-period  was  being  given  in  the 
HELCOM eutrophication assessment). 

Recommendations for Latvia to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
-  In general, the Latvia should better address certain pressures and activities in its HELCOM 
eutrophication  assessment  of  emasures.  These  are  specified  in  the  descriptor  specific 
recommendations below. 

-  GES  and  targets  definitions  should  be  better  addressed  for  non-indigenous  species  (D2), 
hydrographical  changes  (D7)  and  underwater  noise  (D11),  birds,  fish,  mammals,  water 
column habitats (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

-  The Member State should strive to determine the timelines for achieving GES. 
-  GES  and  targets  should  be  defined  for  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  (D8), 
marine litter (D10), underwater noise and energy (D11), birds, fish and mammals (D1, 4). 
-  The Member State should establish more links with existing EU policies and international 
instruments  for  the  biodiversity  descriptors  (D1,  4,  6),  hydrographical  changes  (D7), 
contaminants (D8), contaminant in seafood (D9) and underwater noise and energy (D11). 
-  Latvia’s programme should provide more information about its spatial protection measures 
(representation  of  species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number  and  location  of 
MPAs,  the  conservation  objectives  of  the  MPAs)  and  establish  additional  ones  that  have 
direct effects on the pressures. 

-  The Member State should establish more measures that have a direct impact on the pressures 

and implement them before 2020. 

-  It  should  provide  more  details  about  its  new  measures.  This  will  allow  for  a  better 
understanding of how the programme will support progress towards targets and GES for all 
descriptors. 

-  The  Member  State  should  quantify  the  pressures  present  in  its  waters  and  their  expected 
level of reduction as a result of the established measures. This could be facilitated by further 
efforts  to  address  knowledge  gaps  and  define  the  methodology  for  such  estimations  at 
regional or EU level. Such quantification will also contribute to linking the measures with 
the achievement of GES. 

-  Latvia should define the spatial scope of all its measures (both existing and new) in detail. 
Furthermore,  the  spatial  scope  of  measures  should  be  expanded  to  cover  marine  waters 
beyond  coastal  waters,  where  relevant  pressures  are  present.  The  Member  State  should 
consider  establishing  additional  measures  beyond  spatial  protection  efforts  to  address 
species and habitats. It is important that pressures are addressed across all marine waters. 
-  It  should  ensure  better  linkages  between  its  programme  of  measures  and  its  monitoring 
programmes, in order to ensure that the effects of the measures, and hence their efficiency 

128 

 
 
 
and  effectiveness  in  meeting  targets  and  GES,  are  measured  through  the  monitoring 
programmes. 

-  The  Member  State  should  report  data  collection  efforts  under  the  MSFD  monitoring 
programmes (Article 11) and not under the Programme of Measures (Article 13). However, 
when knowledge is  too scarce to  design effective measures, it is useful to indicate actions 
taken to address these gaps via research measures. 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  having  direct  impact  on  non-indigenous 

species from shipping (ballast water and anti-fouling, including recreational vessels). 

-  It  should  establish  early  warning  systems  for  introductions  of  non-indigenous  species  as 

measures. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 
-  Latvia should establish measures that implement seasonal and/or spatial fishing bans in its 

programme. 

-  The  Member  State  should  implement  new  measures  within  the  MSFD  established  time-

frame. 

D5 — Eutrophication 
-  The Member State should establish measures covering additional  aspects, such as nutrient 

inputs from aquaculture. 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  Latvia should establish measures to tackle hydrographical changes; or clearly report which 
of the other descriptor measures will contribute to addressing pressure, GES and targets for 
hydrographical changes (D7) and how. 

-  It should better address pressures from activities not subject to local/project scale EIAs (e.g. 
fishing,  shipping).  In  some  cases  (e.g.  hydrological  changes  where  local  dimension  is 
important) this gap hampers the assessment of cumulative effects. 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 
-  The Member State should establish dedicated measures for contaminants in seafood (D9); or 
should better explain the way the contaminants (D8) measures contribute to contaminants in 
seafood D9 targets. 
D10 — Marine litter 
-  The Member State should address micro-litter better, preferably through direct measures. 
-  It should establish additional research efforts to address data gaps, increase knowledge and 

pave the way for direct action.  

-  In its programme, Latvia  should  make efforts to prevent, identify  and tackle pollution  hot 

spots (e.g. from plastic pellets, lost fishing gear, single-use plastics, etc.). 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  direct  measures  to  cover  activities  that  are  known  to 

produce high levels of noise, as soon as possible (e.g. shipping for continuous noise). 

-  It should consider establishing measures that target other energy inputs if possible (e.g. heat, 

light). 

D1, 4 — Birds 
-  Latvia  should  establish  additional  and  dedicated  measures  to  address  pressures  on  birds 
beyond by-catch. Measures could target disturbances on nesting sites by predation, effects 
of non-indigenous species, contaminants, noise and light pollution as well as litter ingestion. 
The  measures  should  also  cover  birds’  food  sources.  If  these  are  to  be  addressed  via 
measures  reported  for  other  descriptors,  the  expected  effect  that  measures  are  to  have  on 
birds should be explained. 

129 

 
 
D1, 4 — Fish 
-  The Member State should establish additional and dedicated measures with direct effect on 
pressures  that  include  additional  MPAs  in  open  sea  areas  to  protect  commercial  and  non-
commercial  fish  species  from  various  pressures  (non-indigenous  species,  by-catch,  noise 
and contaminants). If these are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors, 
the expected effect that measures are to have on fish should be explained. 

-  It  should  provide  better  information  on  existing  MPAs  and  the  level  of  protection  they 
provide for fish (commercial and non-commercial), in relation to where fish species occur 
within the Member State’s territorial waters, and how they are protected. 

D1, 4 — Mammals 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  additional  and  dedicated  measures,  including  spatial 
protection  measures,  to  address  relevant  pressures  on  mammals  beyond  by-catch  (e.g. 
impacts  on  mammal  habitats  due  to  shipping  (collision),  contaminants,  underwater  noise, 
entanglement, and ingestion of litter). If these are to be addressed via measures reported for 
other  descriptors,  the  expected  effect  that  measures  are  to  have  on  mammals  should  be 
explained.  

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  dedicated  measures  to  tackle  the  pressure  associated 
with  water  column  habitats  (and  plankton).  If  these  are  to  be  addressed  via  measures 
reported for other descriptors (such as D2, D5, D8, D10), the expected effect that measures 
are to have on water column habitats should be explained. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  Latvia should establish measures covering all aspects of recreational activities (e.g. fishing, 
important  pressures  (e.g.  coastal  development  and 

vessels  mooring,  diving)  and 
mineral/aggregate extraction from the seabed). 

-  It  should  provide  timescales  and  estimates  of  how  spatial  restrictions  of  seabed  damaging 

activities will allow for GES to be achieved. 

-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  that  extend  beyond  spatially  protected  areas 

(and MPAs) to ensure a wider spatial coverage for these habitats. 

-  If seabed habitats are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors (e.g. D2, 
D5,  D10),  the  expected  effect  that  measures  are  to  have  on  seabed  habitats  should  be 
explained. 

130 

 
 
 
 
11.  Malta 

General conclusions on Malta’s programme of measures 

General strengths and weaknesses 

Strengths 

-  Malta’s  programme  of  measures  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  non-
indigenous species (D2), commercial fish and shellfish (D3), eutrophication 
(D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9),  marine 
litter (D10), birds, mammals and water column habitats (D1, 4). 

-  The  Member  State  reports  that  GES  will  be  achieved  by  2020  for 

eutrophication (D5). 

(UWWTD;  D5), 

-  The  programme  includes  measures  that  are  based  on  commitments  to 
existing European policies, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives (D1, 4, 
6, D10, D11), Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 (D2), the Common Fisheries 
Policy  (CFP;  D3,  D1,  4,  6,  D10),  the  Nitrates  Directive  (D5),  the  Water 
Framework  Directive  (WFD;  D2,  D5,  D7,  D8,  D10,  D1,  4,  6),  Urban 
Wastewater  Treatment  Directive 
the  Strategic 
Environmental  Assessment  (SEA;  D7,  D11),  the  Port  Reception  Facilities 
Directive  (D5,  D8,  D10),  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (D8,  D9), 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1881/2006  on  setting  maximum  levels  for  certain 
contaminants in foodstuffs (D9), the Waste Framework Directive (D8, D10, 
D1,  4,  6),  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  (EIA)  Directive  (all 
descriptors),  as  well  as  international  instruments  such  as  the  International 
Maritime  Organisation’s  (IMO)  —  International  Convention  for  the 
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (D3, D5, D8, D10) or IMO 
— Ballast Water Management Convention (D2) and regional actions such as 
the UNEP/MAP Regional Plan for the Marine Litter (D10) or UNEP/MAP 
Action Plan on Introductions of Species and Invasive Species (D2). 

-  The programme includes both existing and new measures that complement 
those  already  in  place  to  specifically  target  pressures  on  the  marine 
environment which were not otherwise covered. 

-  It  includes  spatial  protection  measures  (including  MPAs).  These  measures 
address more than one descriptor and therefore contribute towards GES and 
targets for several descriptors. Measures include the strengthening of MPA 
networks,  the  designation  of  new  MPAs  and  the  establishment  of 
management measures within MPAs. 

-  The  programme  combines  direct  and  indirect  measures,  thus  directly 
addressing  pressures  on  the  marine  environment  while  simultaneously 
implementing  measures  which  complement  the  direct  measures  through 
governance  and  coordination  actions,  as  well  as  awareness  raising  and 
research efforts. 

-  The  spatial  scope  of  all  measures  is  specified  consistently  across  the 

programmeof measures. 

-  In this first implementation cycle of the MSFD, in relation to descriptors for 
which knowledge gaps exist (i.e. D8, D10, D11, D1, 4, 6), the Member State 
reports research efforts. This will allow knowledge gaps to be addressed, but 
also  to  build  upon  the  results  to  enable  the  design  of  measures  which  will 
contribute  directly  to  tackling  the  pressures  in  the  MSFD’s  second 

131 

 
 
 
Weaknesses 

implementation cycle.  

-  The programme partially addresses GES and targets for contaminants (D8), 
underwater noise and energy (D11), fish (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 
6). 

-  The Member State reports that GES will not be achieved by 2020 for non-
indigenous  species  (D2),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3),  contaminants 
(D8),  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9),  marine  litter  (D10).  Exceptions  are 
applied  (except  for  D8),  the  justifications  of  which  are  either  grounded  or 
partially grounded (please see section below on exceptions). 

-  The Member State reports that it cannot estimate if GES will be achieved by 
2020 for hydrographical changes (D7), underwater noise and energy (D11), 
birds,  fish,  mammals  (D1,  4)  and  seabed  habitats  (D1,  4,  6)  because  of 
knowledge gaps. 

-  The Member State did not define GES for water column habitats (D1, 4). 
-  In  some  cases,  the  programme  does  not  include  sufficient  links  to  existing 
European policies and international instruments. It is especially the case for 
eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  (D8)  and 
underwater noise (D11). 

-  Based on the information reported by the Member State on cost and resource 
allocations, timelines of implementation of measures as well as responsible 
bodies  for  implementation,  the  programme  is  likely  to  be  implemented. 
However,  the  implementation  timeline  for  the  new  measures  spans  from 
2017 to 2019, which creates doubts about the timely implementation of the 
programme and thus its contribution to achieving progress towards GES. 
-  The  Member  State  does  not  always  provide  sufficient  details  about  the 
measures  (especially  the  existing  ones)  to  understand  how  they  will 
contribute to progress towards targets and GES (as defined by the Member 
State). 

-  While impact assessments were carried out for new measures, the results do 
not allow for a quantification of what the measures will achieve; i.e. to what 
extent  the  relevant  pressure  will  be  addressed,  and  whether  the  measures 
will be sufficient to achieve GES. 

-  Except  in  few  cases,  the  Member  State  does  not  make  sufficient  links 
between  the  measures  for  the  pressure  descriptors  and  how  they  might 
benefit  the  state  descriptors  (i.e.  biodiversity  descriptors  D1,  4,  6).  This 
prevents  understanding  how  state  descriptors  benefit  from  these  measures, 
which  are  likely  to  contribute  in  addressing  pressures  on  species  and 
habitats. 

-  The programme sometimes includes data collection efforts as measures. 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  introduction  of  non-indigenous  species 
through  aquaculture,  recreational  yachting  and  shipping  via  ballast  water 
management  and  anti-fouling  measures 
the 
linked 
implementation of the BWMC and the Antifouling Convention20). 

(measures 

to 

Strengths 

-  It  includes  early  detection  systems  for  introductions  of  non-indigenous 

species as measures. 

20 International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships (IMO). 

132 

 
 
                                                            
Weaknesses 

-  None  identified  (except  the  fact  that  GES  will  not  be  achieved  by  2020, 
mentioned  above,  which  is  explained  by  a  grounded  justification,  detailed 
below). 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  from  commercial 
(including  for  vessels  larger  than  12 m)  and  recreational  fishing  (although 
there  is  some  uncertainty  about  the  extent  to  which  the  measure  addresses 
this activity as the scope of the measure is limited). 

-  It includes bans for specific fishing tools in sensitive areas (spatial bans put 
in place for several purposes) that are in addition to existing CFP measures. 
-  The  programme  covers  stocks  managed  at  the  national  level  as  well  as 

aspects that relate to age/size structure of species. 

-  The  programme  has  been  linked  to  a  regional  fisheries  management 
the  Mediterranean 

orgnasiation:  General  Fisheries  Commission  for 
(GFCM). 

-  It  also 

includes  awareness  raising  and  educational  measures 

that 

complement direct measures.  

Weaknesses 

-  None  (except  the  fact  that  GES  will  not  be  achieved  by  2020,  mentioned 

above, which is explained by a grounded justification, detailed below). 

D5 — Eutrophication 

-  The  programme  addresses  nutrient  inputs  from  aquaculture,  agriculture, 
urban  activities  (including  municipal  waste  water  discharge),  shipping, 
industry and recreational boating activities. 

-  It  draws  from  the  Member  State’s  WFD  River  Basin  Management  Plans 
(RBMP).  In  the  framework  of  the  MSFD,  most  measures  are  considered 
likely  to  be  sufficient  to  address  pressures  of  nutrient  and  organic  matter 
enrichment in the  marine environment and  cover relevant human activities 
(i.e.  mainly  agriculture,  industry,  wastewater  and  flood  risks).  However, 
considering  the  extent  to  which  the  MSFD  programme  relies  on  WFD 
measures, this statement is subject to the RBMPs being assessed as adequate 
under the WFD assessment, which will be finalised in May 2018. 

-  The programme does not address atmospheric deposition of nutrients from 

sea-based and land-based sources. 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  of  measures  addresses  hydrographical  changes.  The 
Member  State  refers  to  existing  measures  stemming  from  other  legal  acts. 
As such, all projects that are subject to existing authorisation and regulatory 
procedures  are  addressed  in  terms  of  hydrographical  changes  such  as  land 
claim and coastal defence, port operations, industry and dredging (as well as 
desalination/water abstraction to some extent). 

-  It is not clear if the Malta’s programme addresses cumulative impacts (i.e. 
impacts 
from  different/multiple  human  activities  on  hydrography). 
Cumulative impacts are a major issue for the MSFD; assessing cumulative 
impacts  would  require  Member  States  to  consolidate  results  of  individual 
assessments together to assess the overall scale of hydrographical changes.  

D8/D9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  introduction  of  contaminants  through 
measures  that  target  industrial  and  urban  activities,  as  well  as  desalination 

133 

 
 
and aquaculture. 

-  It  addresses  accidental  pollution  by  tackling  industry,  port  operation  and 

shipping. 

-  Malta’s programme addresses contaminant inputs to the sea from land-based 
(e.g.  industry,  agriculture,  urban  areas)  and  sea-based  sources  (e.g.  marine 
hydrocarbon extraction, shipping, aquaculture, dredging). 

-  It includes dedicated measures on contaminants in seafood (D9).  
-  The  programme  addresses  atmospheric  deposition  of  contaminants  through 
an  indirect  measure  (investigations  about  the  potential  contribution  of 
contaminants to coastal waters by atmospheric deposition). 

-  It is not clear whether biological effects by contaminants are covered by the 

measures. 

-  The  programme  does  not  clearly  explain  how  measures  for  contaminants 
(D8)  will  contribute  to  addressing  pressures  for  contaminants  in  seafood 
(D9) and allow for progress towards D9 GES and targets. 

Weaknesses 

D10 — Marine litter 

-  The  programme  addresses  marine 

litter  by  covering 

fisheries, 

tourism/recreational activities and shipping. 

Strengths 

-  It addresses both the reduction of marine litter input in coastal areas and in 

the open sea, as well as the removal of existing litter. 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme specifically covers macro-litter. 
-  Malta’s programme does not specifically cover microplastics (Malta reports 

that no information is yet available in relation to microplastics). 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

-  The  programme  addresses  impulsive  noise  through  measures  that  cover 

marine hydrocarbon extraction. 

Strengths 

-  It  mentions  that  the  establishment  of  a  noise  register  for  impulsive  sound 
has been included as part of its MSFD monitoring actions, which will also 
contribute towards achievement of the D11 target. 

-  The programme links to international organisations (Bonn Convention21 and 

Weaknesses 

ACCOBAMS). 

-  The programme does not address continuous noise from shipping. 
-  It  does  not  include  research  efforts  which  would  aim  to  collect  additional 
data  and  conduct  studies  to  better  characterise  the  pressure  of  noise,  and 
impact  on  fauna  (mainly  marine  mammals)  in  line  with  recommendation 
from TG Noise. 

-  The programme does not address other energy inputs (such as heat or light). 
-  It does not refer to IMO Guidelines on underwater noise.  

D1, 4 — Birds  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  selective  extraction  of  species  (incl.  accidental 
by-catch),  light  disturbance  and  noise.  Various  activities  such  as  fisheries, 
activities attracting predators (rats) or shipping are covered. 

-  It covers bird habitats and their breeding sites. 
-  Malta’s  programme  does  not  address  the  effect  of  non-indigenous  species, 
contaminants  and  marine  litter  on  seabirds.  It  may  be  that  these  are 
somewhat  addressed  by  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  contaminants  (D8) 

21 The Convention on Migratory Species. 

134 

 
 
                                                            
and marine litter (D2) measures, but how the programme will contribute to 
addressing these pressures on birds (D1, 4) specifically cannot be assessed 
based on the information reported. 

D1, 4 — Fish and cephalopods 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  selective  extraction  of  species  (incl.  accidental 

by-catch) from fisheries. 

-  The  measures  addresses  contaminants  and  changes  in  hydrographical 

processes through the D8 and D7 measures. 

-  The  programme  does  not  include  spatial  protection  measures  for  fish  and 
cephalopods (D1, 4). While bans for specific fishing tools in sensitive areas 
have  been  included  under  D3  and  could  have  impacts  on  fish  (D1,  4)  the 
Member State did not make the link. 

-  Even  though  the  programme  complements  commercial  fish  and  shellfish 
(D3)  measures  with  additional  measures,  more  measures  aiming  to  also 
protect  non-commercial  species  and  functional  fish  habitats  are  missing  to 
achieve GES. 

-  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  programme  includes  specific  measures  or  plans 

for cephalopod species. 

-  The  programme  provides  little  information  on  where  and  how  fish  species 

present within the Member State’s territorial waters are protected. 

-  The  programme  does  not  address  the  effect  of  non-indigenous  species, 
marine  litter  and  underwater  noise  on  fish.  It  may  be  that  these  are 
somewhat  addressed  by  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  marine  litter  (D10) 
and  underwater  noise  (D11)  measures,  but  how  it  will  contribute  to 
addressing  these  pressures  on  fish  (D1,  4)  specifically  cannot  be  assessed 
based on the information reported. 

D1, 4 — Mammals  

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  selective  extraction  of  species  (incl.  accidental 
by-catch)  from  fisheries,  collision  with  vessels  (due  to  shipping)  and 
underwater noise from seismic and sonar surveys. 

-  It addresses impact on mammal habitats due to tourism. 
-  The  programme  includes  spatial  protection  measures  to  address  various 

impacts on mammal and reptile habitats and populations. 

-  The programme does not address impacts of underwater noise on mammals 

due to shipping. 

Weaknesses 

-  It  does  not  address  the  effect  of  contaminants  and  marine  litter  on  marine 
mammals.  It  may  be  that  these  are  somewhat  addressed  by  contaminants 
(D8)  and  marine  litter  (D10)  measures,  but  how  the  programme  will 
contribute  to  addressing  these  pressures  on  mammals  (D1,  4)  specifically 
cannot be assessed based on the information reported.  

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  eutrophication  on  water  column  habitats  from 
various human activities such as agriculture, urban, shipping, industry and 
tourism. 

-  The  water  column,  although  considered  in  other  descriptors,  is  mainly 
covered  by  the  Member  State  in  terms  of  water  quality.  Plankton  is  a  key 
feature  of  the  terminology  in  the  monitoring  programmes,  which  is 
referenced in the water column habitats GES and targets definitions but not 

135 

 
 
enough in the programme. Additionally, the water column is a key transfer 
route for the majority of non-seabed species and needs to be considered as 
part  of  the  broader  ecological  coherence  of  the  Member  State’s  waters, 
within  MPAs  and  in  relation  to  foodwebs.  The  water  column  is  often 
discounted  from  such  measures  due  to  a  lack  of  scientific  knowledge  of 
these habitat types. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  physical  loss  from  port  operations  and  offshore 

structures. 

-  Its  measures  address  physical  damage  from  fisheries,  dredging  and 

tourism/recreational activities (including yachting). 

-  The programme does not address physical damage from industry and urban 
activities.  They  are  likely  to  be  covered  by  measures  defined  under  other 
descriptors,  however,  the  link  about  how  these  measures  would  affect 
seabed habitats is no clearly made. 

-  Even though the programme of measures covers destructive fishing practices 
(trawling), their impacts are primarily addressed in MPAs and deep sea but 
not  in  Malta’s  entire  waters.  Therefore,  impacts  from  fisheries  are  covered 
only  in  certain  areas  and  minimal  consideration  is  given  to  the  broader 
issues of trawling outside of these spatially protected areas. 

-  The  programme  does  not  make  links  to  other  descriptors  such  as  non-

indigenous species (D2), contaminants (D8) and marine litter (D10). 

Exceptions 
Malta  applies  an  exception  for  Non-indigenous  species  (D2).  It  applies  Article 14(1)(a) 
(‘action or inaction for which the Member State concerned is not responsible’) in its territorial 
waters.  Malta  states  that,  while  it  can  take  measures  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  non-
indigenous species into Maltese waters from anthropogenic activity, it is not responsible for 
the  management  of  the  marine  areas  at  the  entry  point  of  non-indigenous  species  from  the 
Suez  Canal  into  the  Mediterranean  region.  Malta  cannot  take  measures  to  control  the 
secondary  dispersal  of  species  introduced  through  the  Suez  Canal  into  the  Mediterranean, 
which may compromise the achievement of GES in Maltese waters. This justification is found 
to be grounded. 
The Member State applies an exception for Commercial fish and shellfish (D3). It applies 
Article 14(1)(a)  (‘action  or  inaction  for  which  the  Member  State  concerned  is  not 
responsible’)  within  its  exclusive  economic  zone.  Malta  points  to  the  exploitation  of  shared 
commercial stocks so as to ensure maximum sustainable yield. It states that while its existing 
and  new  measures  are  adequate  to  achieve  environmental  targets  and  contribute  to  the 
achievement of GES within its waters, the achievement of regional GES does not depend on 
Malta’s efforts alone but requires efforts at a regional scale by both EU and third countries. 

This exception is found to be grounded. The measures reported by Malta include a long-term 
strategy to improving fisheries management and governance in the region, including by both 
EU  Member  States  and  third  countries,  which  will  address  issues  reported  under  this 
exception. 
Malta applies an  exception for  Contaminants  in seafood (D9).  It applies  Article 14(1)(a) 
(‘action or inaction for which the Member State concerned is not responsible’) for the entire 
exclusive  economic  zone.  The  exception  is  applied  for  contaminants  exceeding  regulatory 
levels  in  retail  samples  of  pelagic  fish.  Malta  justifies  the  application  of  this  exception  by 

136 

 
 
 
stating  that  the  concentrations  in  seafood  are  not  only  impacted  by  contamination  from 
Maltese  sources,  but  also  by  regional  sources,  and  its  own  measures  alone  might  not  be 
sufficient to avoid harmful contaminant levels in seafood. In detailing its gap analysis, Malta 
refers  to  occasional  high  levels  of  mercury  in  seafood  and  it  is  likely  that  this  exception 
applies to levels of this contaminant. This exception is found to be grounded. 
The  Member  State  applies  an  exception  for  Marine  Litter  (D10).  It  applies 
Article 14(1)(a)  (‘action  or  inaction  for  which  the  Member  State  concerned  is  not 
responsible’)  in  its  territorial  waters.  The  exception  concerns  levels  of  litter,  in  particular 
microlitter,  in  the  marine  environment.  Malta  justifies  the  application  of  the  exception  by 
pointing  to  the  transboundary  nature  of  marine  litter,  stating  that  actions  by  other 
Mediterranean countries may interfere with Malta’s efforts to reduce marine litter in line with 
achieving  GES.  Nevertheless,  Malta  does  not  report  on  what  basis it applies this exception, 
for  example  if  it  has  identified  reasonable  amounts  of  litter  originating  from  neighbouring 
Member  States  through  monitoring.  The  Member  State  also  does  not  report  by  when  it 
expects  GES  to  be  achieved  alternatively.  Hence,  this  exception  is  found  to  be  partially 
grounded. 

Recommendations for Malta to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
-  In general, Malta should better address certain pressures and activities in its programmes of 

measures. These are specified in the descriptor specific recommendations below. 

-  GES and  targets definitions should be better  addressed for contaminants  (D8),  underwater 

noise and energy (D11), fish (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

-  The Member State should strive to determine the timelines for achieving GES (relevant for 
hydrographical  changes  (D7),  underwater  noise  and  energy  (D11),  birds,  fish,  mammals 
(D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6)) and, where there are delays beyond 2020, to report 
exceptions provided these are adequately justified (relevant for marine litter (D10)). 
-  The Member State should provide GES definitions for water column habitats (D1, 4). 
-  The Member State’s programme should establish more links with existing EU policies and 
(D7), 

(D5),  hydrographical  changes 

international 
for  eutrophication 
contaminants (D8) and underwater noise (D11). 

instruments 

-  The  Member  State  should  clearly  explain  whether  the  programme  will  be  timely 

implemented (new measures in place after 2016). 

-  Malta should provide more information about its measures (especially the existing ones) to 
understand how they will contribute to progress towards targets and GES (as defined by the 
Member State). 

-  The  Member  State  should  quantify  the  pressures  present  in  its  waters  and  their  expected 
level of reduction as a result of the established measures. This could be facilitated by further 
efforts  to  address  knowledge  gaps  and  define  the  methodology  for  such  estimations  at 
regional or EU level. Such quantification will also contribute to linking the measures with 
the achievement of GES. 

-  Malta  should  make  better  links  between  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  pressure 
descriptors  and  their  effects  on  the  state  descriptors.  This  would  allow  a  comprehensive 
view of the impact of measures affecting all descriptors. 

-  It  should  ensure  better  linkages  between  its  programme  and  monitoring  programmes,  in 
order to ensure that the effects of the measures, and hence their efficiency and effectiveness 
in meeting targets and GES, are measured through the monitoring programmes. 

137 

 
 
 
-  The  Member  State  should  report  data  collection  efforts  under  the  MSFD  monitoring 
programmes (Article 11) and not under the programme of measures (Article 13). However, 
when knowledge  is too scarce to design  effective measures, it is  useful to indicate actions 
taken to address these gaps via research measures. 

D5 — Eutrophication 
-  Malta  should  establish  measures  to  address  atmospheric  deposition  of  nutrients  from  sea-

based and land-based sources. 
D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  Malta’s programme should address cumulative impacts.  
-  It should utilise synergies with MSP for addressing cumulative impacts for D7. 
D8/D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  direct  measures  on  atmospheric  deposition  of 

contaminants. 

-  It should clearly explain if and how measures cover the biological effects of contaminants. 
-  The programme should better explain the manner in which the contaminants (D8) measures 

contribute to contaminants in seafood D9 targets. 

D10 — Marine litter 
-  The Member State should address micro-litter better, through direct measures, in addition to 

indirect measures, in accordance with recommendations of TG Litter. 

-  It should make efforts to prevent, identify and tackle pollution hot spots (e.g. from plastic 

pellets, lost fishing gear, single-use plastics, etc.). 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 
-  The Member State should establish measures to cover activities that are known to produce 

high levels of noise, as soon as possible (e.g. shipping). 

-  Malta  should  make  more  efforts  to  address  data  gaps  and  consolidate  research  results  to 
move  closer  to  characterising  the  noise  pressure,  in  line  with  the  recommendation  of  TG 
Noise.  This  will  enable  to  then  define  more  practical  and  direct  measures  to  address 
underwater noise in the second MSFD implementation cycle. 

-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  that  address  additional  aspects  of  this 

descriptor, such as heat and light. 

D1, 4 — Birds 
-  The Member State should consider establishing additional measures to address pressures on 
birds  beyond  by-catch.  Measures  could  target  the  effects  of  non-indigenous  species, 
contaminants and marine litter. If these are to be addressed via measures reported for other 
descriptors, the expected effect that measures are to have on birds should be explained. 

D1, 4 — Fish and cephalopods 
-  Malta should establish spatial protection measures for fish and cephalopods. 
-  It  should  establish  additional  measures  aiming  to  protect  non-commercial  species  and 

functional fish habitats. 

-  The Member State should clearly indicate whether it developed measures for cephalopods. 
-  It should provide better information on the level of protection provided for fish (commercial 
and  non-commercial),  in  relation  to  where  fish  species  occur  within  the  Member  State’s 
territorial waters, and how they are protected. 

-  Malta should consider establishing additional measures to address pressures on fish beyond 
by-catch.  Measures  could  target  the  effects  of  non-indigenous  species,  marine  litter  and 
underwater noise. If these are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors, 
the expected effect that measures are to have on fish should be explained. 

D1, 4 — Mammals 

138 

 
 
-  The  Member  State  should  consider  establishing  additional  measures  to  address  relevant 
pressures  on  mammals  beyond  by-catch  (e.g.  underwater  noise  due  to  shipping, 
contaminants and marine litter). If these are to be addressed via measures reported for other 
descriptors, the expected effect that measures are to have on mammals should be explained.  

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  The  Member  State  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other 

descriptors address pressures for water column habitats (and plankton). 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  The Member State should establish measures addressing physical damage from industry and 
urban activities. If these are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors, the 
expected effect that measures are to have on seabed habitats should be explained. 

-  It should establish measures covering destructive fishing practices (trawling) beyond MPAs 

and deep sea areas. 

-  If seabed habitats are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors (e.g. D2, 
D8,  D10),  the  Malta  should  explain  the  expected  effect  that  measures  have  on  seabed 
habitats. 
Exceptions 
-  The Member State should provide more robust justifications for its exceptions, when these 

are assessed as partially grounded (marine litter (D10)). 

139 

 
 
 
 
12. The Netherlands 

General conclusions on the Netherlands’ programme of measures 

General strengths and weaknesses 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  of  measures  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  almost  all 

descriptors. 

-  The  Member  state  considers  that  GES  will  be  achieved  by  2020  for  marine 

litter (D10) and underwater noise and energy (D11). 

-  The Member State considers that GES is already achieved for hydrographical 

changes (D7) and contaminants in seafood (D9). 

-  The  Member  State  has  brought  together  and  coordinated  existing  national 
measures  and  processes  (related  to  the  implementation  of  EU  legal  acts  and 
regulations,  as  well  as  regional  commitments  to  protect  the  marine 
environment  more  efficiently),  and  also  established  new  measures  that 
complement  those  already  in  place  to  specifically  target  pressures  on  the 
marine environment which were not otherwise covered. 

-  The programme includes measures that are based on commitments to existing 
European, regional and international policies, such as the Birds and Habitats 
Directives (D1, 4, 6, D2, D7, D11), Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 (D2), the 
Common  Fisheries  Policy  (D1,  4,  6,  D3),  the  Nitrates  Directive  (D5),  the 
Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD;  D1,  4,  6,  D5,  D7,  D8),  the  Urban 
Wastewater  Treatment  Directive  (UWWTD;  D5),  the  Industrial  Emissions 
Directive  (IED)  (D8),  Regulation  (EC)  No  1881/2006  on  setting  maximum 
levels  for  certain  contaminants  in  foodstuffs  (D9),  the  Port  Reception 
Facilities  Directive  (D10),  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  (EIA) 
Directive (D1, 4, 6, D7), the Waste Framework Directive (D10), the OSPAR 
(D1, 4, 6, D2, D8, D10, D11) and the Ballast Water conventions (D2, D8) as 
well  as  IMO-MARPOL  (D2,  D5,  D8,  D10)  and  IMO  —  Guidelines  on 
underwater noise (D11). 

-  It includes both existing, and new measures that complement those already in 
place that specifically target pressures on the marine environment which were 
not otherwise covered. 

-  The  programme  includes  spatial  protection  measures  (including  MPAs). 
These  measures  address  more  than  one  descriptor  at  a  time  and  therefore 
contribute  towards  GES  and  targets  for  several  descriptors.  Measures 
especially include the strengthening of MPA networks and the establishment 
of management measures. 

-  It  combines  direct  and  indirect  measures.  Most  measures  directly  address 
pressures  on  the  marine  environment.  Indirect  measures  complement  the 
direct  ones,  through  governance  and  coordination  actions,  as  well  as 
awareness raising efforts. 

-  Based  on  the  information  reported  by  the  Netherlands  on  cost  and  resource 
allocations,  as  well  as  the  responsible  bodies  for  implementation,  the 
measures are likely to be implemented in the future and will thus contribute to 
achieving GES by 2020. 

-  In this first implementation cycle of the MSFD, in relation to descriptors for 
which  knowledge  gaps  exist  (i.e.  D11),  the  Member  State  reports  research 

140 

 
 
 
efforts. This will allow addressing knowledge gaps but also to build upon the 
results  to  design  measures,  which  will  contribute  directly  to  tackling  the 
pressures in the MSFD’s second implementation cycle. 

-  The  spatial  scope  of  the  measures  is  specified  consistently  across  the 

programme of measures. 

-  The  programme  does  not  fully  address  GES  and  targets  for  water  column 

habitats (D1, 4) for which no targets are defined. 

-  The  Member  State  considers  that  GES  will  not  be  achieved  by  2020  for 
biodiversity  (D1,  4,  6),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3),  eutrophication 
(D5) and contaminants (D8).  

-  In  its  programme  of  measures,  the  Netherlands  does  not  provide  a  timeline 

for the achievement of GES for non-indigenous species (D2). 

-  Exceptions  are  applied  for  eutrophication  (D5)  and  contaminants  (D8),  but 
not for the other descriptors for which doubts about achieving GES by 2020 
are  raised.  Not  enough  justifications  are  provided  for  the  reasons  why  GES 
will not be achieved by 2020 for commercial fish and shellfish (D3), and the 
biodiversity descriptors (D1, 4, 6). 

-  In  some  cases,  the  programme  does  not  include  sufficient  links  to  existing 
European policies and international instruments. It is especially the case for 
eutrophication (D5), hydrographical changes (D7) and contaminants (D8). 
-  While impact assessments were carried out for new measures, the results do 
not allow for a quantification of what the measures will achieve; i.e. to what 
extent the relevant pressure will be addressed, and whether the measures will 
be sufficient to achieve GES. 

-  It includes spatial measures whose exact geographical coverage was not clear 
at  the  time  of  reporting.  Therefore,  it  is  not  possible  to  provide  a  clear  and 
specific  assessment  on  the  management  efforts  in  place  (or  to  be 
implemented in the future). 

-  The  Netherlands  does  not  report  a  timeline  for  the  implementation  of  its 
measures (due to national or international processes, implementation of some 
measures  may  be  delayed,  but  all  measures  are  expected  to  contribute  to 
progress towards GES by 2020). 

Weaknesses 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  introduction  of  non-indigenous  species  by 
tackling aquaculture and shipping via ballast water management (link to the 
BWMC) and anti-fouling measures. 

-  It is unclear whether the measures cover recreational vessels. 
-  The  programme  does  not  include early  warning  systems  of  non-indigenous 

species introductions as measures. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  by  covering  fisheries 

(commercial fishing). 

Strengths 

-  It includes seasonal and spatial fishing bans (for several purposes including 
stock  management  and  biodiversity  conservation)  that  are  in  addition  to 
existing CFP measures. 

-  The  measures  cover  stocks  managed  at  the  national  level,  non-targeted 

species as well as age/size structure 

Weaknesses 

-  It is not clear whether recreational fishing is addressed (although reported in 

141 

 
 
 
Article 8 by the Member State and the neighbouring countries).  

D5 — Eutrophication 

-  The  programme  addresses  nutrient  enrichment  from  agriculture,  urban, 

industry and shipping sources. 

-  It  draws  from  the  Member  State’s  WFD  River  Basin  Management  Plans 
(RBMP).  In  the  framework  of  the  MSFD,  most  are  considered  likely  to  be 
sufficient  to  address  pressures  of  nutrient  and  organic  matter  enrichment  in 
the  marine  environment  and  cover  relevant  human  activities  (i.e.  mainly 
agriculture,  industry,  wastewater  and  flood  risks).  However,  considering  the 
extent  to  which  the  MSFD  programme  relies  on  WFD  measures,  this 
statement is subject to the RBMPs being assessed as adequate under the WFD 
assessment. 

-  The programme addresses atmospheric deposition of nutrients (NOx). 
None (except the fact that GES will not be achieved by 2020, mentioned above, 
which is explained by a partially grounded justification, detailed below). 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme addresses the interference with hydrological processes from 

various activities, though these are nevertheless not specified. 

-  It  includes  a  single  existing  measure  for  D7,  which  stems  from  other  legal 
acts.  As  such,  all  new  projects  that  are  subject  to  existing  authorisation  and 
regulatory procedures are addressed in terms of hydrographical changes. 

-  The programme utilises synergies with the EIA and SEA Directives, as well 

as with the WFD. 

i.e. 

impacts 

-  The programme does not explain how it will address the issue of cumulative 
impacts, 
from  different/multiple  human  activities  on 
hydrography. Cumulative impacts are a major issue for the MSFD; assessing 
cumulative  impacts  would  require  Member  States  to  consolidate  results  of 
individual assessments together to assess the overall scale of hydrographical 
changes. This is not currently being done by the Netherlands. 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood 

-  The programme addresses the introduction of contaminants from land-based 
sources  (i.e.  industry,  agriculture,  urban  activities,  recreation/tourism)  and 
sea-based  sources  (i.e.  shipping,  marine  hydrocarbon  extraction),  as  well  as 
the effect of contaminants on biodiversity. 

-  It  addresses  accidental  pollution  from  shipping  and  marine  hydrocarbon 

Strengths 

extraction. 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme addresses atmospheric deposition of contaminants. 
-  The  Member  State  does  not  clearly  explain  how  measures  for  contaminants 
(D8) will contribute to addressing pressures for contaminants in seafood (D9) 
and allow for progress towards D9 GES and targets. 

D10 — Marine litter 

Strengths 

-  The programme addresses marine litter by covering land-based (e.g. industry, 

tourism) and sea-based (e.g. fisheries, shipping) sources of litter. 

-  It  addresses  the  reduction  of  marine  litter  input  in  coastal  areas  and  in  the 

open sea, as well as the removal of existing litter. 

-  The  programme  covers  both  macro  and  micro-litter  (focused  on  industry, 

namely cosmetics). 

Weaknesses  -  None identified. 

142 

 
 
D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  underwater  noise  from  marine-based  renewable 
energy  generation,  shipping,  marine  hydrocarbon  extraction  and  other,  not 
detailed, activities. 

-  It addresses other energy inputs (light). 

Weaknesses  -  None identified. 
D1, 4 — Birds  

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  (incl.  by-catch)  from 

fisheries. 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  It addresses impacts on breeding and refuge areas and biological disturbance 
caused by  various activities (e.g. land claim,  dredging, sand extraction,  civil 
aviation, maintenance of cables and pipelines). 

-  The  programme  does  not  explain  how  the  effects  of  non-indigenous  species 
and marine litter on seabirds are addressed. It is possible that these pressures 
are addressed by the groups of measures reported for non-indigenous species 
(D2)  and  marine  litter  (D10),  but  based  on  the  information  reported  this 
cannot  be  determined.  This  does  not  allow  for  an  understanding  of  how  the 
state descriptors will benefit from these measures. 

D1, 4 — Fish 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  (incl.  by-catch)  from 

fisheries, and the extraction of species affecting migratory fish. 

-  The measures address biological disturbances from various activities. 
-  It  includes  spatial  protection  measures  to  complement  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish (D3) and protect non-commercial  species as  well as  functional fish 
habitats. 

-  None  (except  the  fact  that  GES  will  not  be  achieved  by  2020,  mentioned 

above). 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

D1, 4 — Mammals  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme addresses selective extraction of species (incl. accidental by-
catch),  and  biological  disturbances.  Various  activities  such  as  fisheries  and 
dredging are covered. 

-  The  programme  does  not  explain  how  contaminants  and  marine  litter  on 
mammals is addressed. It is possible that these pressures are addressed by the 
groups  of  measures  reported  for  contaminants  (D8)  and  marine  litter  (D10), 
but  based  on  the  information  reported  this  cannot  be  determined.  This  does 
not allow for an understanding of how the state descriptors will benefit from 
these measures. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme includes measures that are relevant to water column habitats 
(spatial protection measures and measures aiming at improving seabed habitat 
condition and reduce waste water runoff) although they are not specific to this 
habitat. 

-  The programme partially addresses pressures on water column habitats, as no 
specific  water  column  habitat  measure  have  been  reported  and  the  Member 
State does not clearly identify how measures reported under other descriptors 
(e.g., D2, D5, D8) will address relevant pressures on this habitat. 

-  The  water  column,  although  considered  in  other  descriptors,  is  mainly 
covered  by  the  Member  State  in  terms  of  water  quality.  Plankton  is  a  key 

143 

 
 
feature  of  the  terminology  in  the  monitoring  programmes,  which  is  rarely 
referenced in  the  biodiversity  measures.  Additionally,  the  water  column  is  a 
key  transfer  route  for  the  majority  of  non-seabed  species  and  needs  to  be 
considered as part of the broader ecological coherence of the Member State’s 
waters, within MPAs and in relation to food webs. The water column is often 
discounted from such measures due to a lack of scientific knowledge of these 
habitat types. 
D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

-  The  programme  addresses  physical  damage  caused  from  fisheries,  dredging, 

maintenance of cables and pipelines. 

-  It addresses physical loss caused from dredging, land claim, sand and gravel 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

extraction and coastal defence. 

-  Measures  address  biological  disturbance  from  various  activities  such  as 

recreation or fishing, among others. 

-  It  includes  measures  that  target  destructive  fishing  practices  particularly  in 

MPAs but also outside spatially protected areas. 

-  The  programme  mainly 

includes  fisheries  restrictions  within  spatial 
protection measures, which are often lacking in detail on their area coverage, 
temporal  ranges  of  restrictions  and  minimal  consideration  is  given  to  the 
broader issues of trawling outside of these spatially protected areas. 

-  Most  measures  relate  to  physical  loss  and  damage  to  seabed  habitat,  with 
minimal  consideration  of  other  pressures  such  as  non-indigenous  species, 
eutrophication and marine litter. 

Exceptions 
The  Netherlands  applies  an  exception  for  eutrophication  (D5).  It  applies  Article 14(4) 
(‘No significant risks and disproportionality of costs’), Article 14(1)(a) (‘action or inaction for 
which  the  Member  State  concerned  is  not  responsible’)  and  Article 14(1)(b)  (‘natural 
causes’).  The  exception  includes  several  aspects,  such  as  nitrogen  during  high-volume  river 
discharges  (due  to  climate  change),  sediment  as  a  source  of  phosphorus,  and  nutrient 
emissions  from  upstream  countries  affecting  their  rivers  and  eventually  marine  waters. 
Furthermore,  the  Member  State  reports  that  there  are  limited  eutrophication  effects  in  its 
marine waters, yet OSPAR’s reports contradict this last statement. 

This assessment finds that the justifications provided are partially grounded, as even though 
natural  and  transboundary  effects  reduce  the  likelihood  of  achieving  GES  for  D5  for  the 
Netherlands and the costs to remove historically contaminated sediments are high, the risk of 
eutrophication in the Dutch North Sea is important (according to OSPAR).  Furthermore, no 
ad-hoc measures appear to have been reported in relation to Article 14(1)(b) (‘natural causes’) 
as per MSFD requirements.  
The  Netherlands  applies  an  exception  for  contaminants  (D8).  It  applies  Article 14(1)(e) 
(‘natural conditions which do not allow timely improvement in the status of the marine waters 
concerned’).  The  exception  states  that  the  reported  measures  represent  the  maximum  effort 
that can be made to achieve GES for D8. However, there are no technical measures that could 
prevent the presence of hazardous substances in the Dutch part of the North Sea and, because 
of the natural conditions, the situation cannot improve quickly enough. 

This  assessment  finds  that  the  justification  of  the  exception  provided  is  partially  grounded. 
Historical contamination of the North Sea is an issue, but natural conditions represent part of 

144 

 
 
 
 
the reason why the achievement of GES will be delayed beyond 2020. It should be noted that 
the  Member  State  does  not  specify  when  GES  is  expected  to  be  achieved  as  per  MSFD 
requirements (in relation to Article 14(1)(e)). 

Recommendations for the Netherlands to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
-  In  general,  the  Netherlands  should  better  address  certain  pressures  and  activities  in  its 
programme  of  measures.  These  are  specified  in  the  descriptor  specific  recommendations 
below. 

-  It  should  establish  additional  measures  to  fully  address  GES  definition  for  water  column 

habitats (D1, 4) and define targets for this descriptor. 

-  The Member State should strive to determine the timelines for achieving GES (relevant for 
non-indigenous species (D2)) and, where there are delays beyond 2020, to report exceptions 
provided these are adequately justified (relevant for biodiversity (D1, 4, 6) and commercial 
fish and shellfish (D3)). Furthermore, if GES is not expected to be achieved by 2020, then 
the  Member  State  should  estimate  the  alternative  dates  by  when  GES  will  be  achieved 
(relevant to D5 and D8). 

-  The  programme  of  the  Netherlands  should  establish  more  links  with  existing  EU  policies 
and  international  instruments  for  eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7)  and 
contaminants (D8). 

-  The  Member  State  should  quantify  the  pressures  present  in  its  waters  and  their  expected 
level of reduction as a result of the established measures. This could be facilitated by further 
efforts  to  address  knowledge  gaps  and  define  the  methodology  for  such  estimations  at 
regional or EU level. Such quantification will also contribute to linking the measures with 
the achievement of GES. 

-  It should provide more information about its spatial protection measures (representation of 
species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number  and  location  of  MPAs,  the 
conservation  objectives  of  the  MPAs  and  the  policies  and  measures  that  will  be  in  place 
within these areas). 

-  The  programme  should  indicate  a  timeline  for  the  implementation  of  the  measures 
(especially  for  biodiversity  (D1,  4,  6),  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish  (D3),  eutrophication  (D5),  marine  litter  (D10)  and  underwater  noise  and  energy 
(D11)). 

-  The Netherlands should develop more research efforts to fill knowledge gaps and provide an 

assessment on when GES will be achieved. 

-  The  Member  State  should  ensure  coherence  of  its  determinations  of  GES,  environmental 
targets  and  the  programme  of  measures.  This  would  allow  to  use  environmental  targets 
systematically as milestones towards achieving GES through the measures, and monitor this 
progress  through  the  MSFD  monitoring  programmes.  This  is  applicable  mainly  to  birds, 
mammals, fish, water column habitats and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 
- The Member State should specify whether its measures cover recreational activities. 
- It should consider developing non-indigenous species early warning systems and registries 

as part of their measures. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 
-  The Member State should cover recreational fishing activities (if relevant).  
D7 — Hydrographical changes 

145 

 
 
 
-  The Netherlands should address cumulative impacts on habitats by multiple stressors. 
-  It should utilise synergies with MSP for addressing cumulative impacts. 
-  The Member State should better address pressures from activities not subject to local/project 
scale  EIAs  (e.g.  fishing,  maritime  transport).  In  some  cases  (e.g.  hydrological  changes 
where local dimension is important) this gap hampers the assessment of cumulative effects. 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 
-  The Member State should better explain the manner in which the D8 measures contribute to 

D9 targets. 

D10 — Marine litter 
-  The  Member  State  should  make  efforts  to  identify  pollution  hot  spots  (e.g.  from  plastic 

pellets, lost fishing gear, etc.). 

D1, 4 — Birds  
-  The Member State should specify how pressures on birds beyond by-catch are addressed (or 

will be addressed), namely the effects of non-indigenous species and ingestion of litter. 

D1, 4 — Mammals  
-  The Netherlands should specify how pressures on mammals beyond by-catch are addressed 

(or will be addressed), namely the contaminants and litter. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  The  Member  State  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other 
descriptors  address  pressures  for  water  column  habitats  (and  plankton),  and  elaborate  on 
how GES and targets for water column habitats are expected to be achieved. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  The  Netherlands  should  provide  timescales  and  estimates  of  how  spatial  restrictions  of 

seabed damaging activities will allow for GES to be achieved. 

-  It  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other  descriptors  (such  as 
non-indigenous species (D2), eutrophication (D5) and marine litter (D10)) address pressures 
for  seabed  habitats,  and  further  elaborate  on  how  GES  and  targets  for  seabed  habitats  are 
expected to be achieved. 

Exceptions 
The Member State should provide more robust justifications for its exceptions, when these are 
assessed as partially grounded (relevant for D5 and D8). It should also report ad-hoc measures 
in relation to Article 14(1)(b) and specify when it expects GES to be achieved in relation to 
Article 14(1)(e). 

146 

 
 
 
 
13.  Poland 

General conclusions on the Polans’s programme of measures 

General strengths and weaknesses 

-  Poland’s  programme  of  measures  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  non-
indigenous  species  (D2),  contaminants  (D8),  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9), 
birds, fish (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

-  The Member State reports that GES will be achieved by 2020 for birds (D1, 

4). 

-  The programme includes measures that are based on commitments to existing 
European  policies  as  well  as  regional  and  international  agreements,  such  as 
the Birds and Habitats Directives (D1, 4, 6), Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 
(D2), the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP; D3, D1, 4, 6), the Nitrate Directive 
(D5),  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD;  D5,  D8),  Urban  Wastewater 
Treatment Directive (UWWTD; D5), the National Emission Ceiling Directive 
(D5,  D8),  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (D5,  D8),  the  EIA  Directive 
(D7),  the  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Directive  (all  descriptors),  Regulation 
(EC) No 782/2003 on the prohibition of organotin compounds of ships (D8) 
as  well  as  international  instruments  such  as  the  International  Maritime 
Organisation’s  (IMO)  —  International  Convention  for  the  Prevention  of 
Pollution  from  Ships  (MARPOL)  (D5,  D8)  or  the  IMO-Ballast  Water 
Management Convention (D2) and regional actions such as HELCOM action 
plan  on  marine  litter  (D10)  or  the  HELCOM  Baltic  Sea  action  plan  (all 
descriptors); among many others. 

-  It includes both existing and new measures that complement those already in 
place to specifically target pressures on the marine environment which were 
not otherwise covered. 

-  The programme includes spatial protection measures. These measures address 
more  than  one  descriptor  and  therefore  contribute  towards  GES  and  targets 
for  several  descriptors,  through  the  strengthening  of  MPA  networks  and  the 
establishment of management measures within MPAs. 

-  It  combines  direct  and  indirect  measures,  thus  directly  addressing  pressures 
on  the  marine  environment  while  simultaneously  implementing  measures 
which complement the direct measures through governance and coordination 
actions, as well as awareness raising efforts. 

-  In this first implementation cycle of the MSFD, in relation to descriptors for 
which  knowledge  gaps  exist  (i.e.  all  descriptors),  the  Member  State  reports 
research efforts. This will allow knowledge gaps to be addressed, but also to 
build upon the results to enable the design of measures, which will contribute 
directly  to  tackling  the  pressures  in  the  MSFD’s  second  implementation 
cycle.  

-  The programme partially addresses GES and targets for commercial fish and 
shellfish  (D3),  eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  marine 
litter (D10), underwater noise and energy (D11), mammals and water column 
habitats (D1, 4). 

-  It  does  not  report  any  timeline  for  achieving  GES  for  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish  (D3),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9), 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

147 

 
 
 
marine  litter  (D10),  underwater  noise  and  energy  (D11)  and  water  column 
habitats  (D1,  4).  This  may  jeopardise  the  ability  of  Member  States  to 
determine progress toward achieving GES by 2020. 

-  The  Member  State  reports  that  GES  will  not  be  achieved  by  2020  for  non-
indigenous  species  (D2),  eutrophication  (D5),  contaminants  (D8),  fish, 
mammals (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). Exceptions are applied, the 
justifications  of  which  are  either  grounded,  partially  grounded  or  not 
grounded (please see section below on exceptions). 

-  In  rare  cases,  the  programme  does  not  include  sufficient  links  to  existing 
European  policies  as  well  as  international  instruments.  It  is  the  case  for  the 
biodiversity  descriptors,  hydrographical  changes  (D7)  and  underwater  noise 
(D11). 

-  Based on the information reported by the Member State on cost and resource 
allocations,  timelines  of  implementation  of  measures  as  well  as  responsible 
bodies  for  implementation,  the  likelihood  of  implementation  is  moderate. 
Timelines are not consistently provided. 

-  The  Member  State  does  not  always  provide  sufficient  details  about  the 
measures to understand how they will contribute to progress towards targets 
and GES (as defined by the Member State). 

-  The  programme  includes  spatial  measures  that  do  not  always  provide  clear 
and  specific  information  on  the  management  efforts  in  place  (or  to  be 
implemented  in  the  future).  Information  gaps  include  the  representation  of 
species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number,  and  location  of 
MPAs and the conservation objectives of the MPAs. 

-  While impact assessments were carried out for new measures, the results do 
not allow for a quantification of what the measures will achieve; i.e. to what 
extent the relevant pressure will be addressed, and whether the measures will 
be sufficient to achieve GES. 

-  The spatial scope of the measures is only specified for the new measures (not 
for the existing ones). It is therefore not clear whether all waters are covered. 

-  The programme sometimes includes data collection efforts, as measures. 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 

-  The  programme  addresses  introductions  of  non-indigenous  species  through 

aquaculture and shipping (ballast water and anti-fouling). 

Strengths 

-  It includes early warning systems for introductions of non-indigenous species 

as measures. 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme covers recreational activities. 
-  None  (except  the  fact  that  GES  will  not  be  achieved  by  2020,  mentioned 

above, which is explained by a grounded justification, detailed below).  

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  from  commercial  and 

recreational fishing. 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  It proposes seasonal and spatial fishing bans (for several purposes including 
stock management and biodiversity conservation, protection of over-exploited 
stocks) that are in addition to existing CFP measures. 

-  The programme does not address the extraction of species from seaweed and 
other  sea-based  food  harvesting,  although  it  was  identified  as  a  relevant 
pressure. 

148 

 
 
D5 — Eutrophication 

-  The  programme  addresses  nutrient  enrichment  from  agriculture,  urban 

activities, industry, aquaculture and shipping. 

-  It  draws  from  the  Member  State’s  WFD  River  Basin  Management  Plans 
(RBMP).  In  the  framework  of  the  MSFD,  most  are  considered  likely  to  be 
sufficient  to  address  pressures  of  nutrient  and  organic  matter  enrichment  in 
the  marine  environment  and  cover  relevant  human  activities  (i.e.  mainly 
agriculture,  industry,  wastewater  and  flood  risks).  However,  considering  the 
extent  to  which  the  MSFD  programme  relies  on  WFD  measures,  this 
statement is subject to the RBMPs being assessed as adequate under the WFD 
assessment. 

-  The  programme  addresses  atmospheric  deposition  of  nutrients  (NOx)  from 
sea-based  (link  to  IMO-MARPOL)  and  land-based  sources  (link  to  the  IED 
and NEC Directives). 

-  The  programme  does  not  address  nutrient  enrichment  from  solid  waste 
disposal  and  fishing  (which  were  both  reported  as  relevant  by  the  Member 
State in its Article 8). 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  includes  existing  measures  stemming  from  other  legal  acts. 
As such, all projects that are subject to existing authorisation and regulatory 
procedures are addressed in terms of hydrographical changes. 

-  The measures does not clearly address waste disposal, shipping and tourism 

(identified by Poland as relevant in its Article 8 report). 

-  The  programme  does  not  address  cumulative  impacts,  i.e.  impacts  from 
different/multiple  human  activities/projects  on  hydrography.  Cumulative 
impacts are a major issue for the MSFD; assessing cumulative impacts would 
require  Member  States  to  consolidate  results  of  individual  assessments 
together to assess the overall scale of hydrographical changes. 

-  It does not make a clear link to SEA procedures. 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood 

-  The programme addresses the introduction contaminants from industry, urban 
activities, agriculture, fisheries, shipping. The measures also cover accidental 
pollution (mainly due to shipping). 

-  It  addresses  atmospheric  deposition  of  contaminants  (link  to  Industrial 

Strengths 

Emissions Directive and the National Emission Ceiling Directive). 

-  The programme includes specific measures for contaminants in seafood (D9). 
-  It  also  explains  how  measures  for  contaminants  (D8)  will  contribute  to 
addressing  pressures  for  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9)  and  allow  progress 
towards GES and targets for this descriptor. 

-  None  (except  the  fact  that  GES  for  D8  will  not  be  achieved  by  2020, 
mentioned  above,  which  is  explained  by  a  grounded  justification,  detailed 
below, and no timeline is provided for D9, also highlighted above). 

Weaknesses 

D10 — Marine litter 

-  The programme addresses marine litter by covering shipping, fisheries, ports, 

urban areas, agriculture and tourism/recreational activities. 

Strengths 

-  It  addresses  the  reduction  of  marine  litter  input  in  coastal  areas  and  in  the 

open sea, as well as the removal of existing litter. 

-  The programme specifically covers macro-litter with measures targeting litter 

149 

 
 
removal. 

-  It  includes  efforts  to  address  knowledge  gaps  for  micro-litter,  which,  while 
not  yet  fully  addressing  the  problem,  will  positively  contribute  to  better 
characterising the pressure and its potential impact on fauna. 

-  The  programme  does  not  yet  fully  address  micro-litter,  referring  to 

knowledge gaps which the indirect measures will address.  

Weaknesses 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

-  The  programme  addresses  underwater  noise  caused  by  shipping  and  port 

Strengths 

operations. 

-  It includes efforts to address knowledge gaps for underwater noise. 
-  The  programme  does  not  address  underwater  noise  from  marine-based 

renewable energy, fisheries. 

-  It is not clear whether the programme addresses other energy inputs (such as 

Weaknesses 

heat or light).  

D1, 4 — Birds  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  of  measures  addresses  accidental  by-catch  and  other 
pressures on bird species and habitats, such as oil pollution, through fisheries 
and shipping management measures. 

-  It does not explain how the effects of non-indigenous species, marine litter as 
well  as  light  pollution  on  seabirds  are  addressed,  and  does  not  cover  birds’ 
food sources. It is possible that these are addressed by the groups of measures 
for  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  marine  litter  (D10)  and  underwater  noise 
and  energy  (D11),  but  based  on  the  information  reported  this  cannot  be 
determined.  This  does  not  allow  for  an  understanding  of  how  the  state 
descriptors will benefit from these measures. 

D1, 4 — Fish  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  accidental  by-catch  and  other  pressures  on  fish 

species and habitats through fisheries management measures. 

-  It  includes  spatial  protection  measures  to  complement  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish (D3) and protect non-commercial  species as  well as  functional fish 
habitats. 

-  None  (except  the  fact  that  GES  will  not  be  achieved  by  2020,  mentioned 

above, which is explained by a partially grounded justification). 

D1, 4 — Mammals 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  Poland’s programme addresses by-catch due to fisheries, oil pollution due to 
shipping and other impacts on marine mammals (biological disturbance) such 
as habitat loss. 

-  The  programme  does  not  explain  how  impacts  from  underwater  noise  and 
marine litter on mammals are addressed. It is possible that these pressures are 
addressed  by  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  marine  litter  (D10)  and 
underwater noise (D11), but based on the information reported this cannot be 
determined.  This  does  not  allow  for  an  understanding  of  how  the  state 
descriptors will benefit from these measures. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  contaminants  and  eutrophication  as  well  as  other 
pressures on water column habitats (no human activity has been specified). 
-  The  programme  does  not  include  dedicated  measures  addressing  water 
column  habitats.  It  is  possible  that  pressures  on  water  column  habitats  are 

150 

 
 
reported 

for  non-indigenous  species 

(D2), 
addressed  via  measures 
eutrophication (D5), contaminants (D8) and marine litter (D10); but how the 
programme will contribute to addressing pressures on water column habitats 
(D1, 4) specifically cannot be determined based on the information reported. 
-  The  water  column,  although  considered  in  other  descriptors,  is  mainly 
covered in terms of water quality. Plankton is a key feature of the terminology 
in the monitoring programmes, which is rarely referenced in the biodiversity 
measures.  Additionally,  the  water  column  is  a  key  transfer  route  for  the 
majority  of  non-seabed  species  and  needs  to  be  considered  as  part  of  the 
broader ecological coherence of Member State’s waters, within MPAs and in 
relation  to  food  webs.  The  water  column  is  often  discounted  from  such 
measures due to a lack of scientific knowledge of these habitat types. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  physical  loss  and  physical  damage  caused  by 
bottom-trawl fishing, marine renewable energy and dumping of sediments; as 
well as pollution from urban waste water. 

-  It  includes  existing  measures  that  target  destructive  fishing  practices 

Weaknesses 

(trawling). 

-  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  programme  of  measures  covers  recreational 

activities. 

-  Spatial protection measures are often lacking in detail on their area coverage, 

temporal ranges of restrictions. 

-  Other pressures such as eutrophication (D5) and marine litter (D10) have not 
been considered. It is possible that pressures on seabed habitats are addressed 
via  measures  reported  for  eutrophication  (D5)  and  marine  litter  (D10);  but 
how the programme will contribute to addressing pressures on seabed habitats 
(D1,  4,  6)  specifically  cannot  be  determined  based  on  the  information 
reported. 

Exceptions 
Poland  applies  an  exception  for  non-indigenous  species  (D2).  It  applies  Article 14(1)(a) 
(‘action or inaction for which the Member State concerned is not responsible’). Poland reports 
that the likelihood of achieving GES for D2 by 2020 is low, and it applies an exception. The 
justification  provided  for  the  application  of  the  exception  is  that  the  introductions  of  non-
indigenous species are from transboundary sources, with specific reference to non-indigenous 
species being introduced from bordering waters that are outside of EU control. 

The  provided  justification  is  grounded  as  indeed  it  is  likely  that  already  introduced  non-
indigenous  species  in  the  Baltic  Sea  could  spread  into  Polish  marine  waters  and  it  is  very 
difficult  to  control  this  spread  once  these  species  have  entered  the  marine  environment. 
Furthermore, the Member State has defined relevant new measures to address non-indigenous 
species introduction from national sources. 
Poland applies an exception for eutrophication (D5). It applies Article 14(1)(a) (‘action or 
inaction  for  which  the  Member  State  concerned  is  not  responsible’)  and  Article 14(1)(e) 
(‘natural conditions which do not allow timely improvement in the status of the marine waters 
concerned’). Poland applies this exception for ‘most of environmental targets related to D5’, 
which covers all of its marine waters. Poland states that it will take decades for the ecosystem 
to  start  recovering,  considering  that  water  residence  time  in  the  Baltic  is  approximately  20 
years  and  that  internal  loading  will  continue  to  play  a  significant  role  even  after  external 

151 

 
 
 
loading is curbed. This mainly relates Article 14(1)(e). 

This  assessment  finds  the  justification  provided  for  not  reaching  GES  for  D5  by  2020  is 
grounded.  Historically-enriched  sediment  may  continue  to  be  a  net  source  of  nutrients  for 
decades after nutrient loads to both fresh and marine surface waters have been reduced, which 
would indeed influence GES being achieved.  
The Member State applies an exception for contaminants (D8). It applies Article 14(1)(e) 
(‘natural conditions which do not allow timely improvement in the status of the marine waters 
concerned’). The exception is applied for only one marine area (area 62) where the status is 
considered  to  be  below  GES.  Poland  clarified  that  the  initial  assessment  for  contaminants 
(D8)  determined  that  GES  has  been  achieved  in  all  other  marine  areas,  and  that  the  new 
measures complement the existing ones and will contribute to the maintenance of GES. The 
justification  is  that  some  substances  concerned  have  long  decay  periods  and  it  is  highly 
unlikely  they  will  decompose  or  be  absorbed  into  sediments  fast  enough  to  reach  GES  by 
2020. At the same time Poland adds that loads and concentrations of contaminants have been 
generally decreasing in the past 20 years, although this downward trend is clearer in the case 
of heavy metals than in the case of particulate organic carbons. 

This  assessment  finds  the  justifications  provided  by  Poland  to  be  grounded  as  indeed  some 
contaminants (heavy metals, dioxins and particulate organic carbons) are persistent and take a 
long time to break down in the marine environment. Nevertheless, Poland does not provide a 
date  of  when  GES  is  expected  to  be  achieved  as  required  by  the  MSFD  (in  relation  to 
Article 14(1)(e)). 
The Member State applies an exception for fish (D1, 4). It applies Article 14(1)(e) (‘natural 
conditions  which  do  not  allow  timely  improvement  in  the  status  of  the  marine  waters 
concerned’). Poland states that the LFI (Large Fish Indicator) is dependent on the size of cod, 
which  is  strongly  correlated  to  climatic  conditions  of  temperature  and  salinity.  In  order  to 
fully  assess  this  exception,  Poland  needs  to  provide  more  detail,  such  as  evidence  for 
changing trends in indicators linked to predictable changes in temperature and salinity. Based 
on  the  information  provided  it  is  not  clear  if  the  justification  provided  for  the  exception  is 
based on assumptions or actual scientific analysis.  

This  assessment  finds  the  provided  justification  is  partially  grounded.  It  is  indeed  true  that 
temperature, salinity, climatic conditions can affect the LFI (linked here in particular to cod 
by  Poland),  however,  this  justification  is  not  fully  grounded.  For  the  application  of  the 
exception the Member State should provide more detail, such as evidence for changing trends 
in indicators linked to predictable changes in temperature and salinity. Nevertheless, Poland 
does not provide a date of when GES is expected to be achieved as required by the MSFD (in 
relation to Article 14(1)(e)). 
Poland  applies  an  exception  for  mammals  (D1,  4).  It  applies  Article 14(1)(a)  (‘action  or 
inaction  for  which  the  Member  State  concerned  is  not  responsible’).  Poland  states  that  it 
cannot reduce by-catch levels of harbour porpoises effectively because such by-catch mainly 
occurs outside of its territory. 

The justification of the exception is not found to be grounded. This assessment finds that this 
could be at least partially addressed through regional cooperation (either establishing regional 
cooperation or if there, enforcing it better). It could be though that by-catch rates are too high, 
and this may need to be addressed through more direct measures.  

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Member  State  applies  an  exception  for  seabed  habitats  (D1,  4,  6).  Poland  does  not 
specify which article it applies. 

Firstly,  it  reports  that  benthic  ecosystems  and  species  are  characterised  by  slow  growth. 
Expected changes leading to improved ecosystems of the seabed can be a slow and long-term 
process  and,  consequently,  targets  linked  to  a  recovery  of  species  and  expansion  of  habitat 
distribution,  will  not  be  achieved  by  2020.  The  assessment  finds  that  this  justification  is 
grounded. 

Secondly,  Poland  reports  that  it  has  introduced  a  biotic  index  for  seabed  habitats  (B)  to 
complement  the  criteria  of  the  WFD,  as  this  index  will  reflect  the  abundance  and  species 
richness  in  the  structure  of  benthic  communities,  in  addition  to  their  sensitivity  to 
eutrophication depending on their location. Poland states two invasive non-indigenous species 
have significant impact on the indicator index B, one polychaete species (Marenzelleria sp.) 
and one bivalve species (Mya arenaria). These species spread easily and occur in abundance 
in  some  areas,  which  will  inhibit  the  achievement  of  GES  even  after  the  implementation  of 
new  measures.  Measures  to  control  non-indigenous  species  have  been  reported  by  Poland 
under D2, furthermore seabed mapping is identified as a measure, which implies that further 
work is required to understand the distribution and quality of seabed habitats. This assessment 
finds that it is true that an increase in Mya arenaria density have been observed overall in the 
Baltic,  which  have  been  associated  with  increases  in  organic  material.  Furthermore, 
interspecific interactions occur in the Baltic, causing Macoma balthica to decrease in biomass 
in places where M. arenaria is abundant. Marenzelleria spp. are known to have invaded soft 
sediments across the Baltic and are considered to be causing significant impacts on ecosystem 
functioning.  One  issue  is  that  Poland  applies  this  exception  to  all  seabed  habitats  without 
attempting  to  say  which  specific  habitats  are  affected  by  these  two  species.  The  exception 
needs to be more specific. Therefore, this assessment finds the provided justification partially 
grounded.  

Thirdly,  in  certain  areas  of  the  Baltic  Sea,  a  regular  decrease  in  oxygen  occurs,  which  is 
regulated  by  occasional  influx  of  water  with  high  salinity  and  oxygen  from  areas  of  the 
Kattegat.  Poland  states  that  these  conditions  are  natural  and  that  the  implementation  of  its 
conservation  activities  will  not  change  or  improve  benthic  habitats  in  these  areas.  If  the 
oxygen levels are indeed natural, then there is nothing for the benthic habitats to recover from. 
However,  the  vast  majority  of  oxygen  depletion  in  the  Baltic  is  considered  to  be  due  to 
nutrient  enrichment  (D5)  with  scientific  papers  showing  the  changes  in  extent  of  oxygen 
depletion over the past 100 years.  Hence this justification is found to be not grounded.   

Recommendations for Poland to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
-  In general, Poland should better address certain pressures and activities in its programme of 

measures. These are specified in the descriptor specific recommendations below. 

-  GES  and  targets  definitions  should  be  better  addressed  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish 
(D3),  eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  marine  litter  (D10),  underwater 
noise and energy (D11), mammals and water column habitats (D1, 4). 

-  The  Member  State  should  strive  to  determine  the  timelines  for  achieving  GES  for  all 
descriptors,  except  birds  (D1,  4)  (the  Member  State  reports  that  GES  will  be  achieved  by 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2020). 

-  Poland’s programme should establish more links with existing EU policies and international 
instruments  for  the  biodiversity  descriptors,  hydrographical  changes  (D7)  and  underwater 
noise and energy (D11). 

-  The  Member  State  should  clearly  identify  the  timelines  for  implementation  for  all  new 

measures. 

-  It  should  provide  more  information  about  its  measures  and  its  spatial  protection  measures 
(representation  of  species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number  and  location  of 
MPAs and the conservation objectives of the MPAs) and establish additional ones that have 
direct effects on the pressures. 

-  Poland  should  quantify  the  pressures  present  in  its  waters  and  their  expected  level  of 
reduction as a result of the established measures. This could be facilitated by further efforts 
to address knowledge gaps and define the methodology for such estimations at regional or 
EU  level.  Such  quantification  will  also  contribute  to  linking  the  measures  with  the 
achievement of GES. 

-  The  Member  State  should  define  the  spatial  scope  of  all  its  measures  (both  existing  and 
new)  in  detail.  Furthermore,  the  spatial  scope  of  measures  should  be  expanded  to  cover 
marine  waters  beyond  coastal  waters,  where  relevant  pressures  are  present.  The  Member 
State  should  consider  establishing  additional  measures  beyond  spatial  protection  efforts  to 
address  species  and  habitats.  It  is  important  that  pressures  are  addressed  across  all  marine 
waters. 

-  Poland  should  ensure  better  linkages  between  its  programme  of  measures  and  monitoring 
programmes, in order to ensure that the effects of the measures, and hence their efficiency 
and  effectiveness  in  meeting  targets  and  GES,  are  measured  through  the  monitoring 
programmes. 

-  The  Member  State  should  report  data  collection  efforts  under  the  MSFD  monitoring 
programmes (Article 11) and not under the programme of measures (Article 13). However, 
when knowledge is  too scarce to  design effective measures, it is useful to indicate actions 
taken to address these gaps via research measures. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 
-  The  Member  State  should  address  the  extraction  of  species  from  seaweed  and  other  sea-

based food harvesting. 

D5 — Eutrophication 
-  Poland’s  programme  should  establish  measures  to  tackle  nutrient  enrichment  from  solid 

waste disposal and fishing. 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  Poland  should  establish  measures  to  tackle  hydrographical  changes  addressing  waste 

disposal, shipping and tourism (identified as relevant by Poland in its Article 8 report). 

-  It should address cumulative impacts on habitats by multiple stressors. 
-  The Member State should better address pressures from activities not subject to local/project 
scale  EIAs  (e.g.  fishing,  shipping).  In  some  cases  (e.g.  hydrological  changes  where  local 
dimension is important) this gap hampers the assessment of cumulative effects. 

D10 — Marine litter 
-  The programme should address micro-litter better, preferably through direct measures. 
-  Poland should establish additional research efforts to address data gaps, increase knowledge 

and pave the way for direct action.  

-  It should make efforts to prevent, identify and tackle pollution hot spots (e.g. from plastic 

pellets, lost fishing gear, single-use plastics, etc.). 

154 

 
 
D11 — Underwater noise and energy 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  direct  measures  to  cover  activities  that  are  known  to 
produce  high  levels  of  noise,  as  soon  as  possible  (e.g.  marine-based  renewable  energy, 
fisheries). 

-  It should consider establishing measures that target other energy inputs if possible (e.g. heat, 

light). 

D1, 4 — Birds 
-  The Member State should establish additional and dedicated measures to address pressures 
on  birds  beyond  by-catch.  Measures  could  target  effects  of  non-indigenous  species,  light 
pollution as well as litter ingestion. The measures should also cover birds’ food sources. If 
these  are  to  be  addressed  via  measures  reported  for  other  descriptors,  the  expected  effect 
that measures are to have on birds should be explained. 

D1, 4 — Mammals 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  additional  measures,  including  spatial  protection 
measures,  to  address  relevant  pressures  on  mammals  beyond  by-catch  (e.g.  impacts  on 
mammal habitats due to shipping (collisions or underwater noise) or marine litter). If these 
are  to  be  addressed  via  measures  reported  for  other  descriptors,  the  expected  effect  that 
measures are to have on mammals should be explained.  

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  dedicated  measures  to  tackle  the  pressure  associated 
with  water  column  habitats.  If  these  are  to  be  addressed  via  measures  reported  for  other 
descriptors, the expected effect that measures are to have on water column habitats should 
be explained. 

-  The Member State should cover plankton populations in its measures. 
D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  The Member State should establish measures covering all aspects of recreational activities 

(e.g. fishing, vessels mooring, diving). 

-  The  Member  State  should  provide  timescales  and  estimates  of  how  spatial  restrictions  of 

seabed damaging activities will allow for GES to be achieved. 

-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  that  extend  beyond  spatially  protected  areas 

(and MPAs) to ensure a wider spatial coverage for these habitats. 

-  If seabed habitats are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors (e.g. D2, 
D5,  D10),  the  expected  effect  that  measures  are  to  have  on  seabed  habitats  should  be 
explained. 
Exceptions 
The Member State should provide more robust justifications for its exceptions, when these are 
assessed as partially (fish (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6)) or not grounded (mammals 
(D1,  4)).  It  should  also  specify  when  it  expects  GES  to  be  achieved  in  relation  to 
Article 14(1)(e). 

155 

 
 
 
 
14.  Portugal 

General conclusions on Portugal’s programme of measures 

General strengths and weaknesses 

Strengths 

-  Portugal’s  programme  includes  measures  that  are  based  on  commitments  to 
existing European policies, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives (D1, 4, 
6), the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP; D3, D1, 4, 6), the Water Framework 
Directive (WFD; D5, D8, D1, 4, 6), the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 
(D7),  as  well  as  international  instruments  such  as  the  International 
Commission  for  the  Conservation  of  Atlantic  Tunas  (ICCAT)  (D3)  and  the 
International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) — International Convention for 
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (D8). 

-  The  programme  of  measures  includes  both  existing  and  new  measures  that 
complement  those  already  in  place  to  specifically  target  pressures  on  the 
marine environment which were not otherwise covered. 

-  It  includes  spatial  protection  measures.  These  measures  address  more  than 
one  descriptor  and  therefore  contribute  towards  GES  and  targets  for  several 
descriptors.  Measures  include  the  strengthening  of  MPA  network,  including 
the designation of new MPAs and the establishment of management measures 
within them. 

-  The  programme  combines  direct  and  indirect  measures,  thus  directly 
addressing  pressures  on  the  marine  environment  while  simultaneously 
implementing  measures  which  complement  the  direct  measures  through 
governance and coordination actions, as well as awareness raising efforts. 

-  Based  on  the  information  reported  by  Portugal  on  cost  and  resource 
allocations,  timelines  of  implementation  of  measures  as  well  as  responsible 
bodies  for  implementation,  the  programme  is  likely  to  be  implemented. 
Nevertheless, as most measures are in fact monitoring and research activities 
rather than environmental management and protection measures, it is not clear 
whether the programme supports the achievement of GES by 2020. 

-  In this first implementation cycle of the MSFD, in relation to descriptors for 
which knowledge gaps exist (i.e. D2, D5, D7, D10, D11), the Member State 
reports research efforts. This will allow knowledge gaps to be addressed, but 
also  to  build  upon  the  results  to  enable  the  design  of  measures  which  will 
contribute  directly  to  tackling  the  pressures  in  the  MSFD’s  second 
implementation cycle.  

-  The  programme  partially  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  non-indigenous 
species  (D2),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3),  eutrophication  (D5), 
contaminants  (D8),  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9),  marine  litter  (D10), 
underwater noise and energy (D11), birds, fish, mammals and water column 
habitats (D1, 4) as well as seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme does not address GES and targets for hydrographical changes 

(D7). 

-  The Member State does not report any timeline for achieving GES. 
-  In  some  cases,  the  programme  does  not  include  sufficient  links  to  existing 
European  policies as  well as international instruments. It  is the case for D2, 
D5, D7, D8, D9, D10 and D11. 

156 

 
 
 
-  The  Member  State  does  not  always  provide  sufficient  details  about  the 
measures to understand how they will contribute to progress towards targets 
and GES (as defined by the Member State). 

-  The  programme  includes  spatial  measures  that  do  not  always  provide  clear 
and  specific  information  on  the  management  efforts  in  place  (or  to  be 
implemented  in  the  future).  Information  gaps  include  the  representation  of 
species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number,  and  location  of 
MPAs, the conservation objectives of the MPAs. 

-  While impact assessments were carried out for new measures, the results do 
not allow for a quantification of what the measures will achieve; i.e. to what 
extent the relevant pressure will be addressed, and whether the measures will 
be sufficient to achieve GES. 

-  The  spatial  scope  of  the  measures  is  not  specified  (only  the  subdivision  is 

reported). 

-  The  Member  State  does  not  make  sufficient  links  between  the  measures  for 
the pressure descriptors and how they might benefit the state descriptors (i.e. 
biodiversity  descriptors  D1,  4,  6).  This  prevents  understanding  how  state 
descriptors  benefit  from  these  measures,  which  are  likely  to  contribute  in 
addressing pressures on species and habitats. 

-  The programme sometimes includes data collection efforts, as measures. 
-  It  over-relies  on  indirect  measures  without  sufficiently  addressing  specific 

pressures on their marine environment (D2, D7, D10 and D1, 4, 6). 

Strengths 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 
-  None identified. 
-  The  programme  does  not  address  introductions  of  non-indigenous  species 
from  shipping  (ballast  water  and  anti-fouling)  and  aquaculture  (reported  as 
relevant  by  Portugal  in  its  Article 8  report).  It  is  also  unclear  whether  the 
measures address recreational vessels. 

Weaknesses 

-  It  includes  an  alert  system  for  introductions  of  non-indigenous  species  as 

measures but only for the Azores. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  from  commercial  and 

recreational fishing. 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  It  includes  seasonal  and/or  spatial  fishing  bans  (for  several  purposes, 
including;  stock  management,  biodiversity  conservation,  and  protection  of 
over-exploited stocks) in addition to existing CFP measures. 

-  The measures cover stocks managed at the national level. 
-  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  programme  covers  aspects  that  relate  to  age/size 
structure  of  species  and  all  relevant  nationally  managed  stocks  in  all 
subdivisions. 

D5 — Eutrophication 

-  The  programme  addresses  nutrient  inputs  from  agriculture,  industry  and 

urban areas. 

Strengths 

-  It  draws  from  the  Member  State’s  WFD  River  Basin  Management  Plans 
(RBMP).  In  the  framework  of  the  MSFD,  most  are  considered  likely  to  be 
sufficient  to  address  pressures  of  nutrient  and  organic  matter  enrichment  in 
the  marine  environment  and  cover  relevant  human  activities  (i.e.  mainly 
agriculture,  industry,  wastewater  and  flood  risks).  However,  considering  the 

157 

 
 
 
extent  to  which  the  MSFD  programme  relies  on  WFD  measures,  this 
statement is subject to the RBMPs being assessed as adequate under the WFD 
assessment. 

-  The  programme  partially  addresses  atmospheric  deposition  of  nutrients 
(NOx) from sea-based and land-based sources (for example, no link to IMO-
MARPOL). 

-  It  does  not  consider  additional  aspects,  such  as  improved  aquaculture 

management practices. 

Weaknesses 

Strengths 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  None identified. 
-  The programme does not address hydrographical changes. It is possible that 
hydrographical changes are addressed by the groups of measures reported for 
non-indigenous species (D2), eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8), but 
based  on  the  information  reported  this  cannot  be  determined.  This  does  not 
allow  for  an  understanding  of  how  this  descriptor  will  benefit  from  these 
measures. 

Weaknesses 

-  For the Azores, one research effort is reported as relevant to hydrographical 

changes although this will not have direct effects on pressures. 

-  The programme of measures does not explain how it will address the issue of 
cumulative impacts, i.e.  impacts from  different/multiple  human activities on 
hydrography. Cumulative impacts are a major issue for the MSFD; assessing 
cumulative  impacts  would  require  Member  States  to  consolidate  results  of 
individual assessments together to assess the overall scale of hydrographical 
changes. This is not currently being done by Portugal. 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood 

-  The programme addresses the introduction of contaminants through measures 

that target shipping. 

Strengths 

-  It  addresses  contaminant  inputs  to  the  sea  from  sea-based  (e.g.  shipping, 
fisheries,  dredging)  and  land-based  sources  (e.g.  port  operations,  and 
potentially industry, urban areas, agriculture). 

-  The programme is likely to address biological effects of contaminants. 
-  The  programme  does  not  address  accidental  pollution  due  to  marine 

Weaknesses 

hydrocarbon extraction. 

-  It does not address atmospheric deposition of contaminants. 
-  While  the  programme  includes  dedicated  measures  for  contaminants  in 

seafood (D9), but half of them do not address the pressures directly. 

-  The programme does not clearly explain how measures for contaminants (D8) 
will contribute to addressing pressures for contaminants in seafood (D9) and 
allow for progress towards D9 GES and targets. 

D10 — Marine litter 

-  The  programme  addresses  marine  litter  by  covering  fisheries,  shipping,  and 

Strengths 

port operations. 

-  It specifically covers macro-litter through waste management on ships. 
-  The programme does not address marine litter from aquaculture, urban areas, 

tourism and recreational activities. 

Weaknesses 

-  It is not clear whether the programme addresses the reduction of marine litter 
input in coastal areas and in the open sea, as well as the removal of existing 
litter. 

158 

 
 
-  It is also not clear whether the programme addresses micro-litter. 
-  Although Portugal makes references to ‘degradation products’ in its GES and 

target definitions, no direct measures are in place to tackle this aspect. 

-  Due to the lack of knowledge and reporting on the effects of marine litter on 
biota, it is unclear how the Member State will interpret the issue of ‘risk not 
being  present  on  the  coastal  and  marine  environment’,  although  this  aspect 
has been included in its GES definition. 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  includes  research  efforts  (targeting  shipping  and  marine 
research)  which  aim  to  collect  additional  data  and  conduct  studies  to  better 
characterise  the  pressure  of  noise  in  line  with  recommendation  from  TG 
Noise. 

-  The programme does not directly address continuous and impulsive noise. 
-  It does not address other energy inputs (such as heat or light). 
-  The programme does not refer to the EIA Directive and IMO’s Guidelines on 

underwater noise.  

D1, 4 — Birds  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme addresses pressures on bird habitats in all subdivisions (from 

non-specified sources). 

-  The programme addresses selective extraction of species (incl. accidental by-
catch) from fisheries but only in the continental subdivision (not in the Azores 
and Madeira). 

-  It does not address the effects of non-indigenous species and marine litter on 
seabirds,  and  does  not  cover  birds’  food  sources.  It  is  possible  that  these 
pressures  are  addressed  by  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  non-
indigenous species (D2) and marine litter (D10), but based on the information 
reported this cannot be determined. This does not allow for an understanding 
of how the state descriptors will benefit from these measures.  

D1, 4 — Fish and cephalopods 

Strengths 

-  The programme addresses selective extraction of species (incl. accidental by-

catch) from fisheries in all subdivisions. 

-  It  includes  spatial  protection  measures  to  complement  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish (D3) measures reported also as relevant to fish biodiversity (D1, 4). 
-  It  is  not  clear  to  what  extent  non-commercial  species  and  functional  fish 

habitats are protected. 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  does  not  include  specific  measures  or  plans  for  cephalopod 

species (for relevant waters). 

-  It provides little information on where and how fish and cephalopod species 

present within the Member State’s territorial waters are protected. 

D1, 4 — Mammals and reptiles 

Strengths 

-  The programme addresses selective extraction of species (incl. accidental by-

catch) from fisheries in all subdivisions. 

-  It includes spatial protection measures to develop the network of MPAs and 

create new ones for cetaceans. 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme does not address contaminants and impacts on mammals due 

to shipping (collisions), and underwater noise. 

-  It does not appear to include measures addressing ingestion and entanglement 
from  marine  litter.  It  is  possible  that  these  pressures  are  addressed  by  the 

159 

 
 
groups  of  measures  reported  for  marine  litter  (D10),  but  based  on  the 
information  reported  this  cannot  be  determined.  This  does  not  allow  for  an 
understanding of how the state descriptors will benefit from these measures. 

-  The programme of measures does not cover marine reptiles. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  None identified. 
-  The programme partially addresses pressures on water column habitats, as no 
specific  water  column  habitat  measure  has  been  reported.  It  possible  that 
pressures  on  water  column  habitats  are  addressed  by  measures  reported  for 
non-indigenous  species  (D2),  eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes 
(D7), contaminants (D8) and marine litter (D10); but how it will contribute to 
addressing pressures on water column habitats (D1, 4) specifically cannot be 
determined based on the information reported. 

-  Even  though  the  programme  includes  measures  that  are  relevant  to  water 
column  habitat,  they  are  spatial  protection  measures  relevant  for  all 
descriptors. 

-  The  water  column,  although  considered  in  other  descriptors,  is  mainly 
covered  by  the  Member  State  in  terms  of  water  quality.  Plankton  is  a  key 
feature of the terminology in the monitoring programmes, which referred to in 
the  water  column  habitats  GES  and  targets  definitions  but  not  in  the 
programme  of  measures.  Additionally,  the  water  column  is  a  key  transfer 
route  for  the  majority  of  non-seabed  species  and  needs  to  be  considered  as 
part of the broader ecological coherence of the Member State’s waters, within 
MPAs  and  in  relation  to  food  webs.  The  water  column  is  often  discounted 
from  such  measures  due  to  a  lack  of  scientific  knowledge  of  these  habitat 
types. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  pressures  on  seabed  habitats  through  CFP 

measures that are relevant to commercial fish and shellfish (D3). 

-  The  programme  does  not  directly  address  physical  loss  due  to  fisheries, 
marine  mining,  dredging,  port  operations,  submarine  cables,  land  claim  and 
coastal defence; as well as physical damage from fisheries and dredging. Only 
measures with indirect effects (research and monitoring) have been reported. 
-  It does not cover recreational activities that could still be destructive to seabed 

habitats (e.g., vessels mooring, recreational fishing). 

-  The programme aims to address trawling through research efforts, which will 

not have direct effects on the pressure. 

-  The programme includes spatial protection measures, which are often lacking 
in detail on their area coverage, temporal ranges of restrictions and minimal 
consideration  is  given  to  the  broader  issues  of  trawling  outside  of  these 
spatially protected areas (except for research). 

-  Other pressures such as non-indigenous species (D2), eutrophication (D5) and 
marine litter (D10) have minimal consideration in the programme. It may be 
that pressures on seabed habitats are addressed via measures reported for non-
indigenous species (D2), eutrophication (D5) and marine litter (D10); but how 
the programme will contribute to addressing pressures on seabed habitats (D1, 
4) specifically cannot be determined based on the information reported. 

160 

 
 
 
Recommendations for Portugal to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
-  In general, Portugal should better address certain pressures and activities in its programme 

of measures. These are specified in the descriptor specific recommendations below. 

-  GES and targets definitions should be better addressed for all descriptors. 
-  The Member State should strive to determine the timelines for achieving GES. 
-  It  should  establish  more  links  with  existing  EU  policies  and  international  instruments  for 
non-indigenous  species 
(D7), 
contaminants (D8), contaminant in seafood (D9), marine litter (D10) and underwater noise 
and energy (D11). 

(D5),  hydrographical  changes 

(D2),  eutrophication 

-  The  Member  State  should  provide  more  information  about  its  measures  and  especially  its 
spatial  protection  measures  (representation  of  species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the 
size, number and location of MPAs, the conservation objectives of the MPAs). 

-  Portugal  should  quantify  the  pressures  present  in  its  waters  and  their  expected  level  of 
reduction as a result of the established measures. This could be facilitated by further efforts 
to address knowledge gaps and define the methodology for such estimations at regional or 
EU  level.  Such  quantification  will  also  contribute  to  linking  the  measures  with  the 
achievement of GES. 

-  The Member State should define the spatial scope of its measures (both existing and new) in 
detail.  Furthermore,  the  spatial  scope  of  measures  should  be  expanded  to  cover  marine 
waters beyond coastal waters, where relevant pressures are present. Portugal should consider 
establishing  additional  measures  beyond  spatial  protection  efforts  to  address  species  and 
habitats. It is important that pressures are addressed across all marine waters. 

-  The  Member  State  should  make  better  links  between  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for 
pressure  descriptors  and  their  effects  on  the  state  descriptors.  This  would  allow  a 
comprehensive view of the impact of measures affecting all descriptors. 

-  Portugal  should  ensure  better  linkages  between  its  programme  of  measueres  and  its 
monitoring programmes, in order to ensure that the effects of the measures, and hence their 
efficiency  and  effectiveness  in  meeting  targets  and  GES,  are  measured  through  the 
monitoring programmes. 

-  It should report data collection efforts under the MSFD monitoring programmes (Article 11) 
and  not  under  the  Programme  of  Measures (Article 13).  However,  when  knowledge  is  too 
scarce  to  design  effective  measures,  it  is  useful  to  indicate  actions  taken  to  address  these 
gaps via research measures. 

-  The Member  State should ensure  a better balance in between direct and indirect measures 
when many indirect measures have been reported (relevant for D2, D7, D10 and D1, 4, 6). 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 
-  Portugal’s programme  should cover shipping (ballast water and anti-fouling,  including  for 

recreational vessels) and aquaculture. 

-  The  Member  State  should  establish  early  warning  systems  for  introductions  of  non-

indigenous species as measures in all its subdivisions. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 
-  It  should  establish  measures  addressing  clearly  age/size  structure  of  species  as  well  as  all 

relevant nationally managed stocks in all subdivisions.  

D5 — Eutrophication 
-  Portugal  should  establish  measures  that  fully  consider  nutrient  inputs  from  atmospheric 
deposition  and  that  could  be  linked  to  IMO-MARPOL  in  relation  to  shipping  (NOx 

161 

 
 
emissions). 

-  It should establish more measures covering agriculture (beyond WFD and MSP). 
D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  The Member State should establish direct measures to tackle hydrographical changes in all 
subdivisions  from  relevant  activities;  or  clearly  report  which  measures  reported  for  other 
descriptors  contribute to  addressing  pressure, GES  and  targets  for  hydrographical changes 
(D7) and how. 

-  The programme should establish measures to address cumulative impacts. 
-  Portugal  should  better  address  pressures  from  activities  not  subject  to  local/project  scale 
EIAs  (e.g.  fishing,  shipping).  In  some  cases  (e.g.  hydrological  changes  where  local 
dimension is important) this gap hampers the assessment of cumulative effects. 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 
-  The Member State should establish measures to address accidental pollution due to marine 

hydrocarbon extraction. 

-  It should address atmospheric deposition (from sea-based and land-based sources) better. 
-  The Member State should establish more direct measures for contaminants in seafood (D9). 
-  Portugal  should  better  explain  the  way  the  contaminants  (D8)  measures  contribute  to 

contaminants in seafood (D9) targets. 

D10 — Marine litter 
-  The Member State should address marine  litter, both in  coastal  areas and in the open sea, 
from aquaculture, urban areas, tourism and recreational activities, as well as the removal of 
existing litter. 

-  It  should  address  micro-litter  better,  preferably  through  direct  measures,  in  addition  to 

indirect measures, in accordance with recommendations of TG Litter. 

-  The  programme  should  establish  measures  that  clearly  address  degradation  products  and 
ensure that litter does not present risk for the coastal and marine environment, as included in 
its GES and targets definitions. 

-  Portugal  should  establish  additional  research  efforts  to  address  data  gaps,  increase 

knowledge and pave the way for direct action.  

-  The  Member  State  should  make  efforts  to  prevent,  identify  and  tackle  pollution  hot  spots 

(e.g. from plastic pellets, lost fishing gear, single-use plastics, etc.). 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 
-  Portugal should establish direct measures to cover activities that are known to produce high 
levels of continuous and impulsive noise, as soon as possible (e.g. shipping for continuous 
noise). 

-  It  should  consider  establishing  measures  that  target  other  energy  inputs  if  possible  (e.g., 

heat, light). 

-  The Member State should make more efforts to address data gaps and consolidate research 
results to move closer to characterising the noise pressure, in line with the recommendation 
of TG Noise. This will enable to then define more concrete and direct measures to address 
underwater noise in the second MSFD implementation cycle. 

D1, 4 — Birds 
-  Portugal should consider establishing additional measures to address by-catch of birds in all 
subdivisions and pressures on birds beyond by-catch. Measures could target disturbances on 
nesting  sites  by  predation,  effects  of  non-indigenous  species,  contaminants  and  litter 
ingestion, light and noise disturbances, as well as measures covering birds’ food sources. If 
these  are  to  be  addressed  via  measures  reported  for  other  descriptors,  the  expected  effect 
that measures are to have on birds should be explained. 

162 

 
 
D1, 4 — Fish and cephalopods 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  that  extend  beyond  CFP  efforts,  and  cover 
additional  fish  species,  which  are  non-commercial  species  in  open  sea  areas,  and 
cephalopods, as well as functional fish habitats (including spatial protection measures). 

-  It should establish measures or plans for cephalopods species. 
-  The  Member  State  should  provide  better  information  on  existing  MPAs  and  the  level  of 
protection  they  provide  for  fish  (commercial  and  non-commercial)  and  cephalopods,  in 
relation to where fish and cephalopods species occur within the Member State’s territorial 
waters, and how they are protected. 

D1, 4 — Mammals and reptiles 
-  Portugal  should  establish  additional  measures,  including  spatial  protection  measures,  to 
address relevant pressures on mammals beyond by-catch (e.g. impacts on mammal habitats 
due to shipping (collision), contaminants, underwater noise, entanglement, and ingestion of 
litter). If these are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors, the expected 
effect that measures are to have on mammals should be explained. 

-  It should establish measures targeting marine reptiles.  
D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  The Member State should establish measures (including spatial protection measures but not 
only)  to  tackle  the  pressure  associated  with  water  column  habitats  (and  plankton 
communities). If these are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors, the 
expected effect that measures are to have on water column habitats should be explained. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  The Member State should establish measures covering fisheries (trawling), marine mining, 
dredging, port operations, submarine cables, land claim and coastal defence, that will have 
direct impacts on physical loss and damage. 

-  Portugal  should  establish  measures  covering  all  aspects  of  recreational  activities  (e.g., 

fishing, vessels mooring, diving). 

-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  that  extend  beyond  spatially  protected  areas 

(and MPAs) to ensure a wider spatial coverage for these habitats. 

-  It  should  provide  timescales  and  estimates  of  how  spatial  restrictions  of  seabed  damaging 

activities will allow for GES to be achieved. 

-  If seabed habitats are to be addressed via measures reported for other descriptors (e.g. D2, 
D5,  D10),  the  expected  effect  that  measures  are  to  have  on  seabed  habitats  should  be 
explained. 

163 

 
 
 
 
15.  Sweden 

General conclusions on Sweden’s programme of measures  

General strengths and weaknesses 

Strengths 

-  Sweden’s  programme  of  measures  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  fish, 
mammals  (D1,  4),  eutrophication  (D5),  hydrological  changes  (D7), 
contaminants  and  contaminants  in  seafood  (D8,  D9),  and  marine  litter 
(D10). 

-  The Member State considers GES to be already achieved for hydrological 

changes (D7). 

-  The  programme  includes  measures  that  are  based  on  commitments  to 
existing national and European policies and legislation, as well as regional 
and  international  agreements,    such  as  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives 
(D1.4.6),  Regulation  (EU)  No  1143/2014  (D1,  4,  6,  D2),  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  708/2007  on  non-indigenous  species  in  aquaculture 
(D1, 4, 6, D2), the WFD (D2, D5, D7, D8, D10), Common Fisheries Policy 
(D1.4.6,  D3),  UWWTD  (D5,  D8/9),  the  Nitrates  Directive  (D5),  the 
Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (D5),  the  IMO-NECA  (NOx  Emission 
Control  Area)  (D5),  the  REACH  regulation  (D8/9),  Regulation  (EC)  No 
782/2003  on  the  prohibition  of  organotin  compounds  of  ships  (D8),  the 
Regulation  (EC)  1881/2006  on  setting  maximum  levels  for  certain 
contaminants in foodstuffs (D9), the EIA Directive (D1.4.6; D7, D8/9), the 
SEA Directive (D7) and the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (D1, 4, 6, 
D11),  IMO-BWC  (D2)  OSPAR  (D1.4.6;  D2,  D5,  D7,  D8/9,  D10)  and 
HELCOM (D1.4.6; D2, D3, D5, D7, D8/9, D10). 

-  The  Member  State  has  brought  together  and  coordinated  existing  national 
measures and processes (related to the implementation of EU legal acts and 
regulations,  as  well  as  regional  commitments  to  protect  the  marine 
environment  more  efficiently),  and  also  established  new  measures  that 
complement  those  already  in  place  to  specifically  target  pressures  on  the 
marine environment which were not otherwise covered. 

-  In this first implementation cycle of the MSFD, in relation to descriptors for 
which  knowledge  gaps  exist  (i.e.  D1,  4,  6;  D2,  D11),  Sweden  reports 
research  efforts.  This  will  allow  addressing  knowledge  gaps  but  also  to 
build upon the results to design measures, which will contribute directly to 
tackling the pressures in the MSFD’s second implementation cycle. 

-  Based  on  the  information  reported  by  Sweden  on  cost  and  resource 
allocations, timelines of implementation of measures as well as responsible 
bodies  for  implementation,  the  likelihood  of  implementation  is  high  — 
most  measures  have  secured  funding  and  the  timeline  for  implementing 
them  is  2016  (with  some  being  2017-18,  and  just  a  few  without 
implementation timeline). 

-  The  programme  combines  direct  and  indirect  measures,  thus  directly 
addressing  pressures  on  the  marine  environment,  while  simultaneously 
implementing  measures  complementing  the  direct  measures  through 
governance and coordination actions, as well as awareness raising efforts. 
-  It  includes  spatial  protection  measures  (including  MPAs).  Often,  these 

164 

 
 
 
Weaknesses 

measures address more than one descriptor and therefore contribute towards 
GES  and  targets  for  several  descriptors.  Measures  especially  include  the 
strengthening  of  MPA  networks  and  the  establishment  of  management 
measures within MPAs. 

-  The  spatial  scope  of  the  measures  is  specified  consistently  across  the 

programme. 

-  The  programme  partially  addresses  GES  and  targets  for  birds  and  seabed 
habitats  (D1,  4,  6),  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish (D3) and underwater noise and energy (D11). 

-  The Member State reports that given the current level of knowledge gaps, it 
cannot report when GES will be achieved for biodiversity (D1, 4, 6), non-
indigenous  species  (D2),  commercial  fish  and shellfish (D3),  marine  litter 
(D10) and underwater noise and energy (D11). It acknowledges that there 
are risks of not achieving GES for these descriptors. 

-  Sweden reports that  GES will not be achieved by 2020  for eutrophication 
(D5), contaminants (D8) and contaminants in seafood (D9). Exceptions are 
applied  for  eutrophication  (D5)  and  contaminants  (D8),  which  are  both 
found to be grounded (see below). 

-  The Member State does not report any GES and targets definition for water 

column habitats (D1, 4). 

-  In some cases, the programme does not include sufficient links to existing 
European policies and international instruments. It is especially the case for 
hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  (D8),  marine  litter  (D10)  and 
underwater noise (D11). 

-  Some measures do not include timelines of implementation. 
-  The programme includes spatial measures that do not always provide clear 
and specific information on the management efforts that were/are expected 
to  be  put  in  place.  Information  gaps  include  the  representation  of  species 
and habitats within the MPAs, the size, number and location of MPAs, the 
conservation  objectives  of  the  MPAs  and  the  policies  and  measures  that 
will be in place within these areas. 

-  While impact assessments were carried out for new measures, the results do 
not allow for a quantification of what the measures will achieve; i.e. to what 
extent  the  relevant  pressure  will  be  addressed,  and  whether  the  measures 
will be sufficient to achieve GES. 

-  The  Member  State  often  reports  existing  measures  implementing  existing 
legislation without providing details on actions that are/will be put in place. 
-  Sweden’s programme often refers to regional agreements without providing 

details on actions that are/will be put in place. 

D2 — Non-indigenous species  

-  The  programme  addresses  the  introductions  of  non-indigenous  species  by 
tackling aquaculture and shipping via ballast water management (link to the 
BWMC). 

Strengths 

-  It  includes  early  warning  systems  of  non-indigenous  species  introductions 

as a measure. 

-  Sweden plans to increase its monitoring and awareness-raising programmes 

to address knowledge gaps. 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme does not cover non-indigenous species introduction due to 

165 

 
 
hull fouling in relation to shipping. 

-  It is unclear whether the programme covers recreational vessels. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  by  tackling  fisheries 

(including recreational fishing). 

Strengths 

-  It includes measures on research and possible establishment of seasonal and 
spatial  fishing  bans  (especially  on  coastal  areas,  for  several  purposes 
including stock management and biodiversity conservation), in addition to 
existing CFP measures. 

Weaknesses 

-  It is unclear whether the programme covers age and size structure for CFP 

D5 — Eutrophication 

stocks. 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

- The  programme 

is 

likely 

to  address  nutrient  enrichment 

from 

agriculture/forestry, urban activities and industry. 

- It is consistently based on the WFD. Measures for eutrophication draw from 
Sweden’s  River  Basin  Management  Plan.  In  the  framework  of  the  MSFD, 
most  are  considered  likely  to  be  sufficient  to  address  pressures  of  nutrient 
and organic matter enrichment in the marine environment and cover relevant 
human  activities  (i.e.  mainly  agriculture,  industry,  wastewater  and  flood 
risks).  However,  considering  the  extent  to  which  the  MSFD  programme 
relies  on  WFD  measures,  this  statement  is  subject  to  the  RBMPs  being 
assessed as adequate under the WFD assessment. 

-  The  programme  does  not  clearly  specify  how  atmospheric  deposition  of 
nutrients 
the 
establishment  of  NOx  emission  control  areas  (NECA),  which  would 
potentially cover this pressure. 

it  reports  an  agreement  for 

is  addressed,  although 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The programme addresses interferences with hydrological processes. 
-  It includes existing measures stemming from other legal acts. As such, all 
projects that are subject to existing authorisation and regulatory procedures 
are addressed in terms of hydrographical changes. 

-  The  programme  includes  MSFD  specific  measures,  in  addition  to  WFD 

measures. 

-  It utilises synergies with the EIA and SEA Directives, as well as with the 

WFD. 

-  The  programme  does  not  explain  how  it  will  address  the  issue  of 
cumulative impacts, i.e. impacts from different/multiple human activities on 
hydrography.  Cumulative  impacts  are  a  major  issue  for  the  MSFD; 
assessing cumulative impacts would require Member States to consolidate 
results  of  individual  assessments  together  to  assess  the  overall  scale  of 
hydrographical changes. This is not currently being done by Sweden. 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 

Strengths 

-  The programme addresses the introduction of contaminants and accidental 
pollution  through  measures  that  target  shipping,  industry  and  urban 
activities. 

-  It  addresses  contaminant  inputs  to  the  sea  from  land-based  (e.g.  industry, 
urban areas), as well as sea-based sources (e.g. shipping), and the biological 
effects of contaminants. 

166 

 
 
-  The programme addresses atmospheric deposition of contaminants. 
-  It contains measures that address contaminants in seafood (D9) via the D8 

measures. 

Weaknesses 
D10 — Marine litter 

-  It is unclear if agriculture is addressed. 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  marine  litter  by  covering  land-based  (e.g., 
industry,  agriculture,  urban  areas)  and  sea-based  (e.g.  fisheries,  shipping) 
sources of litter, as well as the removal of existing litter. 

-  It also addresses micro-plastics from urban areas and industry. 
-  The  Member  State  reports  measures  that  are  linked  with  regional  actions 
and  coordinated  by  contracting  parties  of  relevant  Regional  Sea 
Conventions.  These  mostly  link  to  regional  action  plans  for  litter  under 
OSPAR and HELCOM. 

-  It is not clear whether tourism/recreational activities are directly addressed 
(however,  measures  on  awareness  raising  and  beach  cleaning  may 
indirectly cover them).  

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  continuous  and  impulsive  underwater  noise. 
Although  no  direct  measure  has  been  reported  for  any  activity,  several 
indirect  measures  cover  marine-based  renewable  energy  generation, 
shipping, fisheries, placement and operation of offshore structures, marine 
research and surveys. 

-  The Member State reports research efforts which aim to collect additional 
data  and  conduct  studies  to  better  characterise  the  pressure  of  noise,  and 
impact on fauna (mainly marine mammals), with a clear focus on shipping, 
including the development of a national noise register. 

-  The  programme  includes  one  measure  which  has  a  direct  effect  on  the 
pressure of underwater noise, while the others focus on addressing data and 
knowledge gaps. 

Weaknesses 

-  In its programme Sweden has not established synergies with existing legal 

frameworks, such as the implementation of EIA procedures. 
-  It does not address other energy inputs (e.g. heat and light). 

D1, 4 — Birds  

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  (incl.  by-catch), 
changes  on  hydrographical  conditions,  marine  litter  and  micro-litter,  and 
pressures on threatened bird species and habitats. Hunting, fisheries, urban 
areas, boat traffic and wind farms are covered. 

-  It  covers  birds’  food  sources  through  measures  targeting  fisheries 
management (that should also protect birds’ feeding grounds), especially in 
protected areas. 

-  The programme does not explain how the effects of non-indigenous species 
on seabirds are addressed. It is possible that these pressures are addressed 
by  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  but 
based on the information reported this cannot be determined. This does not 
allow  for  an  understanding  of  how  the  state  descriptors  will  benefit  from 
these measures. 

D1, 4 — Fish  
Strengths 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  (including  by-catch), 

167 

 
 
changing  hydrographical  conditions,  marine  litter  and  micro-litter,  non-
indigenous  species,  nutrient  enrichment  and  contamination.  Various 
activities are covered, such as fisheries and aquaculture. 

-  Sweden  complements  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3)  measures  with 
spatial protection measures aiming to also protect non-commercial species. 
- None  (except  the  lack  of  timeline  for  the  achievement  of  GES,  mentioned 

Weaknesses 

D1, 4 — Mammals  

above). 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

- The  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of  species  (including  by-catch), 
changing  hydrographical  conditions,  marine  litter  and  micro-litter,  and 
pressures on threatened mammal species and habitats. Various activities are 
addressed, such as fisheries, boat traffic and hunting. 

- It  includes  spatial  protection  measures  to  address  several  horizontal 

pressures and protecting species such as the harbour porpoises. 

- The  programme  does  not  explain  how  contaminants  and  underwater  noise 
on  mammals  is  addressed.  It  is  possible  that  these  pressures  are  addressed 
by  the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  contaminants  (D8)  and  underwater 
noise  and energy  (D11), but based on the  information reported this cannot 
be  determined.  This  does  not  allow  for  an  understanding  of  how  the  state 
descriptors will benefit from these measures. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  pressures  on  water  column  habitats  (i.e. 
introduction  of  non-indigenous  species,  eutrophication,  hydrographical 
changes  and  contamination)  via  measures  reported  for  other  Descriptors 
(namely D2, D5, D7 and D8).  

-  The  water  column,  although  considered  in  other  descriptors,  is  mainly 
covered by Sweden in terms of water quality. Plankton is a key feature of 
the terminology in the monitoring programmes, which is rarely referenced 
in  the  biodiversity  measures.  Additionally,  the  water  column  is  a  key 
transfer  route  for  the  majority  of  non-seabed  species  and  needs  to  be 
considered  as  part  of  the  broader  ecological  coherence  of  the  Member 
State’s  waters,  within  MPAs  and  in  relation  to  food  webs.  The  water 
column is often discounted from such measures due to a lack of scientific 
knowledge of these habitat types. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

-  The  programme  is  likely  to  address  physical  loss  due  to  marine-based 
renewable  energy  generation,  dredging,  land  claim/coastal  defence,  port 
operations and solid waste disposal, through MPA measures. 

-  It addresses physical damage due to fisheries. 
-  The  programme  addresses  additional  pressures  such  as  the  extraction  of 
species  (incl.  by-catch)  due  to  fisheries,  non-indigenous  species  from 
aquaculture,  changing  hydrographical  conditions,  nutrient  enrichment  and 
contamination from various activities. 

-  The Member State reports existing and new measures that target destructive 

fishing practices within and outside spatially protected areas. 

-  The  programme  does  not  address  physical  damage  from  shipping  and 
tourism/recreational  activities  (although  reported  under  Article 8  by 
Sweden). 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

168 

 
 
-  It mainly includes fisheries restrictions within spatial protection measures, 
which are often lacking in detail on their area coverage, temporal ranges of 
restrictions  and  minimal  consideration  is  given  to  the  broader  issues  of 
trawling outside of these spatially protected areas. 

Exceptions 
Sweden  has  applied  an  exception  for  eutrophication  (D5).  It  applies  Article 14(1)(a) 
(‘action or inaction for which the Member State concerned is not responsible’). Sweden states 
that  even  if  the  nutrient  load  targets  are  reached,  recovery  of  the  state  of  the  marine 
environment will take a long time because the concentrations in marine waters can persist for 
a very long time. This assessment finds the justification to be grounded.  
The  Member  State  has  applied  an  exception  for  contaminants  (D8).  It  applies 
Article 14(1)(a)  (‘action  or  inaction  for  which  the  Member  State  concerned  is  not 
responsible’).  Sweden  states  that  inputs  of  contaminants  from  atmospheric  deposition  are 
transboundary  in  nature.  Therefore,  Sweden  reports  that  a  reduction  of  contaminant  inputs 
through its measures will not be sufficient to achieve GES and that  actions and inactions of 
neighbouring  Member  States  will  impact  the  achievement  of  GES.  Additional  justifications 
that  relate  to  persistent  contaminants  from  historical  contamination  are  also  mentioned, 
although these do not directly relate to Article 14(1)(a). This assessment finds the justification 
to be grounded.  

Recommendations for Sweden to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
- 

In general, Sweden should better address certain pressures and activities in its programme 
of measures. These are specified in the descriptor specific recommendations below. 

-  GES  and  targets  definitions  should  be  better  addressed  for  birds  (D1,  4)  and  seabed 
habitats  (D1.4.6),  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3)  and 
underwater noise and energy (D11). 

-  The  Member  State  should  develop  more  research  efforts  to  fill  knowledge  gaps  and 
provide  an  assessment  on  when  GES  will  be  achieved (especially  for D1,  4,  6,  D2,  D3, 
D10, D11). 
It should define GES and targets definitions for water column habitats (D1, 4). 

- 
-  The Member State should establish more links with existing EU policies and international 
instruments for hydrographical changes (D7), contaminants (D8), marine litter (D10) and 
underwater noise (D11). 

-  Sweden should report an implementation timeline for all measures. 
- 

It should provide more information about its spatial protection measures (representation of 
species  and  habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number  and  location  of  MPAs,  the 
conservation objectives of the MPAs and the policies and measures that will be in place 
within these areas). 

-  The Member State should quantify the pressures present in its waters and their expected 
level  of  reduction  as  a  result  of  the  established  measures.  This  could  be  facilitated  by 
further  efforts  to  address  knowledge  gaps  and  define  the  methodology  for  such 
estimations at regional or EU level. Such quantification will also contribute to linking the 
measures with the achievement of GES. 

-  The programme should provide more details on actions put in place by existing measures 
and regional agreements. This will allow for a better understanding of how the Sweden’s 
programme will support progress towards targets and GES for all descriptors. 

169 

 
 
 
-  The Member State should ensure coherence of its determinations of GES, environmental 
targets  and  the  programme  of  measures.  This  would  allow  to  use  environmental  targets 
systematically  as  milestones  towards  achieving  GES  through  the  measures,  and  monitor 
this  progress  through  the  MSFD  monitoring  programmes.  This  is  applicable  mainly  to 
birds, mammals, fish, water column habitats and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

-  The Member State should ensure better linkages between its programme of measures and 
its monitoring programmes, in order to ensure that the effects of the measures, and hence 
their efficiency  and effectiveness  in meeting targets  and GES, are measured through the 
monitoring programmes. 
D2 — Non-indigenous species  
-  The  Member  State  should  address  the  introduction  of  non-indigenous  species  from 

shipping by covering hull fouling. 

-  The  Member  State  should  clarify  whether  recreational  vessels  are  covered  by  the 

measures. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 
-  The Member State should clarify whether the programme addresses age and size structure 

of commercial species. 

D5 — Eutrophication 
-  The  Member  State  should  clarify  how  atmospheric  deposition  of  nutrients  will  be 
addressed (considering its agreement with the IMO for the designation of the Baltic and 
North Sea as NOx emission control areas (NECA)). 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  Sweden’s  programme  should  address  cumulative  impacts  on  habitats  by  multiple 

stressors. 

-  The Member State should utilise synergies with MSP for addressing cumulative impacts. 
- 

It  should  better  address  pressures  from  activities  not  subject  to  local/project  scale  EIAs 
(e.g.  fishing,  maritime  transport).  In  some  cases  (e.g.  hydrological  changes  where  local 
dimension is important) this gap hampers the assessment of cumulative effects. 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and contaminants in seafood 
-  The Member State should clarify whether the programme addresses agriculture. If not, the 

Member State should establish measures to address contaminants from agriculture. 

D10 — Marine litter 
-  Sweden  should  establish  measures  to  address  marine  litter  from  tourism/recreation  and 

- 

that have a direct impact on the pressure. 
It should establish research efforts to address data gaps, increase knowledge and pave the 
way for direct action to address degradation products as well as counter effects on marine 
species as specified in its GES and targets.  

-  The Member State should make efforts to prevent, identify and tackle pollution hot spots 

(e.g. from plastic pellets, lost fishing gear, single-use plastics, etc.). 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  synergies  with  relevant  existing  legal  frameworks, 

- 

such as the EIA procedures. 
It  should  consider  establishing  measures  that  target  other  energy  inputs  if  possible  (e.g. 
heat, light). 
D1, 4 — Birds 
-  The Member State should specify how pressures on birds beyond by-catch are addressed 

(or will be addressed), namely the effects of non-indigenous species. 

D1, 4 — Mammals  

170 

 
 
-  The  Member  State  should  specify  how  pressures  on  mammals  beyond  by-catch  are 
addressed  (or  will  be  addressed),  namely  the  effects  of  contaminants  and  underwater 
noise. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats  
-  The  Member  State  should  establish  measures  targeting  plankton,  key  feature  for  water 

column habitats. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  Sweden  should  directly  address  shipping,  tourism/recreational  activities,  dredging, 
marine-based  renewable  energy,  port  operations,  land  claim  and  solid  waste  disposal; 
since they have been identified as relevant pressures for seabed habitats. 
It should provide timescales and estimates of how spatial restrictions of seabed damaging 
activities will allow for GES to be achieved. 

- 

-  The  Member  State  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other 
descriptors address pressures for seabed habitats, and further elaborate on how GES and 
targets for seabed habitats are expected to be achieved. 

171 

 
 
 
 
16.  United Kingdom 

General conclusions on the United Kingdom’s programme of measures 

General strengths and weaknesses 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  United  Kingdom’s  programme  of  measures 
addresses  GES  and  targets  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3), 
eutrophication  (D5),  contaminants  (D8),  marine  litter  (D10),  birds  (D1,  4) 
and fish (D1, 4). In Gibraltar, the programme addresses GES and targets for 
non-indigenous  species  (D2),  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9),  marine  litter 
(D10) and birds (D1, 4). 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  Member  State  considers  that  GES  will  be 
achieved  by  2020  for  all  descriptors  except  commercial  fish  and  shellfish 
(D3), contaminants (D8) and fish (D1, 4). In Gibraltar, the United Kingdom 
considers that GES is already achieved for hydrographical changes (D7) and 
water  column  habitats  (D1,  4)  and  will  be  achieved  by  2020  for  non-
indigenous  species  (D2),  eutrophication  (D5),  marine 
litter  (D10), 
underwater  noise  (D11),  birds  and  mammals  (D1,  4)  as  well  as  seabed 
habitats  (D1,  4,  6).  In  Gibraltar,  the  Member  State  considers  that  GES  is 
already  achieved  for  hydrographical  changes  (D7)  and  water  column 
habitats (D1, 4). 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  has  brought  together  and 
coordinated existing  national measures and processes. It  includes measures 
that  are  based  on  commitments  to  existing  European,  regional  and 
international  policies,  such  the  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Directive  (all 
descriptors),  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  Directive  and  the 
Strategic  Environmental  Assessment  (all  descriptors); 
the  Common 
Fisheries Policy (D3, D1, 4, 6), the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 
(D5,  D10),  the  National  Emissions  Ceiling  Directive  (D5),  the  Water 
Framework Directive (WFD) (D5, D7, D8), the Habitats Directive (D7, D1, 
4,  6),  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (IED)  (D8,  D9),  Regulation  (EC) 
No  1881/2006  setting  maximum  levels  for  certain  contaminants  in 
foodstuffs (D9), the Birds Directive (D1, 4, 6), the OSPAR convention (D2, 
D6, D8, D10) and the IMO (D2, D5, D8). 

Strengths 

-  In  Gibraltar,  the  programme  includes  measures  that  are  based  on 
commitments to existing European policies, such as the Birds and Habitats 
Directives  (D1,  4,  6),  Regulation  (EU)  No  1143/2014  (D2),  the  Water 
Framework  Directive  (WFD;  D5,  D7,  D8,  D1,  4,  6),  Urban  Wastewater 
Treatment  Directive  (UWWTD;  D5),  the  National  Emission  Ceiling 
Directive  (D5),  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (D5,  D8),  the  Maritime 
Spatial Planning Directive (D7), Regulation (EC)  No 1881/2006 on  setting 
maximum 
the 
Environmental  Impact  Assessment  (EIA)  Directive  (D7,  D11),  as  well  as 
international  instruments  such  as  or  the  IMO-Ballast  Water  Management 
Convention (D2). 

levels  for  certain  contaminants 

in  foodstuffs  (D9), 

-  In  both  regions,  the  programme  includes  spatial  protection  measures 
(including  MPAs).  These  measures  address  more  than  one  descriptor  at  a 
time  and  therefore  contribute  towards  GES  and  targets  for  several 

172 

 
 
 
descriptors. Measures especially include the strengthening of MPA networks 
and the establishment of management measures within MPAs. 

-  In both regions, the programme combines direct and indirect measures. Most 
measures  directly  address  pressures  on  the  marine  environment.  Indirect 
measures  complement  these,  through  governance  and  coordination  actions, 
as well as awareness-raising efforts. 

-  Based  on  the  information  reported  by  the  United  Kingdom  on  cost  and 
resource  allocations,  timelines  of  implementation  of  measures  as  well  as 
responsible  bodies  for  implementation,  the  likelihood  of  implementation  is 
high  in  both  regions  —  most  measures  have  secured  funding  and  the 
responsible  bodies  for  implementation  have  been  clearly  identified. 
Nevertheless,  a  reporting  gap  is  noted  in  its  reporting,  as  the  timeline  of 
implementation  of  existing  but  not  yet  implemented  measures  is  not 
specified. 

-  In this first implementation cycle of the MSFD, in relation to descriptors for 
which knowledge gaps exist (i.e. especially D10 in Gibraltar and D11 in the 
North-East  Atlantic),  the  Member  State  reports  research  efforts.  This  will 
allow  addressing  knowledge  gaps,  but  also  to  build  upon  the  results  to 
design measures which can contribute directly to tackling underwater noise, 
in the MSFD’s second implementation cycle. 

-  The  spatial  scope  of  the  measures  is  specified  consistently  across  the 

programme in the North-East Atlantic only. 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme only partially addresses GES and 
targets  for  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  hydrographical  changes  (D7), 
contaminants  in  seafood  (D9),  underwater  noise  (D11),  mammals  (D1,  4), 
water column habitats (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). In Gibraltar, it 
partially addresses GES and targets for commercial fish and shellfish (D3), 
eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  (D8), 
underwater noise and energy (D11), fish and mammals (D1, 4), and seabed 
habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

-  In  Gibraltar,  the  programme  does  not  include  specific  measures  for  water 

column habitats (D1, 4). 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the Member State considers that GES will not be 
achieved  by  2020  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3),  contaminants 
(D8) and fish (D1, 4). In Gibraltar, no GES definitions have been provided 
for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3)  and  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9), 
and  the  programme  does  not  include  any  timeline  for  the  achievement  of 
GES for contaminants (D8), which also cannot be estimated for fish (D1, 4). 
-  In the North-East Atlantic, exceptions are applied for fish biodiversity (D1, 

4), commercial fish and shellfish (D3), and contaminants (D8). 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  while  GES  is  not  expected  to  be  achieved  by 
2020  for  several  descriptors,  the  Member  State  has  not  defined  any  new 
measures. 

-  In  Gibraltar,  the  programme  does  not  include  new  measures  that 
complement  those  already  in  place  to  specifically  target  pressures  on  the 
marine environment which were not otherwise covered. 

-  In Gibraltar, in some cases, the programme does not include sufficient links 
to  existing  European  policies,  international  instruments  and  regional 

173 

Weaknesses 

 
 
actions. It is especially the case for D5, D7, D8, D9, D10 and D11. 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme includes spatial measures whose 
exact  geographical  coverage  was  not  clear  at  the  time  of  reporting. 
Therefore,  it  is  not  possible  to  provide  a  clear  and  specific  assessment  on 
the  management  efforts  in  place  (or  to  be  implemented  in  the  future).  In 
Gibraltar, the programme also does not provide details on spatial protection 
measures.  However, the Member  State stated for each descriptor (D2, D3, 
D5, D7-11) and species group and habitat (D1, 4, 6) whether the measures 
are  contributing  to  the  MPA  network  under  the  MSFD.  Information  gaps 
include the representation of species and habitats within the MPAs, the size, 
number and location of MPAs, the conservation objectives of the MPAs and 
the policies and measures that will be in place within these areas. 

-  In  both  regions,  but  especially  in  Gibraltar,  the  Member  State  does  not 
make sufficient links between the measures for the pressure descriptors and 
how they may benefit state (biodiversity) descriptors. This prevents making 
clear  links  between  the  measures  and  the  targets  and  GES  for  state 
descriptors  and  having  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  benefits  of  the 
measures. 

-  A quantification of what the measures will achieve has not been provided in 
neither of the two regions; i.e. to what extent the relevant pressure will be 
addressed, and whether the measures will be sufficient to achieve GES. 

-  In Gibraltar, the spatial scope of the measures is not specified consistently 

across the programme. 

-  In Gibraltar, the programme sometimes includes few data collection efforts, 

as measures. 

-  In  both  regions,  the  United  Kingdom  does  not  always  provide  sufficient 
details  about  the  measures  to  understand  how  they  will  contribute  to 
progress towards targets and GES (as defined by the Member State). 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  The  programme  addresses  the  introduction  of  non-indigenous  species  by 
tackling  aquaculture  (only  in  the  North-East  Atlantic)  and  shipping  via 
ballast water management (linked to the BWMC) and anti-fouling measures 
(in both regions). 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme addresses recreational vessels. 
-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  also  covers  the  oil  and  gas 

activities as a source of introductions of non-indigenous species. 

-  In  Gibraltar, 

the  programme 

includes  early  warning  systems  for 

introductions of non-indigenous species as measures. 

-  In  Gibraltar,  the  programme  does  not  address  introductions  of  non-
indigenous 
(including 
recreational  vessels),  as  well  as  aquaculture  and  fisheries  (reported  as 
relevant in the region by neighbouring Member States). 

tourism/recreational 

activities 

species 

from 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, it does not include early warning systems of non-

indigenous species introductions as measures. 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme does not tackle the development 

of action plans for key high-risk marine non-indigenous species. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 

Strengths 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  addresses  the  extraction  of 

174 

 
 
species by commercial fishing. 

-  In Gibraltar, it addresses the extraction of species from recreational fishing. 
-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  includes  seasonal  and  spatial 
fishing  bans  (for  several  purposes  including  stock  management  and 
biodiversity conservation) that are in addition to existing CFP measures. 
-  The measures cover stocks managed at the national and international level, 
non-targeted  species  (in  the  North-East  Atlantic)  as  well  as  age/size 
structure (in both regions). 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  most  waters  are  covered,  even  beyond  the 
Exclusive  Economic  Zone  (activities  of  the  Member  States’  commercial 
fleet, regardless of where they are operating). 

-  In  Gibraltar,  the  programme  refers  to  a  Regional  Fisheries  Management 

Organisation: ICCAT. 

-  In  Gibraltar,  it includes blanket bans for fisheries (for  the protection of all 

species listed in ICCAT). 

Weaknesses 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, it is not clear if recreational fishing is addressed. 
-  In Gibraltar, the programme does not cover illegal fishing. 

D5 — Eutrophication 

Strengths 

-  In  both  regions, the programme  addresses nutrient  enrichment from  urban, 
industry  and  shipping  sources,  while  in  the  North-East  Atlantic,  it  also 
covers agriculture, and waste water sources. 

-  In both regions, the programme draws from the Member State’s WFD River 
Basin  Management  Plans  (RBMP).  In  the  framework  of  the  MSFD,  most 
measures  are  considered  likely  to  be  sufficient  to  address  pressures  of 
nutrient and organic matter enrichment in the marine environment and cover 
relevant human activities (i.e. mainly agriculture, industry, wastewater and 
flood  risks).  However,  considering  the  extent  to  which  the  MSFD 
programme relies on WFD measures, this statement is subject to the RBMPs 
being assessed as adequate under the WFD assessment. 

-  In  both  regions,  the  measures  address  atmospheric  deposition  of  nutrients 

(NOx). 

Weaknesses 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme does not cover aquaculture. 
-  The  programme  for  Gibraltar  includes  plans  to  build  a  sewage  treatment 

plant, but no such plant currently exists. 

D7 — Hydrographical changes 

Strengths 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  addresses  the  interference  of 
hydrological  processes  from  marine-based  renewable  energy,  oil  and  gas 
installations, marine mining (gravel) and port operations (activities reported 
as  relevant by the  United Kingdom), as  well as land claim/coastal defence 
(reported as relevant by most neighbouring Member States). 

-  In both regions, the programme includes existing measures stemming from 
other  legal  acts.  As  such,  all  projects  that  are  subject  to  existing 
authorisation  and  regulatory  procedures  are  addressed 
terms  of 
hydrographical  changes  (including  land  claim/coastal  defence,  dredging, 
industry and urban area in Gibraltar). 

in 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  utilises  synergies  with  the  EIA 

and SEA Directives, as well as with the WFD. 

Weaknesses 

-  In  both  regions,  the  programme  of  measures  does  not  explain  how  it  will 

175 

 
 
address the issue of cumulative impacts, i.e. impacts from different/multiple 
human activities on hydrography. Cumulative impacts are a major issue for 
the  MSFD;  assessing  cumulative  impacts  would  require  Member  States  to 
consolidate  results  of  individual  assessments  together  to  assess  the  overall 
scale  of  hydrographical  changes.  This  is  not  currently  being  done  by  the 
United Kingdom. 

-  In  Gibraltar, 

the  programme  does  not 

include  measures 

targeting 

desalination plants. 

-  In Gibraltar, as there is much overlap with the WFD in coastal waters and 
other  existing  policies,  the  Member  State  tends  to  consider  —  without 
sufficient  justification  —  that  MSFD  requirements  (of  achieving  GES  and 
targets) can be fully met by the measures defined under other policies (such 
as the WFD). The measures for hydrographical changes (D7) are a transfer 
of these measures into the MSFD programme but it is not clearly explained 
how these will contribute to meeting MSFD objectives. 

-  In  Gibraltar,  since  the  Member  State  considers  that  the  present  state  is  at 
GES,  the  programme  focuses  on  measures  to  address  new  activities  and 
projects, without assessing the scale of past impacts. 

-  In  Gibraltar,  the  programme  does  not  include  measures  on  implementing 
SEA procedures. Integrated coastal zone management processes could also 
contribute to D7 but are not referred to by the Member State. 

D8/D9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood 

sources 

land-based 

-  The  programme  of  measures  addresses  the  introduction  of  contaminants 
from 
regions)  and 
recreation/tourism (in the North-East Atlantic)) and sea-based sources (e.g. 
shipping  (in  both  regions)).  Additional  activities  covered  are  oil  and  gas 
extraction  (in  the  North-East  Atlantic),  port  operations  (in  Gibraltar)  and 
urban areas (in both regions). 

(in  both 

industry 

(e.g. 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  In  Gibraltar,  the  programme  does  not  specifically  cover  agriculture  but 
agricultural  discharges  do  not  originate  from  activities  within  Gibraltar’s 
territory. 

-  It addresses accidental pollution from shipping (in both regions) and marine 

hydrocarbon extraction (in the North-East Atlantic). 

-  In  both  regions,  the  programme  addresses  atmospheric  deposition  of 

contaminants. 

-  In 

the  North-East  Atlantic, 

it  addresses 

the  biological  effects  of 

contaminants. 

-  In  both 

regions, 

the  programme 

includes  measures  dedicated 

to 

contaminants in seafood (D9) (but they only refer to existing policies). 

-  In  both  regions,  the  Member  State  does  not  clearly  explain  how  measures 
for  contaminants  (D8)  will  contribute 
to  addressing  pressures  for 
contaminants in seafood (D9) and allow for progress towards D9 GES and 
targets. 

-  In  Gibraltar,  it  is  not  clear  whether  the  programme  covers  the  biological 

effect of contaminants (oiled seabirds). 

D10 — Marine litter 

Strengths 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  of  measures  addresses  marine 
litter  by  covering  land-based  (e.g.  industry,  tourism)  and  sea-based  (e.g. 

176 

 
 
fisheries)  sources  of  litter.  In  Gibraltar,  the  programme  addresses  marine 
litter 
tourism/recreational 
activities. 

through  measures  covering  shipping  and 

-  In both regions, the United Kingdom’s programme addresses the reduction 
of  marine  litter  input  in  coastal  areas  and  in  the  open  sea,  as  well  as  the 
removal of existing litter. 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, it is likely to cover both macro and micro-litter 

(although it is not completely clear). 

-  In Gibraltar, the programme specifically covers macro-litter with measures 
targeting  litter  removal  and  is  likely  to  also  address  micro-litter  through 
links with other existing policies. 

-  In  Gibraltar,  the  programme  includes  indirect  measures  to  address 
knowledge gaps for marine litter, which, while not yet fully addressing the 
problem, will positively contribute to better characterising the pressure and 
its potential impact on fauna. 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  it  is  not  clear  whether  micro-litter  is  addressed 

by the measures. 

-  In  both  regions,  although  the  GES  definition  refers  to  ‘degradation 
products’, it is not clear whether direct measures are in place to tackle these 
degradation products. 

-  In both regions, due to the lack of knowledge and reporting on the effects of 
marine litter on biota, it is unclear how the Member State will interpret the 
issue  of  ‘do  not  pose  a  significant  risk  to  the  coastal  and  marine 
environment,  either  as  a  result  of  direct  mortality  such  as  through 
entanglement,  or  by  way  of  indirect  impacts  such  as  reduced  fecundity  or 
bioaccumulation  of  contaminants  within  food  chains’,  although  this  aspect 
has been included in its GES definition. 

Weaknesses 

D11 — Underwater noise and energy 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  addresses  continuous  and 
renewable  energy 
impulsive  underwater  noise 
generation,  marine  hydrocarbon  extraction,  dredging,  land  claim/coastal 
defence and shipping. 

from  marine-based 

-  In  Gibraltar,  it  addresses  impulsive  noise  through  general  measures  about 

EIA that are likely to cover dredging activities (port maintenance). 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme includes measures which aim to 

implement a register for noise-generating activities. 

-  The  programme  does  not  address  underwater  noise  from  marine  research 
(reported  as  relevant  in  Article 8  for  the  North-East  Atlantic),  as  well  as 
other  sources  of  impulsive  noise,  such  as  anchoring,  and  continuous  noise 
due to shipping and recreational activities (reported as relevant in Article 8 
for Gibraltar). 

-  In  both  regions,  the  programme  does  not  address  other  energy  inputs  (e.g. 

light and heat). 

D1, 4 — Birds  

Strengths 

-  The programme addresses incidental by-catch by fisheries (in both regions), 
shipping  and  recreational  activities  (in  Gibraltar),  as  well  as  the  effects  of 
non-indigenous  species,  contaminants,  marine  litter,  habitat loss  and  visual 
disturbances (in the North-East Atlantic). 

177 

 
 
-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme addresses biological disturbance 

caused by various activities. 

Weaknesses 

-  In  Gibraltar,  the  programme  does  not  explain  how  the  effects  of  non-
indigenous species, contaminants, marine litter, noise and light pollution on 
seabirds  are  addressed.  It  is  possible  that  these  pressures  are  addressed  by 
the  groups  of  measures  reported  for  non-indigenous  species  (D2), 
contaminants  (D8),  marine  litter  (D10)  and  underwater  noise  (D11),  but 
based on the information reported this cannot be determined. This does not 
allow  for  an  understanding  of  how  the  state  descriptors  will  benefit  from 
these measures. 
D1, 4 — Fish and cephalopods 

-  In  both  regions,  the  programme  of  measures  addresses  incidental  by-catch 

by fisheries. 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme addresses biological disturbances 

Strengths 

from various activities. 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  includes  spatial  protection 
measures  to  complement  measures  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3) 
and protect non-commercial species as well as fish habitats. 

-  In Gibraltar, the programmeof measures does not address illegal fishing. 
-  In Gibraltar, it also does not include specific information about individual 
spatial protection measures to complement commercial fish and shellfish 
(D3) and protect non-commercial species as well as functional fish habitats 
(the Member State however specifies whether the measures are contributing 
to the MPA network under the MSFD, which is the case for fish (D1, 4)). 
-  In Gibraltar, the programme does not include specific measures or plans for 

Weaknesses 

cephalopod species. 

D1, 4 — Mammals  

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the programme addresses incidental by-catch by 
fisheries,  collision  with  ships  as  well  as  prey  depletion/competition. 
Contaminants,  underwater  noise  and  biological  disturbances  are  also 
addressed. 

Strengths 

-  In  Gibraltar,  the  programme  addresses  pressures  on  mammal  habitats 

through existing regulations. 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  also  includes  spatial  protection 
measures  to  address  several  pressures  such  as  by-catch  and  underwater 
noise. 

-  In  Gibraltar,  the  programme  does  not  specifically  address  selective 
extraction  of  species  (incl.  accidental  by-catch)  from  fisheries,  as  well  as 
contaminants,  underwater  noise  and  impacts  on  mammals  due  to  shipping 
(collisions). 

-  The  United  Kingdom’s  programme  does  not  explain  how  the  effect  of 
marine  litter  (in  both  regions),  contaminants  and  underwater  noise  (in 
Gibraltar)  on  mammals  is  addressed.  It  is  possible  that  these  pressures  are 
addressed  by  the  measures  reported  for  contaminants  (D8),  marine  litter 
(D10)  and  underwater  noise  (D11),  but  this  cannot  be  confirmed  from  the 
information reported (it can therefore be considered as a shortcoming in the 
reporting). 

Weaknesses 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 

178 

 
 
Strengths 

Weaknesses 

-  In  both  regions,  the  Member  State  addresses  pressures  on  water  column 
habitats via measures reported for other descriptors (namely commercial fish 
and shellfish (D3) and eutrophication (D5)). 

-  In  both  regions,  the  United  Kingdom  specifies  that  phytoplankton  and 
zooplankton communities in its waters are considered to be healthy and that 
no significant pressures exist. 

-  In  both  regions,  the  programme  does  not  include  dedicated  measures 
addressing water column habitats. It may be that pressures on water column 
habitats  are  addressed  via  measures  reported  for  non-indigenous  species 
(D2),  hydrographical  changes  (D7)  and  contaminants  (D8);  but  how  they  
will  contribute  to  addressing  pressures  on  water  column  habitats  (D1,  4) 
specifically cannot be assessed based on the information reported. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 

Strengths 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the United Kingdom addresses physical loss and 

damage caused by fisheries and land claim/coastal defence. 

Weaknesses 

-  In Gibraltar, the programme partially addresses physical loss and damages, 
as it is not clear whether shipping, tourism/recreational activities, anchoring, 
dredging  as  well  as  land  claim  and  coastal  defence  operations  are  covered 
(although reported as relevant sources of pressures by the Member State). 
-  In the North-East Atlantic, it is not clear whether the programme addresses 
physical  loss  and  damage  from  marine  renewable  energies,  marine 
hydrocarbon extraction, mining, aquaculture and shipping. 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, it is not clear whether it addresses physical loss 

from port operations and solid waste disposal. 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, it is not clear whether the programme addresses 

physical damage from dredging and recreational activities. 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  programme  includes  measures  that  target 
destructive 
in  MPAs  and  minimal 
consideration  is  given  to  the  broader  issues  of  trawling  outside  of  these 
spatially protected areas. 

fishing  practices  particularly 

-  Spatial protection measures are often lacking in detail on their area coverage 

and temporal ranges of restrictions. 

-  In  Gibraltar,  pressures  on  seabed  habitats  are especially  addressed through 
spatial protection measures, which will also limit the extent of geographical 
area  of  where restrictions of certain practices are applied and the extent to 
which seabed habitats are protected. 

-  Most measures relate to physical loss  and damage  for seabed habitat,  with 
minimal  consideration  of  other  pressures  such  as  non-indigenous  species 
(D2),  eutrophication  (D5)  and  marine  litter  (D10).  It  is  possible  that 
pressures  on  seabed  habitats  are  addressed  by  the  groups  of  measures 
reported  for  non-indigenous  species  (D2),  eutrophication  (D5)  and  marine 
litter  (D10);  but  based  on  the  information  reported  this  cannot  be 
determined.  This  does  not  allow  for  an  understanding  of  how  the  state 
descriptors will benefit from these measures. 

Exceptions 
The  United  Kingdom  applies  an  exception  for  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3)  and 
fish  (D1,  4).  It  applies  Article 14(1)(e)  (‘natural  conditions  which  do  not  allow  timely 
improvement  in  the  status  of  the  marine  waters  concerned’).  The  exception  states  that  the 

179 

 
 
programme of measures will allow for GES (related to fish) to be achieved, but not in time for 
the MSFD’s 2020 deadline. It will take time for the measures to actually reduce exploitation 
rates,  and  allow  for  fish,  elasmobranch  and  shellfish  to  achieve  the  desired  length  and 
biomass.  Furthermore,  stock  recovery  can  be  affected  by  biological  and  climatic  conditions 
that cannot be controlled through measures. 

This assessment finds that the justifications provided are grounded. It should be noted that the 
Member  State  does  not  specify  when  GES  is  expected  to  be  achieved  as  per  MSFD 
requirements (in relation to Article 14(1)(e)).  
The  UK  applies  an  exception  for  contaminants  (D8).  It  applies  Article 14(4)  (‘no 
significant  risks  and  disproportionality  of  costs’).  The  exception  states  that  GES  will  be 
achieved  for  most  substances  except  those  that  are  so  persistent  that  they  will  exceed  limit 
values  for  a 
the  application  of 
removal/remediation  measures  is  considered  by  the  UK  to  be  technically  unfeasible  and, 
according to the UK, would entail disproportionate costs. 

time  beyond  2020.  For 

these  substances, 

long 

This  assessment  finds  that  the  justification  of  the  exception  provided  is  partially  grounded. 
The  exception  needs  a  more  in-depth  justification,  including  a  cost-benefit  analysis  and  an 
analysis of the pros and cons of alternative remediation actions, in order to make a definitive 
judgment.  Furthermore,  this  assessment  finds  that  the  application  of  an  exception  under 
Article 14(4)  is  not  suitable,  as  the  justification  provided  hints  to  natural  conditions  of  the 
marine environment in the region. 

Recommendations for the United Kingdom to consider in its programme of measures: 

General 
-  In both regions, in general, the United Kingdom should better address certain pressures and 
activities  in  its  programme  of  measures.  These  are  specified  in  the  descriptor  specific 
recommendations below. 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, GES and targets definitions should be better addressed for non-
indigenous  species  (D2),  hydrographical  changes  (D7),  contaminants  in  seafood  (D9), 
underwater  noise  (D11),  mammals  (D1,  4),  water  column  habitats  (D1,  4)  and  seabed 
habitats (D1, 4, 6). In Gibraltar, GES and targets definitions should be better addressed for 
commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3),  eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes  (D7), 
contaminants  (D8),  underwater  noise  and  energy  (D11),  fish  and  mammals  (D1,  4),  water 
column habitats (D1, 4) and seabed habitats (D1, 4, 6). 

-  In Gibraltar, the Member State should establish specific measures for water column habitats 

(D1, 4). 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the Member State should estimate the alternative dates by when 
GES  will  be  achieved  (relevant  to  D3,  D8  and  D1,  4  —  Fish).  In  Gibraltar,  the  United 
Kingdom should provide a timeline for the achievement of GES for contaminants (D8) and 
fish (D1, 4). 

-  In  both  regions,  the  Member  State  should  establish  new  measures  that  complement  those 
already in place to specifically target pressures on the marine environment which were not 
otherwise  covered,  especially  when  GES  is  not  expected  to  be  achieved  by  2020  (for  the 
North-East Atlantic). 

-  In Gibraltar, the Member State should establish better links with existing EU policies as well 
as  regional  and  international  instruments  for  eutrophication  (D5),  hydrographical  changes 

180 

 
 
 
 
 
(D7), contaminants (D8), contaminant in seafood (D9), marine litter (D10) and underwater 
noise and energy (D11). 

-  In both regions, the United Kingdom’s programme should provide more information about 
its  measures  and  especially  its  spatial  protection  measures  (representation  of  species  and 
habitats  within  the  MPAs,  the  size,  number  and  location  of  MPAs,  the  conservation 
objectives of the MPAs, exact geographical coverage). 

-  In  Gibraltar,  it  should  define  the  spatial  scope  of  its  measures  in  detail.  Furthermore,  the 
spatial scope of measures should be expanded to cover marine waters beyond coastal waters, 
where  relevant  pressures  are  present.  The  Member  State  should  consider  establishing 
additional  measures  beyond  spatial  protection  efforts  to  address  species  and  habitats.  It  is 
important that pressures are addressed across all marine waters. 

-  Especially in Gibraltar, the United Kingdom should make better links between the groups of 
measures  reported  for  pressure  descriptors  and  their  effects  on  the  state  descriptors.  This 
would allow a comprehensive view of the impact of measures affecting all descriptors. 

-  In  both  regions,  the  Member  State  should  quantify  the  pressures  present  in  its  waters  and 
their  expected  level  of  reduction  as  a  result  of  the  established  measures.  This  could  be 
facilitated by further efforts to address knowledge gaps and define the methodology for such 
estimations  at  regional  or  EU  level.  Such  quantification  will  also  contribute  to  linking  the 
measures with the achievement of GES. 

-  In  Gibraltar,  the  United  Kingdom  should  consistently  specify  the  spatial  scope  of  the 

measures. 

-  In both regions, the Member State should clearly identify the timelines for implementation 

of all its existing but not yet implemented measures. 

-  In  Gibraltar,  it  should  report  data  collection  efforts  under  the  MSFD  monitoring 
programmes (Article 11) and not under the Programme of Measures (Article 13). However, 
when knowledge is  too scarce to  design effective measures, it is useful to indicate actions 
taken to address these gaps via research measures. 

-  The Member  State should ensure  better  linkages between the programme of measures and 
the monitoring programme (currently done for D2, D3, D10 and the biodiversity descriptors 
in Gibraltar), in order to ensure that the effects of the measures and hence their efficiency 
and  effectiveness  in  meeting  targets  and  GES  are  measured  through  the  monitoring 
programme. 

D2 — Non-indigenous species 
-  In  Gibraltar,  the  Member  State  should  establish  measures  that  cover  tourism/recreational 
activities  (including  recreational  vessels)  and  defence  operations  (reported  by  the  Member 
State as relevant sources of pressure), as well as aquaculture and fisheries (reported by most 
of the neighbouring Member States). 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the Member State should establish action plans for key high risk 
marine  non-indigenous  species  by  2020  and  early  warning  systems  of  non-indigenous 
species introductions. 

D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish 
-  In the North-East Atlantic, the Member State should cover recreational fishing activities. 
-  In Gibraltar, the Member State should establish measures that cover illegal fishing. 
D5 — Eutrophication 
-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  Member  State  should  establish  measures  that  consider 

nutrient inputs from aquaculture. 

-  In  Gibraltar,  the  Member  State  should  provide  further  efforts  to  ensure  the  building  of 

sewage treatment plants. 

181 

 
 
D7 — Hydrographical changes 
-  In  both  regions,  the  Member  State  should  address  cumulative  impacts  on  habitats  from 

multiple developments. 

-  In Gibraltar, the Member State should establish measures targeting desalination plants. 
-  In  Gibraltar,  the  Member  State  should  provide  more  information  about  its  measures  to 
understand how the measures defined under other policies (such as the WFD) will contribute 
to meeting MSFD objectives. 

-  In Gibraltar, the Member State should assess the scale of past impacts. 
-  In Gibraltar, the Member State should apply SEA procedures, in addition to EIA procedures, 
more  consistently  to  ensure  that  hydrographical  changes  are  tackled  at  a  strategic  level, 
rather than at the project level.  

-  In both regions, the Member State should better address pressures from activities not subject 
to  local/project  scale  EIAs  (e.g.  fishing,  maritime  transport).  In  some  cases  (e.g. 
hydrological changes where local dimension is important) this gap hampers the assessment 
of cumulative effects. 

D8/9 — Contaminants and Contaminants in seafood 
-  In  both  regions,  the  Member  State  should  better  explain  the  manner  in  which  the  D8 

measures contribute to D9 targets. 

-  In Gibraltar, the Member State should clearly address the biological effect of contaminants 

(oiled seabirds). 

D10 — Marine litter 
-  The Member State should establish measures to address micro-litter (especially in the North-
East  Atlantic)  and  degradation  products  (in  both  regions),  and  ensure  that  litter  does  not 
pose  a  significant  risk  to  the  coastal  and  marine  environment,  either  as  a  result  of  direct 
mortality  such  as  through  entanglement,  or  by  way  of  indirect  impacts  such  as  reduced 
fecundity or bioaccumulation of contaminants within food chains, as suggested in its GES 
and targets definitions (in both regions). 

-  In  both  the  North-East  Atlantic  and  the  Mediterranean,  the  Member  State  should  make 

efforts to identify pollution hot spots (e.g. from plastic pellets, lost fishing gear, etc.). 

D11 — Underwater noise 
-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  Member  State  should  establish  measures  covering  marine 

research and other energy inputs (such as light and heat). 

-  In Gibraltar, the Member State should establish direct measures to cover activities that are 
known to produce  high  levels  of  noise, as soon as  possible  (e.g.  shipping and recreational 
activities for continuous noise and anchoring for impulsive noise), as well as other energy 
inputs (i.e. light and heat). 

-  In Gibraltar, the Member State should address data gaps and consolidate research results to 
move  closer  to  characterising  the  noise  pressure,  in  line  with  the  recommendation  of  TG 
Noise.  This  will  enable  to  then  define  more  concrete  and  direct  measures  to  address 
underwater noise in the second MSFD implementation cycle. 

D1, 4 — Birds  
-  In Gibraltar, the Member State should establish additional measures to address pressures on 
birds  beyond  by-catch.  Measures  could  target  effects  of  non-indigenous  species  and  litter 
ingestion, contaminants, noise and light pollution, as well as measures covering birds’ food 
sources.  If  these  are  to  be  addressed  via  measures  reported  for  other  descriptors,  the 
expected effect that measures are to have on birds should be explained. 

D1, 4 — Fish and cephalopods 
-  In Gibraltar, the Member State should establish measures that address illegal fishing. 

182 

 
 
-  In  Gibraltar,  the  United  Kingdom  should  establish  spatial  protection  measures  to  protect 

non-commercial species in open sea areas, as well as functional fish habitats. 

-  In Gibraltar, it should establish measures that include additional MPAs in open sea areas to 
protect  non-commercial  fish  species  from  various  pressures  (non-indigenous  species,  by-
catch, noise and contaminants). If these are to be addressed via measures reported for other 
descriptors, the expected effect that measures are to have on fish should be explained. 

-  In Gibraltar, the Member State should provide more information on existing MPAs and the 
level of protection they provide  for fish, in relation  to  where fish species occur within the 
Member State’s territorial waters, and how they are protected. 

-  In Gibraltar, it should establish specific measures or plans for cephalopod species. 
D1, 4 — Mammals  
-  In  Gibraltar,  the  United  Kingdom  should  establish  additional  measures,  including  spatial 
protection  measures,  to  address  relevant  pressures  on  mammals  such  as  by-catch,  the 
impacts  on  mammal  habitats  due  to  shipping  (collision),  underwater  noise,  contaminants, 
entanglement and ingestion of litter. If these are to be addressed via measures reported for 
other  descriptors,  the  expected  effect  that  measures  are  to  have  on  mammals  should  be 
explained. 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, it should specify how pressures on mammals beyond incidental 

by-catch are addressed (or will be addressed), such as marine litter. 

D1, 4 — Water column habitats 
-  In  both  regions,  the  Member  State  should  establish  dedicated  measures  addressing  water 
column  habitats  or  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other  descriptors 
(such as non-indigenous species (D2), hydrographical changes (D7) and contaminants (D8)) 
address pressures on water column habitats and elaborate on how GES and targets for water 
column habitats are expected to be achieved. 

D1, 4, 6 — Seabed habitats 
-  In  Gibraltar,  the  United  Kingdom  should  establish  additional  measures,  beyond  those 
developed  under  other  existing  policies,  covering  shipping,  tourism/recreational  activities, 
anchoring, dredging as well as land claim and coastal defence operations. 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, it should establish measures addressing physical loss and damage 
from  marine  renewable  energies,  marine  hydrocarbon  extraction,  mining,  aquaculture  and 
shipping. 

-  In the North-East Atlantic, the Member State should establish measures addressing physical 

loss from port operations and solid waste disposal. 

-  In  the  North-East  Atlantic,  the  United  Kingdom  should  establish  measures  addressing 

physical damage from dredging and recreational activities. 

-  In Gibraltar, it should establish measures that extend beyond spatially protected areas (and 

MPAs) to ensure a wider spatial coverage for these habitats. 

-  In both regions, the Member  State should provide timescales and estimates of how spatial 
restrictions of seabed damaging activities, particularly beyond MPAs will allow for GES to 
be achieved. 

-  The  Member  State  should  more  clearly  indicate  which  measures  reported  under  other 
descriptors (e.g. D2, D5, D10)  address pressures  for  seabed habitats,  and further  elaborate 
on how GES and targets for seabed habitats are expected to be achieved. 

Exceptions 
The Member State should provide more robust justifications for its exceptions, when these are 
assessed as partially grounded. It should also specify when it expects GES to be achieved in 
relation to Article 14(1)(e). 

183 

 
 
PART II — SUMMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PER 
MEMBER STATE ON THEIR INITIAL ASSESSMENT, GES 
DETERMINATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS, REPORTED 
UNDER ARTICLE 9(2) AND 10(2) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC 

This part of the Annex only contains Member State-specific recommendations for Poland on 
its  initial  assessment  (Article 8  of  Directive  2008/56/EC),  GES  determination  (Article 9  of 
Directive 2008/56/EC), and environmental targets (Article 10 of Directive 2008/56/EC), since 
Poland,  due  to  late  reporting,  was  not  part  of  the  Commission’s  first  and  second 
assessments22. 

This  Annex  gives  a  summary  of  the  findings  in  the  Member  State-specific  technical 
assessments,  made  by  the  Commission’s  consultants  on  the  basis  of  the  Member  State’s 
reporting  per  descriptor  and  general  questionnaire.  It  describes  some  general  features  and 
highlights, per article, strong and weak points; it addresses identified gaps in knowledge and 
information and plans to address them and concludes with recommendations. 

1.   Poland 

GENERAL ISSUES 

Marine waters 

The  Polish  marine  waters  consist  of  the  Polish  territorial  waters,  including  the  coastal  and 
transitional  waters  covered  by  the  WFD,  and  the  Polish  Exclusive  Economic  Zone.  Poland 
notes that it is currently in dispute with Denmark over an area close to Borhnolm Island. 

Areas assessed 

The assessment covers the Polish part of the Baltic Sea. In addition, the Polish marine waters 
have been divided into subdivisions, in accordance with the decision of HELCOM CORESET 
BD working group23. These include: Gulf of Gdańsk Offshore waters, Gulf of Gdańsk Polish 
Coastal  waters,  Bornholm  Basin  Offshore  waters,  Bornholm  Basin  Polish  Coastal  waters, 
Eastern Baltic Proper Offshore waters, Eastern Baltic Proper Polish Coastal waters, the Polish 
part  of  the  Vistula  Lagoon,  and  the  Polish  part  of  the  Szczecin  Lagoon.  These  assessment 

22

 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,  and  its  accompanying  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  20.2.2014,  SWD(2014)  49  final,  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014SC0049&from=EN;  and  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the 

European  Parliament  and  the  Council  assessing  Member  States’  monitoring  programmes  under  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework  Directive  COM/2017/03  final,  and  its  accompanying  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  20.2.2014, 
SWD(2017) 1 final. 
23 http://www.helcom.fi/helcom-at-work 

184 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
areas  are  used  in  the  initial  assessment  as  well  as  for  setting  GES  and  target  limit  values 
(different values for different areas) for certain descriptors. 

Regional cooperation 

Regional  cooperation  is  not  described  in  detail  in  the  reporting  sheet  or  the  paper  report. 
Poland only mentions cooperation with other HELCOM countries within HELCOM workings 
groups  in  the  reporting  sheet.  Yet,  as  mentioned  before,  Poland  often  refers  to  HELCOM 
indicators  developed  within  HELCOM  CORESET  and  to  other  HELCOM-related  activities 
(e.g. HELCOM COMBINE, HELCOM FISH, HELCOM RED LIST, etc.) in its Articles 8, 9 
and 10 reporting. In addition, Poland has submitted the Baltic Sea Roof Report of December 
2012 from the HELCOM GEAR Group as part of its MSFD reporting to the Commission. 

Other features 

The approach used by Poland for the socio-economic analysis of the marine uses is the Water 
Accounts Approach24. For the socio-economic analysis of the cost of degradation, Poland has 
used the cost-based approach. 

DETERMINATION OF GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS (ART. 9) 

Strong points 

All the descriptors under the MSFD are covered. 

Regular reference is made to EU legislation and to HELCOM. 

Weak points 

For  Descriptor  1,  criteria  1.1  (species  distribution)  and  1.4  (habitat  distribution)  are  not 
addressed.  Further  reference  to  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  would  strengthen  the  GES 
definition. 

For  Descriptor  6,  criterion  6.2  is  addressed,  but  criterion  6.1  (physical  damage)  is  not 
addressed. 

For  Descriptor  7,  the  Polish  GES  definition  is  a  mere  reproduction  of  the  Annex  I  GES 
definition and Commission Decision Criteria and indicators. The definition is not measurable. 

Overall score 

There are partially good GES definitions for Descriptors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Not all 
indicators are addressed, and in some cases limited links to relevant legislations are made. 

24 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/water-assets-accounts-report. 

185 

 
 
 
                                                            
There are inadequate GES definitions for Descriptors 6 and 7, as they do not cover all criteria 
or define its terms or baseline or refer to relevant EU standards or are not specific enough to 
be measurable. 

INITIAL ASSESSMENT (ART. 8) 

Strong points 

The initial assessment generally identifies well the main pressures on the marine environment 
and  their  sources  (e.g.  for  physical  damage).  There  is  use  of  relevant  Habitats  Directive, 
Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  and  HELCOM  assessments,  including  provision  of 
current  status  for  some  elements  (e.g.  certain  habitats  and  species  under  the  Habitats 
Directive). 

Weak points 

No initial assessment is reported for Descriptor 11. 

There  is  insufficient  quantification  of  the  pressures  and  their  impacts  and  only  limited 
assessments of hydrographical changes, physical loss and acute pollution events. Assessment 
coverage varies significantly for the different contaminants and Polish waterbodies. 

There are few conclusive judgments on current status for a number of descriptors, pressures 
and  ecosystem  components  (especially  in  relation  to  D1  for  which  relevant  information  for 
pressures is not reported). 

There is insufficient detail on how gaps in knowledge are going to be addressed. 

Overall score 

The Initial Assessment is assessed as being adequate for Descriptors 3 and 5. 

For  Descriptors  1  (features),  2,  4,  6,  7,  8,  9  and  10  the  Initial  Assessment  is  considered 
partially  adequate,  with  several  key  elements  missing  or  poorly  assessed  and  limited 
assessments of impacts. 

For Descriptors 1 (pressures) the Initial Assessment is considered to be inadequate. 

No assessment is made for Descriptor 11, which is a gap. 

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (ART. 10) 

Strong points 

Targets are defined for all Descriptors. 

186 

 
 
 
 
Weak points 

Many of the targets remain very general and progress towards their achievement can often not 
be measured or lack ambition. 

The indicators chosen for the targets are not always suitable to measure progress towards the 
relevant target. 

Overall score 

The targets for Descriptors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 have been assessed as partially adequate 
since they lack some specificity (thresholds, baselines). 

The  targets for  Descriptors  6,  7 and  11  are  considered  inadequate.  For Descriptor  6,  targets 
are  general  and  do  not  take  into  account  the  sustainable  use  of  the  sea,  they  do  not  include 
baselines and thresholds and do not address GES indicators 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. For Descriptor 7, 
they  lack  reference  to  hydrographical  changes  or  specification  and  are  therefore  not 
measurable. For Descriptor 11, they are not measurable and do not address all aspects of the 
GES definition in particular heat and electromagnetic waves. 

CONSISTENCY 

There  is  a  good  level  of  consistency  between  GES,  the  initial  assessment  and  the 
environmental targets for most descriptors. There is lack of consistency for Descriptor 6 and 
Descriptor 11, and reporting for D9 is only partially consistent. 

IDENTIFIED GAPS AND PLANS TO ADDRESS THEM 

Justification  and  explanation  on  gaps  in  data/knowledge  and  assessment  methodology  are 
sometimes  described.  Plans  to  address  gaps  are  also  sometimes  described,  but  in  a  very 
limited manner. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Poland should: 

a)  Significantly strengthen the GES definition of D1, D6 and D7; 

b)  Improve GES definitions including through regional cooperation using the work of the 
Regional  Seas  Convention  as  much  as  possible  focusing  on  quantitative  aspects  and 
baselines,  with  the  aim  to  make  GES  measurable,  focusing  especially  on  those 
descriptors assessed as inadequate or partially adequate; 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
c)  Identify  knowledge  and  information  gaps  and  address  these,  i.e.  through  the 
monitoring programme under the MSFD and research programmes, focusing on those 
descriptors considered as inadequate or partially adequate; 

d)  Further  develop  its  approaches  to  assessing  (quantifying)  impacts  from  the  main 

pressures to lead to improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018; 

e)  Ensure  that  the  targets  cover  all  relevant  pressures,  are  SMART  and  sufficiently 

ambitious in order to achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD; 

f)  Improve  the  consistency  between  the  criteria  used  in  GES,  the  assessment  of  the 

impact and the proposed targets. 

188 

 
 
 
PART  III  —  SUMMARY  FINDINGS  AND  GUIDANCE  PER  MEMBER 
STATE  ON  MONITORING  PROGRAMMES,  REPORTED  UNDER 
ARTICLE 11(3) OF DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC25 

This  part  of  the  Annex  only  contains  Member  State-specific  guidance  for  those  Member 
States  that  were  not  part  of  the  Commission’s  assessment  of  Member  States’  monitoring 
programmes  in  2017,  due  to  late  reporting  from  these  Member  States.  Those  are:  Malta, 
Greece, Malta, Poland and the United Kingdom (but for the waters surrounding Gibraltar).  

These  summaries  result  from  technical  Member  State-specific  assessments26,  which  analyse 
their  monitoring  programmes  per  descriptor27,  under 
Member  States’  reporting  of 
Article 11(3)  of  Directive  2008/56/EC.  It  describes  the  conclusions  of  these  technical 
assessments, the achievement so far, the aspects where improvement is needed and it provides 
outcome per descriptor. 

Methodology 

The  adequacy  of  the  MSFD  monitoring  programmes  has  been  assessed  by  considering 
whether  the  programmes  and  related  sub-programmes  of  Member  States  are  sufficient  to 
cover  the  monitoring  needs  for  the  assessment  of  progress  towards  achieving  Good 
Environmental  Status  (GES)  and  environmental  targets,  as  defined  by  each  Member  State. 
The  outcome  of  the  assessment  is  therefore  partly  dependent  on  the  ambition  level  of  the 

Member State’s determination of GES and targets. 

The  overall  conclusion  and  guidance  per  Member  State  given  at  the  beginning  of  each 

Member  State’s  section  is  however  based  on  an  assessment  of  their  monitoring  programme 

with  regard  to  coverage  of  progress  towards  GES  achievement  only,  referring  to  the  main 
objective  of  the  MSFD.  For  each  descriptor,  the  Commission  assessed  the  monitoring 
programmes, in particular their purpose, spatial scope, implementation timeline, and regional 
coherence,  and  concluded  overall  on  whether  they  constitute  an  appropriate  framework  to 
meet the requirements of the MSFD. 

25  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), (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, 
p. 19), hereafter referred to as Marine Strategy Framework Directive or MSFD. 
26

  The  technical  Member  State-specific  assessments  were  prepared  for  the  Commission  by  an  external  consultant  and  are 

found at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/reports_en.htm 
27

 The 11 qualitative descriptors are defined in Annex I of Directive 2008/56/EC and are further specified in Commission 
Decision  2010/477/EU  of  1 September  2010  on  criteria  and  methodological  standards  on  good  environmental  status  of 
marine water (OJ L 232, 2.9.2010, p. 14), hereafter referred to as ‘descriptors’ and associated to a number between 1 and 11. 
The numbers refer to the respective numbered points in Annex I of the MSFD (D1 — Biodiversity, D2 — Non-indigenous 
Species, D3 — Commercial fish and shellfish, D4 — Food webs, D5 — Eutrophication, D6 — Sea-floor integrity, D7 — 
Hydrographical  changes,  D8  —  Contaminants,  D9  —  Contaminants  in  seafood,  D10  —  Litter,  D11  —  Energy,  including 
underwater  noise).    For  the  purpose  of  reporting  on  monitoring  programmes  ‘Biodiversity’  descriptors  (D1,  4  and  6)  have 
been grouped according to the main species groups and habitat types: D1, 4 and 6 — Birds, D1, 4 and 6 — Mammals and 
reptiles, D1, 4 and 6 — Fish and cephalopods, D1, 4 and 6 — Seabed habitats, D1, 4 and 6– Water column habitats. 

189 

 
 
 
                                                            
1.  Greece 

Greece reported under Article 11 of the MSFD in February 2017. In total, Greece’s Article 11 
reporting includes 29 sub-programmes covering all descriptors. 

General conclusions on adequacy/coverage 

The adequacy of the Greek MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 
needs for the assessment of progress towards GES and achievement of environmental targets, 
as  defined  by  the  Member  State  in  2013  (with  one  set  of  targets  for  commercial  fish  and 
shellfish (D3) having been further refined in 2017).  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The  Member  State’s  own  assessment  of  the  date  by  which  their  monitoring 

programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether  the  Member  State  has  provided  justifications  and/or  plans  to  address  (any) 

gaps. 

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals and reptiles 

D1, 4 Fish and cephalopods 

D1, 4 Water column habitats 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed habitats 

D2 Non-indigenous species 

D3 Commercial fish and 
shellfish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Underwater noise and 
energy 

0 

GES 

Targets 

MS assessment 

GES 
NA 

Targets 
NA 

MS plans/ 
justifications 
No 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 
Not  applicable  (GES/targets  not  defined,  no  monitoring  programme  reported  or  no  conclusion  to  be 
reached from the reported information) 

190 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  MSFD  monitoring  sub-programmes  for  all  descriptors  need  further  refinement  and 
development to constitute an appropriate framework to monitor progress towards the related 
GES. 

Achievements so far 

-  The  technical  assessment  also  shows  that  even  though  targets  have  not  yet  been 
defined for birds, the Member State has already designed monitoring sub-programmes 
for this species group, which is positive. 

-  The  Greek  monitoring  programme  shows  consistency  with  the  standards  and 
guidelines  produced  by  UNEP/MAP,  bringing  in  a  regional  dimension  in  the  work 
done by the Member State. Furthermore, the modified GES indicators for D3 make the 
direct link with UNEP/MAP guidance. 

Aspects where improvement is needed 

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Greek  monitoring  programme  shows  a 
number of weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets for the biodiversity 
descriptors  as  well  as  D3,  D5  D8,  D9;  and  descriptors  considered  less  advanced  in 
terms of knowledge and methodologies, i.e. D2, D7, D10 and D11. 

-  Regarding  commercial  fish  and  shellfish  (D3);  while  the  design  of  the  reported 
monitoring  programme  covers  the  elements  and  parameters  needed  to  measure 
progress  towards  GES  and  targets;  Greece’s  non-implementation  of  the  Data 
Collection  Framework  (CFP)  between  2008-2013  may  compromise  the  coverage  of 
the MSFD needs to monitor progress towards GES and targets. 

-  Greece  has  not  systematically  reported  on  the  links  between  its  monitoring  and  EU 
regulation for a number of descriptors, in particular D5 (UWWTD, Nitrates Directive) 
and D7 (EIA Directive). 

-  Greece  does  not  elaborate  on  monitoring  transboundary  impacts  or  any  other  major 
environmental changes or emerging issues. The Member State refers to climate change 
as an issue, but does not elaborate how this may be addressed via its programmes. 

Recommendations 

Greece should: 

In general: 

(a)  continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  EU 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive28, 
the  Birds,  Directive29,  the  Water  Framework  Directive30  and  the  Invasive  Alien 
Species  Regulation31  with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  MSFD-  specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 

28 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 
29 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds. 
30 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy. 
31 Regulation 1143/2014 on invasive alien species. 

191 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
spatial  scope  and  coverage  as  well  as  elements,  parameters,  habitats  and  species 
monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

joint  monitoring 

programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by UNEP/MAP. 
(c)  enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1.4 and 6): 

(d) develop the monitoring programme to cover offshore areas; 
(e)  develop  the  monitoring  programme  for  fish  and  cephalopods  to  include  non-

commercial fish species; 

(f)  clarify the spatial coverage for seabed habitats. 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(g) develop the monitoring programme to address impacts of non-indigenous species, as 

per its GES and target definitions. 

On commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3): 

(h) ensure  that  the  monitoring  programme  for  fish  and  shellfish  is  effectively 

implemented. 

(i)  develop monitoring of recreational fishing. 

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): 

(j)  Develop specific sets of threshold values for coastal and open sea locations in order to 

better assess their ecological features. 

(k) develop a monitoring programme that is better aligned with its target definitions, and 
that covers the necessary element and parameters to monitor the reduction of organic 
and nutrient loads to the sea. 

On hydrographical conditions (Descriptor 7): 

(l)  develop  a  programme  to  specifically  monitor  areas  of  projects  susceptible  to  cause 

hydrographical changes on the surrounding habitats; 

(m) develop  a  programme  that  ensure  the  representativeness  and  appropriateness  of 

methods of sampling in coastal as well as offshore areas; 

(n) develop  a  programme  that  addresses  the  ‘environmental  impact’  component  of  its 

target. 

On contaminants (Descriptor 8): 

(o) clarify and/or develop a monitoring programme that covers contaminants. 

On contaminants in seafood (Descriptor 9): 

(p) clarify and/or develop a monitoring programme that covers contaminants in seafood. 

On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

(q) develop monitoring of impacts on biota (for macro-litter). 

192 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 

(r)  further  develop  the  monitoring  programme  for  continuous  noise  and  ensure  its 

implementation. 

193 

 
 
 
 
 
2.  Malta 

Malta  reported  under  Article 11  of  the  MSFD  in  October  2015.  In  total,  Malta’s  Article 11 
reporting includes 40 sub-programmes covering all descriptors. 

General conclusions on adequacy/coverage 

The adequacy of the Maltese MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 
needs for the assessment of progress towards GES and achievement of environmental targets, 
as defined by the Member State in 2013.  

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The  Member  State’s  own  assessment  of  the  date  by  which  their  monitoring 

programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 

-  Whether  the  Member  State  has  provided  justifications  and/or  plans  to  address  (any) 

gaps. 

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 Non-indigenous 
species 

D3 Commercial fish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

Technical assessment 
GES 

Targets 

MS assessment 

GES 
2020 

2014 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2014 

2020 

2020 

2014 

2020 

2020 

Targets 
2020 

2014 

2014 

2020 

2014 

2020 

2020 

2014 

2020 

2014 

2020 

2020 

MS plans/ 
justifications 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 
Not applicable (GES/targets not defined, or no monitoring programme reported) 

for  biodiversity,  non-indigenous  species, 
The  MSFD  monitoring  sub-programmes 
contaminants, marine litter and underwater noise need further refinement and development to 
constitute an appropriate framework to monitor progress towards the related GES. 

194 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Achievements so far 

-  The technical assessment shows that Malta has developed its monitoring programme 
and  sub-programmes  in  a  consistent  manner  with  its  GES  definitions  and  targets  for 
D3, D5 and D7; and with its GES definitions for D9. 

-  The  technical  assessment  also  shows  that  even  though  targets  have  not  yet  been 
defined for D9, the Member State has already designed a monitoring sub-programme 
for this descriptor, which is positive. 

-  The  Maltese  monitoring  programme  shows  consistency  with  the  standards  and 
guidelines  produced  by  UNEP/MAP,  bringing  in  a  regional  dimension  in  the  work 
done by the Member State. 

-  Malta has provided plans for future work for all descriptors, even though it considers 
that  its  monitoring  programme  is,  for  the  most  part,  already  adequate  to  measure 
progress  towards  its  GES  and  targets.  This  is  in  line  with  the  principle  of  adaptive 
management.  

Aspects where improvement is needed 

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Maltese  monitoring  programme  shows  a 
number of weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets for the biodiversity 
descriptors  as  well  as  for  D8;  and  descriptors  considered  less  advanced  in  terms  of 
knowledge and methodologies, i.e. D2, D10 and D11. 

-  Malta  does  not  elaborate  on  major  environmental  changes  or  emerging  issues,  but 
refers  to  the  impacts  and  features  it  monitors  as  part  of  its  monitoring  sub-
programmes. 

Recommendations 

Malta should: 

In general: 

(a)  continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  EU 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive32, 
the  Birds,  Directive33,  the  Water  Framework  Directive34  and  the  Invasive  Alien 
Species  Regulation35  with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  the MSFD-specific monitoring  needs are appropriately  met in  terms of 
spatial  scope  and  coverage  as  well  as  elements,  parameters,  habitats  and  species 
monitored. 

(b) continue 

joint  monitoring 
programmes developed at regional or sub regional level, for instance by UNEP/MAP. 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

implement,  where 

to 

32 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 
33 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds. 
34 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy. 
35 Regulation 1143/2014 on invasive alien species. 

195 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(c)  enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular: 

On biodiversity (in particular on Descriptors 1, 4 and 6): 

(d) develop  the  monitoring  programme  for  birds  to  address  the  target  related  to  the 
impacts by rats and light pollution as well as improving the monitoring frequency. 
(e)  develop the monitoring programme for mammals and reptiles to ensure an appropriate 

frequency of monitoring. 

(f)  develop the monitoring programme for fish and cephalopods to improve the coverage 

of pelagic and coastal species. 

(g) develop the monitoring programme for seabed habitats in order to address knowledge 
gaps  on  benthic  habitats  from  reefs,  caves  and  littoral  sediments,  as  well  as  clarify 
how  it  will  assess  the  recovery  of  these  habitats  following  the  measures  taken  for 
offshore habitats. 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(h) develop  the  monitoring  programme  in  order  to  allow  a  more  detailed  assessment  of 

non-indigenous species impacts on the environment. 

On commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3): 

(i)  provide  more  information  on  how  their  monitoring  programme  would  collaborate  in 
assessing the reproductive capacity of stocks (such as size at maturity and life history). 

On hydrographical conditions (Descriptor 7): 

(j)  ensure that cumulative impacts of projects are monitored. 

On contaminants (Descriptor 8): 

(k) develop  the  monitoring  programme  to  ensure  that  environmental  impacts  of  acute 

pollution events are covered. 

(l)  clarify  the  level  of  protection  afforded  by  the  national  standards  which  are  used 

instead of the EQSD ones. 

On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

(m) improve monitoring of micro-litter and of ingestion of litter by marine life. 

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 

(n) develop the monitoring of diffuse and continuous noise. 
(o)  address the impacts of underwater noise on the key species groups, as suggested by the 

GES definition. 

196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  Poland 

Poland  reported  under  Article 11  of  the  MSFD  between  June  and  October  2015.  In  total, 
Poland’s Article 11 reporting includes 24 sub-programmes covering all descriptors. 

General conclusions on adequacy/coverage 

The adequacy of the Polish MSFD monitoring programme has been assessed by considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 
needs for the assessment of progress towards GES and achievement of environmental targets, 
as defined by the Poland in 2014 and 2015. 

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The  Member  State’s  own  assessment  of  the  date  by  which  their  monitoring 

programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 
-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps. 

Technical assessment 
GES 

Targets 

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals 

D1, 4 Fish 

D1, 4 Water column 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed 

D2 Non-indigenous 
species 

D3 Commercial fish and 
shellfish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

MS assessment 

GES 
2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2014 

2020 

2014 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2018 

2020 

Targets 
2018 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2018 

2014 

2014 

2020 

2020 

MS plans/ 
justifications 
Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 
Not applicable (e.g. GES/targets not defined or programme not reported) 

The  MSFD  monitoring  sub-programmes  for  all  descriptors  apart  from  those  of  fish 
biodiversity,  seabed  habitats,  eutrophication,  and  contaminants  in  seafood,  need  further 
refinement  and  development  to  constitute  an  appropriate  framework  to  monitor  progress 
towards some of the related GES and targets. 

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Achievements so far 

-  The technical assessment shows that Poland has developed its monitoring programme 
and  sub-programmes  in  a  highly  consistent  manner  with  its  MSFD  GES  (Article 9) 
and  environmental  targets  (Article 10).  The  Polish  monitoring  programme  is 
considered  sufficient  to  assess  progress  towards  fish  biodiversity,  seabed  habitats, 
non-indigenous species, eutrophication, and contaminants in seafood GES and targets. 
-  Regional  cooperation  has  systematically  been  referenced  by  the  Member  State,  with 
HELCOM  being  linked  to  monitoring  activities  under  almost  descriptors.  The 
HELCOM monitoring manual is linked to all sub-programmes, apart from birds, fish 
and  mammals,  where  EU  Directives  are  referenced  (Birds  and  Habitats,  Common 
Fisheries Policy). 

-  Poland  has  provided  plans  for  future  work  for  a  number  of  descriptors  (e.g. 

development of indicators that will address phytoplankton (D5)). 

Aspects where improvement is needed 

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  Polish  monitoring  programme  shows  a 
number  of  weaknesses  that  affect  its  coverage  of  GES  and  targets  for  birds  (D1,  4), 
mammals (D1, 4), water column habitats (D1, 4), D2, D3, D7, D8, D10 and D11. 
-  Poland  reports  limited  amount  of  information  on  transboundary  impacts,  major 

environmental changes and emerging issues. 

Recommendations 

In general: 

(a)  continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  EU 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  in  particular  the  Habitats  Directive36, 
the  Birds,  Directive37,  the  Water  Framework  Directive38  and  the  Invasive  Alien 
Species  Regulation39  with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time 
ensuring  that  MSFD-  specific  monitoring  needs  are  appropriately  met  in  terms  of 
spatial  scope  and  coverage  as  well  as  elements,  parameters,  habitats  and  species 
monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

joint  monitoring 

programmes developed at regional or subregional level, for instance by HELCOM. 
(c)  enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular: 

36 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 
37 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds. 
38 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy. 
39 Regulation 1143/2014 on invasive alien species. 

198 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
On biodiversity (Descriptor 1, 4, 6): 

(d) further  develop  its  monitoring  programme  to  cover  impacts  on  species  and  habitats 

(especially in relation to birds and mammals). 

(e)  improve  the  spatial  scope,  coverage  and  temporal  frequency  of  its  monitoring 

programme for mammals. 

(f)  clarify and improve the coverage of monitoring of seabed habitats (it is unclear what 

type of seabed habitats will be monitored). 

On non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2): 

(g) further develop its monitoring programme to monitor more hotspots and pathways of 
introduction,  as  well  as  cover  impacts  of  non-indigenous  species  as  per  their  GES 
definition. 

On commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3): 

(h) further  strengthen  its  monitoring  programme  by  covering  additional  species  reported 

as relevant (i.e. salmon) and shellfish (which is currently not covered). 

On hydrographical conditions (Descriptor 7): 

(i)  improve  its  monitoring  programmes  to  cover  appropriate  habitats  and  impacts, 

including small scale events (link with EIA Directive). 

On contaminants (Descriptor 8): 

(j)  further strengthen the monitoring programme for D8 by monitoring biological impacts 

and acute pollution events, as per GES definition. 

On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

(k) strengthen  its  monitoring  programme  by  defining  and  monitoring  indicator  species, 

and covering impact on marine life. 

On underwater noise (Descriptor 11): 

(l)  strengthen  its  monitoring  programme  for  acute  noise  by  improving  the  spatial  and 

temporal frequency of its sampling. 

(m) expand  its  monitoring  programme  for  this  descriptor  to  also  cover  heat  and 

electromagnetic waves, as per its GES definition. 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  United Kingdom (Gibraltar) 

The UK reported under Article 11 of the MSFD for the marine waters of Gibraltar in March 
2016.  In  total,  the  UK’s  Article 11  reporting  for  Gibraltar  includes  25  MSFD  sub-
programmes, covering all descriptors. 

General conclusions on adequacy/coverage 

The  adequacy  of  the  UK  MSFD  monitoring  programme  has  been  assessed  by  considering 
whether  the  programme  and  related  sub-programmes  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  monitoring 
needs for the assessment of progress towards GES and achievement of environmental targets, 
as defined by the UK in 2012-2013. 

The following table provides an overview (by descriptor) of: 

-  The  conclusions  of  the  technical  assessment  in  relation  to  the  coverage  of  GES  and 

targets by the Member State’s monitoring programme and sub-programmes; 

-  The  Member  State’s  own  assessment  of  the  date  by  which  their  monitoring 

programme is or will be adequate to measure progress towards GES and targets; 
-  Whether the Member State has provided justifications and/or plans to address gaps. 

Technical assessment 
GES 

Targets 

Descriptor 

D1, 4 Birds 

D1, 4 Mammals and 
reptiles 

D1, 4 Fish and 
cephalopods 

D1, 4 Water column 
habitats 

D1, 4, 6 Seabed habitats 

D2 Non-indiegenous 
species 

D3 Commercial fish and 
shellfish 

D5 Eutrophication 

D7 Hydro. changes 

D8 Contaminants 

D9 Seafood cont. 

D10 Marine litter 

D11 Energy/Noise 

MS assessment 

GES 
2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

Targets 
2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

2016 

MS plans/ 
justifications 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Coverage 
Partial coverage 
No coverage 
Not applicable (GES/targets not defined, or no monitoring programme reported) 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  MSFD  monitoring  sub-programmes  for  eutrophication,  hydrological  changes,  marine 
litter and underwater noise and energy need further refinement and development to constitute 
an appropriate framework to monitor progress towards some of the related GES and targets. 

Achievements so far 

-  The technical assessment shows that with regard to measuring progress towards GES 
(Article 9) and the environmental targets (Article 10), the UK programme for Gibraltar 
is considered sufficient for a number of key pressure descriptors, including those D1, 
4, 6, D2, D8 and D9. 

-  The  UK  monitoring  programme  shows  some  level  of  consistency  with  the  standards 
and guidelines produced by the UNEP/MAP, even though it is not a contracting party 
of the Barcelona Convention, bringing in a regional dimension in the work done by the 
Member State. 

-  The UK has provided plans for future work for a number of descriptors, even though it 
considers  that  its  monitoring  programme  is,  for  the  most  part,  already  adequate  to 
measure  progress  towards  its  GES  and  targets.  This  is  in  line  with  the  principle  of 
adaptive management.  

Aspects where improvement is needed 

-  According  to  the  technical  assessment,  the  UK  monitoring  programme  for  Gibraltar 
shows a number of  weaknesses that affect its coverage of GES and targets for some 
descriptors, i.e. D5, D7, D10 and D11. 

-  For  D3,  the  UK  has  not  yet  defined  a  specific  MSFD  monitoring  programme  for 
Gibraltar, and it does not plan to do so in the future based on the lack of a commercial 
fishing fleet. 

Recommendations 

The UK should: 

In general: 

(a)  continue  to  integrate  monitoring  programmes  already  existing  under  relevant  EU 
legislation  and  other  international  agreements,  such  as  the  Habitats  Directive40,  the 
Birds,  Directive41,  the  Water  Framework  Directive42  or  the  Invasive  Alien  Species 
Regulation43  with  MSFD  monitoring  programmes,  while  at  the  same  time  ensuring 
that MSFD- specific monitoring needs are appropriately met in terms of spatial scope 
and coverage as well as elements, parameters, habitats and species monitored. 

(b) continue 

to 

implement,  where 

they  exist,  coordinated  and 

joint  monitoring 

programmes developed at regional or sub regional level. 

40 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 
41 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds. 
42 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action 
in the field of water policy. 
43 Regulation 1143/2014 on invasive alien species. 

201 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(c)  enhance  comparability  and  consistency  of  monitoring  methods  within  its  marine 
region,  in  particular,  by  considering  the  monitoring  scope,  coverage,  frequency  and 
choice of indicators with practices at the regional level. 

In particular: 

On commercial fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3): 

(d) develop  a  monitoring  programme  to  cover  recreational  fishing  of  species  beyond 

Bluefin tuna. 

On eutrophication (Descriptor 5): 

(e)  develop a monitoring programme for perennial seaweeds 

On hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7): 

(f)  clarify how the indicator species listed in the GES and targets are monitored. 
(g) address cumulative impacts, changes of circulation and physical loss or damage. 

On marine litter (Descriptor 10): 

(h) develop its monitoring to cover seabed litter. 

On underwater noise and energy (Descriptor 11): 

(i)  develop a monitoring programme for continuous low frequency (ambient) noise from 

shipping. 

202