National overview: Belgium
Table of contents
- Who is responsible for MSFD implementation?
- Where is the MSFD implemented?
- Areas for MSFD reporting
- Regional cooperation
- Uses and human activities and their pressures on marine environment
- Pressures affecting environmental status
- Current environmental status and extent to which GES is achieved (as reported in 2018)
- Environmental targets to achieve GES
- Measures to meet environmental targets and to achieve GES
- Exceptions reported when targets or GES cannot be achieved
- Assessments of progress in MSFD implementation (Art. 12, 16) / 2012
- Assessments of progress in MSFD implementation (Art. 12, 16) / 2018
- Reporting history and performance
Who is responsible for MSFD implementation?
| MSFD Article | Art. 7 Competent authorities |
| Report date | 2020-01-16 |
| Access reports | View all reports |
CA code (EU, national) |
BE-FGOV-HEALTH |
BE-FGOV-TRANSPORT |
BE-FGOV-MUMM |
BE-FGOV-MIL |
BE-FGOV-ENERGY |
BE-FGOV-QUALITY_SAFETY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Acronym, Name (national) |
FPS Public Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment - Service Marine environment (FOD Volksgezondheid, Veiligheid van de Voedselketen en Leefmilieu - Dienst Marien Milieu) |
FPS Mobility and Transport (FOD Mobiliteit en Vervoer – Directoraat-generaal Maritiem Vervoer) |
MUMM: FPS Science Policy, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Service Management Unit of the Mathematical Model of the North Sea (POD Wetenschapsbeleid, Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen, Wetenschappelijke Dienst Beheerseenheid van het Mathematisch Model van de Noordzee) |
Defense - Naval component (Ministerie van Landsverdediging – Marinecomponent) |
FPS Economy, SME's and Energy, DG Energy (FOD Economie, K.M.O, Middenstand en Energie – Algemene Directie Energie) |
FPS Economy, SME's and Energy, DG Quality and Safety (FOD Economie, K.M.O, Middenstand en Energie – Algemene Directie Kwaliteit en Veiligheid) |
Address |
Place Victor Hortaplein 40/010, Brussels/Brussel, Belgium, 1060 |
rue du Progrès-Vooruitgangstraat 56, Brussels/Brussel, Belgium, 1210 |
Vautierstraat 29, Brussels/Brussel, Belgium, 1200 |
Graaf Jansdijk 1, Bruges (Zeebrugge)/Brugge (Zeebrugge), Belgium, 8380 |
avenue Albert II-laan 16, Brussels/Brussel, Belgium, 1000 |
avenue Albert II-laan 16, Brussels/Brussel, Belgium, 1000 |
URL |
http://www.health.belgium.be/nl/milieu |
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/ |
http://www.odnature.naturalsciences.be/mumm/ |
http://www.mil.be/ |
http://economie.fgov.be/ |
http://economie.fgov.be/ |
Legal status |
Federal administration
|
Federal administration
|
Federal administration
|
Federal administration
|
Federal administration
|
Federal administration
|
Responsibilities |
De federale overheid, de bevoegde overheid in België, voert een vooruitstrevend beleid inzake Mariene Strategie. Als we de toestand in België vergelijken met de andere landen van Europa, dan is de balans positief. Wij in België zijn er in geslaagd 'zorg voor het milieu' te vertalen in een en beleid en niet een of beleid: er is plaats voor de mens en de natuur, niet de mens of de natuur. Om dit te bereiken buigt de dienst marine milieu van de federale overheid zich over thema ’s als internationale natuurbescherming, olieverontreiniging en verontreiniging van op het land, interactie land-zee. De rode draad door heen het beleid van de dienst mariene milieu is het uitvoeren van het aangegane engagement, de uitdagingen innoverend te benaderen en de internationale gemeenschap te inspireren.
De Dienst Marien Milieu coördineert de uitvoering door de bevoegde federale diensten van een correcte implementatie van de Kaderrichtlijn Mariene Strategie.
|
scheepvaartcontrole; exploitatie, beveiliging en havenaangelegenheden; veiligheid en milieuvrijwaring.
|
Modellering en monitoring van het marien milieu
|
In het kader van “Acties van de Staat op zee” maakt Defensie/COMOPSNAV deel uit van de Structuur Kustwacht. De Kustwacht coördineert, door het inzetten van de juiste competenties en middelen op de juiste plaats, het toezicht op de toepassing en naleving van de geldende regelgevingen en treedt tegenover derde partijen op als één geïntegreerde uniforme structuur. Ze doet dit door de coördinatie te verzekeren van de acties van de overheid in de havens en de zee- en kustgebieden die onder de bevoegdheid vallen van de federale en gewestelijke overheden.
De acties van de overheid op zee worden gedragen door zowel nationale als de door de federale en gewestelijke overheden erkende internationale regelgeving en conventies.
|
• instaan voor het behoud en de continuïteit van de energiebevoorrading van het land, in het vooruitzicht van duurzame ontwikkeling.
• Aanduiding van mogelijke concessiezones voor windturbineparken.
|
• De Algemene Directie Kwaliteit en Veiligheid zet zich in voor het uitvoeren van technische opdrachten zodat de kwaliteit en de veiligheid van producten, diensten en installaties, de know-how en de competitiviteit van de ondernemingen ondersteund worden.
• Zo verhoogt zij het vertrouwen van nationale en internationale actoren in een competitieve economie, ondersteund door ontwikkelingen die samengaan met controle, normalisatie, accreditatie en certificatie, hand in hand met innovatie.
• Daarnaast begeleidt en coördineert ze het wetenschappelijk onderzoek inzake metrologie en het duurzaam beheer van het continentaal plat.
• zand- en grindontginning op Belgische continentaal plat.
|
Reference |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Membership |
De Dienst Marien Milieu heeft het voorzitterschap van de Stuurgroep MNZ (Mèr du Nord – Noordzee) van het Coördinatiecomité International Milieubeleid. De juridische basis van dit comité is het samenwerkingsakkoord van 5 april 1995 tussen de federale Staat, het Vlaamse Gewest, het Waalse Gewest en het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest met betrekking tot het internationaal milieubeleid. Deze Stuurgroep staat in voor de coördinatie met de relevante bevoegde diensten van de federale Staat en de Gewesten. De intern-Belgische bevoegdheidsverdeling, zoals beschreven in de Bijzondere Wet tot Hervorming der Instellingen van 8 augustus 1980 (zoals gewijzigd), wijst diverse voor het mariene milieu relevante bevoegdheden toe aan de Gewesten, zoals visserijbeleid, waterwegen, havens, zeewering, ... die, voor wat de Noordzee en de kust betreft, door het Vlaamse Gewest worden uitgeoefend. Het milieubeleid (met uitzondering van het productbeleid) t.a.v. bronnen op het land van stoffen die kunnen aanleiding geven tot mariene verontreiniging valt eveneens onder de Gewestelijke bevoegdheden.
Taken:
• de voorbereiding van het standpunt van de Belgische delegatie bij de Internationale Organisaties of de Internationale ministeriële conferenties, en een inschatting maken van de financiële gevolgen van eventuele beslissingen door deze organisaties
• de samenstelling bepalen van deze Belgische delegatie, en een woordvoerder hiervoor aanduiden
• de organisatie van het overleg voor een gezamenlijke uitvoering van de aanbevelingen en beslissingen van deze instanties
• de voorbereiding van de agendapunten van de interministeriële leefmilieuconferenties
• de supervisie over de gegevensverzameling voor het beantwoorden van vragen van internationale organisaties en eventueel de uitwerking van een gezamenlijk federaal + gewestelijk rapport
• het verstrekken van advies voor vragen van ministers of staatssecretarissen die in het comité vertegenwoordigd zijn
De Stuurgroep MNZ is bevoegd voor de nationale standpuntbepalingen betreffende het mariene milieu. De Dienst Marien Milieu neemt de passende initiatieven binnen het CCIM om voor alle wateren die onder Belgische jurisdictie vallen een geïntegreerde mariene strategie voor te bereiden en uit te voeren.
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
Regional coordination |
Met België als één van de verdragspartijen neemt de Dienst Marien Milieu actief deel aan de coördinatie en activiteiten binnen OSPAR (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic).
De belangrijkste doelstellingen van dit verdrag zijn:
• het voorkomen en beëindigen van de verontreiniging van het mariene milieu;
• het beschermen van het zeegebied tegen de nadelige effecten van menselijke activiteiten ten einde de gezondheid van de mens te beschermen en het mariene ecosysteem in stand te houden en, wanneer uitvoerbaar, aangetaste zeegebieden te herstellen.
Verder streeft het verdrag naar een duurzaam beheer van het betrokken gebied. "Duurzaam beheer" is volgens de preambule van het verdrag "een zodanig beheer van menselijke activiteiten dat het mariene ecosysteem het rechtmatig gebruik van de zee kan blijven dragen en kan blijven voorzien in de behoeften van de huidige en toekomstige generaties".
Om dit te bereiken nemen de verdragspartijen, afzonderlijk en gezamenlijk, programma's en maatregelen aan en harmoniseren zij hun beleid en strategieën.
Daarbij moeten een aantal principes toegepast worden:
• het voorzorgsbeginsel (neem preventieve maatregelen als er een redelijk vermoeden is dat er een nadelige impact op het milieu zal zijn, zelfs al is daar geen bewijs voor);
• het beginsel de vervuiler betaalt;
• de beste beschikbare technieken, beste milieupraktijk en schone technologie aanwenden.
De OSPAR Commissie, die bestaat uit vertegenwoordigers van alle verdragspartijen, ziet toe op de uitvoering van het verdrag en kan zelf beslissingen nemen tot het opstellen van programma's en maatregelen in het kader van het verdrag.
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
Where is the MSFD implemented?
| MSFD Article | Art. 3(1) Marine waters |
| Report date | 2018-06-26 |
| Access reports | View all reports |
Member state marine waters |
The Belgian Marine Strategy relates to the Belgian part of the North Sea. This coverage comprises the water, the seabed and the subsoil seaward of the base line from where the width of the territorial sea is measured. The outer limit of the coverage is defined by the international boundaries of the Belgian Continental Shelf (also the boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)). |
|---|
-
Areas for MSFD reporting
| MSFD Article | Art. 4/2017 Decision: Marine regions, subregions, and subdivisions |
| Report date | 2018-06-26 |
| Access reports | View all reports |
Region / subregion description |
NE Atlantic Ocean: Greater North Sea
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subdivisions |
OSPAR region II: Greater North Sea
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MRUs description (AreaType) |
Coastal water body ; Territorial waters within a RBD ; Belgian offshore waters (beyond 12 nm) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MRUs |
|
Regional cooperation
| MSFD Article | Art. 5(2) and Art. 6 Regional cooperation |
| Report date | 2018-06-26 |
| Access reports | View all reports |
Region/ subregion |
ANS |
|---|---|
Art. 8 countries involved |
NO, NL, FR, UK, PT,
, BE, DE, ES, FI, IE, SE, DK, |
Art. 8 nature of coordination |
1. There has been a high level of information sharing and joint assessment in the North-East Atlantic through the work of the OSPAR Commission which has repeatedly undertaken integrated environmental assessments.
2. The OSPAR Quality Status Report 2010, together with its underlying assessment reports, provides the primary basis for coordination of national initial assessments across the North East Atlantic OSPAR Contracting Parties / EU Member States. The QSR provides an overarching summary of environmental state across the Region and the five subregions. It provides evidence that OSPAR has provided Contracting Parties / EU Member States a basis to ensure regional and subregional coherence of their initial assessments. Contracting Parties agreed they should aim to refer to the QSR and, when appropriate, the underlying assessments in their national initial assessments.
3. As regards the conclusions of national initial assessments, it was agreed within OSPAR that further coordination should be carried out between relevant Contracting Parties at a sub-regional level. Contracting Parties / EU Member States were requested to share planning information to make this possible.
4. An OSPAR socio-economic analysis is being taken forward and will provide a strong basis for more detailed coordination of the socio-economic element of the MSFD assessments process in the future.
5. No significant differences in National Initial Assessments were identified through sub-regional coordination in the first half of 2012 and no country has flagged major inconsistencies in the conclusions of neighbouring national initial assessments. From: OSPAR 2012 Summary Record, Annex05. For further information refer to the OSPAR report: “Finding common ground – Towards regional coherence in implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the North-East Atlantic region through the work of the OSPAR Commission”. OSPAR publication 578/2012 |
Art. 8 regional coherence |
Partial |
Art. 8 regional coherence problems |
No problems.
|
Art. 9 countries involved |
NO, NL, FR, UK, PT,
, BE, DE, ES, FI, IE, SE, DK, |
Art. 9 nature of coordination |
International coordination has been pursued through OSPAR (A) and through bilateral contacts (B): (A) OSPAR 1. There has been a high level of sharing of existing methodologies for determining GES and of coordination in further developing them through work of the OSPAR Commission.
2. OSPAR bodies have developed internal ‘Advice documents’ on determining GES and setting targets and indicators for GES the Descriptors (with the exception of D3 and D9) taking account of information available at all relevant levels (EU to national).
3. There has been a collective examination of the emerging GES determinations by countries through the creation of an inventory of emerging national proposals for Descriptors 3,5,7,8,9,10 and 11. This inventory was created in late 2011 and updated in mid 2012. The inventory was analysed to make an assessment of the level of regional coherence and specific actions were identified to improve regional coordination on Article 9 for a number of the GES Descriptors, both before and after the 2012 deadline. For the biodiversity Descriptors (1,2,4 and 6) countries are sharing expertise on common approaches (see Art.10).
4. OSPAR EU Member States have agreed high-level, qualitative statements of GES for Descriptors [5,10 and 11] that are included in the OSPAR report on regional MSFD coordination published by the OSPAR Commission. Member States may refer to these in their national articulations of Article 9.
5. Analysis of Contracting Parties draft proposals for Articles 8 and 9 has concluded that there is a good degree of coordination and alignment with regard to Descriptors 5, 8, 9 and 10, a fair degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 3 and 11, and a relatively low level of coordination with regard to Descriptor 7. From: OSPAR 2012 Summary Record, Annex05. For further information refer to the OSPAR report: “Finding common ground – Towards regional coherence in implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the North-East Atlantic region through the work of the OSPAR Commission”. OSPAR publication 578/2012 (B) Bilateral informal coordination has been pursued through a bilateral meeting on Articles 8, 9 and 10 with NL in Autumn 2011. Differences and similarities were discussed in relation to the contents and main conclusions of the Initial Assessments and national ambitions in environmental target setting and potential management measures. Belgium organised a workshop with both national stakeholders and representatives from neighbouring countries (NL, UK, FR) to discuss the Belgian drafts for Art. 9 and 10 products. This led to e.g. more emphasis on ‘pressure’ indicators for seafloor integrity. In addition to these bilateral contacts, Belgium participated in the informal 'North-Sea' meetings (organised by NL) to exchange views on current MSFD products and potential future cooperation in the North Sea. |
Art. 9 regional coherence |
Partial |
Art. 9 regional coherence problems |
The timeline and ambitious implementation requirements (implementation of Art.8, 9 and 10, with a step for public consultation) required Member States to interact, to the extent possible, simultaneously within their national administrations (often with several governance levels) and across international boundaries. Lack of time did not permit a sufficient number of iterations to mutually adjust GES determination in this complex setting.
The methodological framework for applying a coherent ecosystem approach is still under development and this has led to different interpretations in the implementation of this Directive across EU Member States within this evolving context.
Issues that can be addressed in an improved way in the period 2012-2018 have been identified. Additional actions to improve coordination have been identified for all of the GES Descriptors. Descriptor 7 has been identified as an area where coordination is relatively low and this should be a priority for future work. |
Art. 10 countries involved |
NO, NL, FR, UK, PT,
, BE, DE, ES, FI, IE, SE, DK, |
Art. 10 nature of coordination |
International coordination has been pursued through OSPAR (A) and through bilateral contacts (B): (A) OSPAR 1. There has been a moderate level of information sharing on the development of coordinated environmental targets and indicators
2. OSPAR bodies have developed internal ‘Advice documents’ on determining GES and setting targets and indicators for GES the Descriptors (with the exception of D3 and D9) taking account of information available at all relevant levels (EU to national).
3. There has been a collective examination of the emerging national GES targets and indicators through a number of processes.
4. For Descriptors 3,5,7,8,9,10 and 11 an inventory was created to capture emerging national proposals. This inventory was created in late 2011 and updated in mid 2012. The inventory was analysed to make an assessment of the level of regional coherence and specific actions were identified to improve regional coordination on Article 10 for a number of the GES Descriptors both before and after the 2012 deadline.
5. For Descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6 OSPAR has an intensive programme of work led by the Intersessional Correspondence Group on Coordinated Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring (COBAM) to coordinate national approaches to biodiversity targets and indicators, including the on-going development of a proposed set of common OSPAR biodiversity indicators for MSFD.
6. Analysis of Contracting Parties draft proposals for Articles 8 and 9 has concluded that there is a good degree of coordination and alignment with regard to Descriptors 5, 8, 9 and 10, a fair degree of coordination with regard to Descriptors 3 and 11, and a relatively low level of coordination with regard to Descriptor 7. From: OSPAR 2012 Summary Record, Annex05. For further information refer to the OSPAR report: “Finding common ground – Towards regional coherence in implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the North-East Atlantic region through the work of the OSPAR Commission”. OSPAR publication 578/2012 (B) Bilateral informal coordination has been pursued through a bilateral meeting on Articles 8, 9 and 10 with NL in Autumn 2011. Differences and similarities were discussed in relation to the contents and main conclusions of the Initial Assessments and national ambitions in environmental target setting and potential management measures. Belgium organised a workshop with both national stakeholders and representatives from neighbouring countries (NL, UK, FR) to discuss the Belgian drafts for Art. 9 and 10 products. This led to e.g. more emphasis on ‘pressure’ indicators for seafloor integrity. In addition to these bilateral contacts, Belgium participated in the informal 'North-Sea' meetings (organised by NL) to exchange views on current MSFD products and potential future cooperation in the North Sea. |
Art. 10 regional coherence |
Partial |
Art. 10 regional coherence problems |
The timeline and ambitious implementation requirements (implementation of Art.8, 9 and 10, with a step for public consultation) required Member States to interact, to the extent possible, simultaneously within their national administrations (often with several governance levels) and across international boundaries. Lack of time did not permit a sufficient number of iterations to mutually adjust GES targets and indicators in this complex setting.
The methodological framework for applying a coherent ecosystem approach is still under development and this has led to different interpretations in the implementation of this Directive across EU Member States within this evolving context.
Issues that can be addressed in an improved way in the period 2012-2018 have been identified. Additional actions to improve coordination have been identified for all of the GES Descriptors. Descriptor 7 has been identified as an area where coordination is relatively low and this should be a priority for future work. |
Uses and human activities and their pressures on marine environment
| Title | Analysis of predominant pressures and impacts, including human activity (Art. 8(1)(b)) |
| Access reports | View reports |
Pressures affecting environmental status
| Title | Assessments of current environental status and pressures and impacts (Art. 8(1)(a)(b)) |
| Access reports | View reports |
Current environmental status and extent to which GES is achieved (as reported in 2018)
| Title | Assessments of current environental status and pressures and impacts (Art. 8(1)(a)(b)) |
| Access reports | View reports |
Environmental targets to achieve GES
| Title | Environmental targets (Art. 10) |
| Access reports | View reports |
Measures to meet environmental targets and to achieve GES
| Title | Programme of measures (Art. 13) |
| Access reports | View reports |
Exceptions reported when targets or GES cannot be achieved
| Title | Exceptions (Art. 14) |
| Access reports | View reports |
Assessments of progress in MSFD implementation (Art. 12, 16) / 2012
| Title | Implementation of marine strategies (Art. 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18) |
| First cycle | 2012-2017 |
| Access reports | View Art12 (8-9-10) report |
NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea
| Descriptor | Article 9 - GES Determination | Article 8 - Initial Assessment | Article 10 - Environmental Targets | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pressure-based descriptors |
D2 - Non-indigenous species
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Inadequate (1)
|
|
D5 - Eutrophication
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
|
D7 - Hydrographical changes
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Adequate (3)
|
|
|
D8 - Contaminants
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Adequate (3)
|
|
|
D9 - Contaminants in seafood
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
|
D10 - Marine litter
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Adequate (3)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
|
D11 - Energy, incl. underwater noise
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
| State-based descriptors |
D1 - Biodiversity – birds
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Adequate (3)
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – mammals
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Adequate (3)
|
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – reptiles
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Adequate (3)
|
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – fish
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Adequate (3)
|
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – cephalopods
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Adequate (3)
|
|
|
D3 - Commercial fish and shellfish
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Inadequate (1)
|
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – pelagic habitats
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Adequate (3)
|
|
|
D6 - Sea-floor integrity/D1 Biodiversity - benthic habitats
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Adequate (3)
|
|
|
D4 - Food webs/D1 Biodiversity - ecosystems
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Not reported (0)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
Assessments of progress in MSFD implementation (Art. 12, 16) / 2018
| Title | Implementation of marine strategies (Art. 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18) |
| Second cycle | 2018-2023 |
| Access reports | View Art12 (8-9-10) report |
NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea
| Descriptor | Article 9 - GES Determination | Article 8 - Initial Assessment | Article 10 - Environmental Targets | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pressure-based descriptors |
D2 - Non-indigenous species
|
Good (3)
|
Very good (4)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
D5 - Eutrophication
|
Good (3)
|
Good (3)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
|
D7 - Hydrographical changes
|
Good (3)
|
Good (3)
|
Very poor (1)
|
|
|
D8 - Contaminants
|
Good (3)
|
Very good (4)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
|
D9 - Contaminants in seafood
|
Good (3)
|
Very good (4)
|
Very poor (1)
|
|
|
D10 - Marine litter
|
Good (3)
|
Good (3)
|
Very poor (1)
|
|
|
D11 - Energy, incl. underwater noise
|
Good (3)
|
Very good (4)
|
Very good (4)
|
|
| State-based descriptors |
D1 - Biodiversity – birds
|
Good (3)
|
Poor (2)
|
Very poor (1)
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – mammals
|
Good (3)
|
Very poor (1)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – reptiles
|
Very poor (1)
|
Poor (2)
|
Good (3)
|
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – fish
|
Poor (2)
|
Poor (2)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – cephalopods
|
Very poor (1)
|
Poor (2)
|
Very good (4)
|
|
|
D3 - Commercial fish and shellfish
|
Very good (4)
|
Good (3)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – pelagic habitats
|
Good (3)
|
Not reported (0)
|
Very poor (1)
|
|
|
D6 - Sea-floor integrity/D1 Biodiversity - benthic habitats
|
Poor (2)
|
Good (3)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
|
D4 - Food webs/D1 Biodiversity - ecosystems
|
Poor (2)
|
Not reported (0)
|
Not reported (0)
|
|