FI 3.4 46 The guidance would benefit of giving indicative Added to outstanding issues box. recommendations how different pressure layers are NB There are only two pressures integrated to derive the three physical pressures which (physical loss and physical damage), the are conceptually very broad. third criterion relates to the adverse effects of disturbance on benthic habitats FI 3.4 46 The adverse effect is a difficult concept and may lead to This should be taken into account in the overestimations of pressures/impacts. Much work has setting of threshold values. No action been carried out to develop best practices and required. environmentally more friendly methods and these should be visible in the thresholds for adverse effects. FR 3.4.2 40 Regarding D6C3, could you precise which level of EUNIS Edited ‘(per benthic broad habitat type should be used to for the map (Level 2 or 4 or 5)? at EUNIS level 2, and per other habitat type if used, at appropriate EUNIS level)’ HELCOM 3.4.2 41 Please correct text on HELCOM approach to the Edited following: HELCOM is developing a core indicator to assess the cumulative impact of activities on the seafloor. Pending the indicator development, a qualitative approach is taken in support of the 2018 reporting round by overlaying available data layers representing loss and damage of seabed habitats with benthic habitat maps. Impact estimates will also be used but no thresholds have been developed yet. Additional core indicators are expected to apply to benthic habitats under D1. IT 3.4.2 40 D6C1 “Offshore data may be available from Marine Edited through other MS’ comment Spatial Plans, more localised planning consents and EMODnet”. This sentence could be deleted as the plans according to MSP will be ready by 2021 it is difficult that the assessment done in 2018 will feed from the marine spatial plans. MSFD 3.4.2 40 The hydromorphology data and relevant assessments in No action required. NAVI each water body will be derived from WFD data - this is welcome at least insofar as a consistent baseline is concerned. MSFD 3.4.2 40 We support the fact that data collection should not be No action required. NAVI limited to data obtained through licensing information. Offshore data may be available from Marine Spatial Plans, more localised planning consents and EMODnet
FI 3.4 46 The guidance would benefit of giving indicative recommendations how different pressure layers are integrated to derive the three physical pressures which are conceptually very broad. Added to outstanding issues box. NB There are only two pressures (physical loss and physical damage), the third criterion relates to the adverse effects of disturbance on benthic habitats FI 3.4 46 The adverse effect is a difficult concept and may lead to overestimations of pressures/impacts. Much work has been carried out to develop best practices and environmentally more friendly methods and these should be visible in the thresholds for adverse effects. This should be taken into account in the setting of threshold values. No action required. FR 3.4.2 40 Regarding D6C3, could you precise which level of EUNIS should be used to for the map (Level 2 or 4 or 5)? Edited ‘(per benthic broad habitat type at EUNIS level 2, and per other habitat type if used, at appropriate EUNIS level)’ HELCOM 3.4.2 41 Please correct text on HELCOM approach to the following: HELCOM is developing a core indicator to assess the cumulative impact of activities on the seafloor. Pending the indicator development, a qualitative approach is taken in support of the 2018 reporting round by overlaying available data layers representing loss and damage of seabed habitats with benthic habitat maps. Impact estimates will also be used but no thresholds have been developed yet. Additional core indicators are expected to apply to benthic habitats under D1. Edited IT 3.4.2 40 D6C1 “Offshore data may be available from Marine Spatial Plans, more localised planning consents and EMODnet”. This sentence could be deleted as the plans according to MSP will be ready by 2021 it is difficult that the assessment done in 2018 will feed from the marine spatial plans. Edited through other MS’ comment MSFD NAVI 3.4.2 40 The hydromorphology data and relevant assessments in each water body will be derived from WFD data - this is welcome at least insofar as a consistent baseline is concerned. No action required. MSFD NAVI 3.4.2 40 We support the fact that data collection should not be limited to data obtained through licensing information. Offshore data may be available from Marine Spatial Plans, more localised planning consents and EMODnet No action required.
GES_17-2017-04_Guidance_MSFDArt8_CompiledComments-Responses.docx