DOCSLIB.ORG

ASCOBANS 12Th Advisory Committee Meeting Document AC12/Doc.20(S) Brest, France, 12 – 14 April 2005 Dist

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ASCOBANS 12Th Advisory Committee Meeting Document AC12/Doc.20(S) Brest, France, 12 – 14 April 2005 Dist ASCOBANS 12th Advisory Committee Meeting Document AC12/Doc.20(S) Brest, France, 12 – 14 April 2005 Dist. 5 April 2005 Agenda Item 5.5: Annual National Reports Eighth Compilation of Annual National Reports Submitted by: Secretariat NOTE: IN THE INTERESTS OF ECONOMY, DELEGATES ARE KINDLY REMINDED TO BRING THEIR OWN COPIES OF THESE DOCUMENTS TO THE MEETING Eighth Compilation of Annual National Reports Bonn, 2004 Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas ASCOBANS Secretariat United Nations Premises Martin-Luther-King-Str. 8 53175 Bonn, Germany Tel.: +49 228 815 2416/2418 Fax: +49 228 815 2440 [email protected] www.ascobans.org TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface.....................................................................................................................................................1 A. GENERAL INFORMATION.........................................................................................................3 1. Summary of Party and Range States Details...............................................................................3 2. Institutions and Organizations mentioned in national reports.....................................................5 B. NEW MEASURES/ACTION BY PARTIES TOWARDS MEETING THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE 3RD MEETING OF PARTIES ..................................................7 1. Direct interaction of small cetaceans with fisheries ...............................................................7 a) Investigations of methods to reduce bycatch...........................................................................7 Belgium..................................................................................................................................7 Denmark.................................................................................................................................7 Finland....................................................................................................................................7 Federal Republic of Germany ................................................................................................7 Poland.....................................................................................................................................8 Sweden...................................................................................................................................8 United Kingdom.....................................................................................................................8 b) Implementation of methods to reduce bycatch .....................................................................10 Belgium................................................................................................................................10 Denmark...............................................................................................................................10 Finland..................................................................................................................................10 Federal Republic of Germany ..............................................................................................10 Poland...................................................................................................................................10 Sweden.................................................................................................................................11 United Kingdom...................................................................................................................11 c) Estimates of bycatc h in set net and pelagic trawl fisheries.................................................11 Belgium................................................................................................................................11 Denmark...............................................................................................................................12 Finland..................................................................................................................................12 Federal Republic of Germany ..............................................................................................12 Poland...................................................................................................................................12 Sweden.................................................................................................................................13 United Kingdom...................................................................................................................13 2. Reduction of disturbance to small cetaceans ........................................................................14 a) Information on levels of disturbance (e.g. seismic surveys, new high-speed ferry routes, studies about acoustic impacts on cetaceans etc......................................................14 Belgium................................................................................................................................14 Denmark...............................................................................................................................14 Finland..................................................................................................................................15 Federal Republic of Germany ..............................................................................................15 Poland...................................................................................................................................16 Sweden.................................................................................................................................17 United Kingdom...................................................................................................................17 b) Implementation of guidelines, new legislation etc. to reduce disturbance...........................17 Belgium................................................................................................................................17 Denmark...............................................................................................................................18 Finland..................................................................................................................................18 Federal Republic of Germany ..............................................................................................18 Poland...................................................................................................................................18 Sweden.................................................................................................................................18 United Kingdom...................................................................................................................19 3. Protected areas for small cetaceans .......................................................................................20 a) Measures taken to identify, implement and manage protected areas ..................................20 Belgium................................................................................................................................20 Denmark...............................................................................................................................20 Finland..................................................................................................................................20 Federal Republic of Germany ..............................................................................................20 Poland...................................................................................................................................21 Sweden.................................................................................................................................21 United Kingdom...................................................................................................................21 4. Further research on small cetaceans .....................................................................................25 a) Implementation of schemes to use and gain information from stranded cetaceans.............25 Belgium................................................................................................................................25 Denmark...............................................................................................................................25 Finland..................................................................................................................................25 Federal Republic of Germany ..............................................................................................25 Poland...................................................................................................................................26 Sweden.................................................................................................................................26 United Kingdom...................................................................................................................26 b) Research on abundance, population structure etc. ..............................................................28 Belgium................................................................................................................................28
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Whale Tales: Cetacean Stranding Reponse and Medicine in the Pacific Northwest
    Proceedings of the 2012 North American Veterinary Conference, Orlando, Florida WHALE TALES: CETACEAN STRANDING REPONSE AND MEDICINE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST Joseph K. Gaydos, VMD, PhD UC Davis Wildlife Health Center – Orcas Island Office Eastsound, Washington MARINE MAMMAL STRANDINGS: Marine mammal strandings have long attracted the attention of the general public.1 Stranded marine mammal carcasses once were used as food and some of the first laws enacted in New England Colonies were to establish the ownership of beached whale carcasses. Later stranded marine mammals provided animals for museums, live displays and scientific information about little-known species. Today they still provide us with important data on marine mammals and marine mammal populations. Strandings help us to document range expansions for marine mammal species and provide details on marine mammal growth rates, age at maturity, gestation, reproductive season and longevity. Stranded marine mammals also help expand our understanding of marine mammal mortality factors including infectious diseases, toxins and human-caused mortality. In the United States, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972) gave the federal government jurisdiction over marine mammals, including stranded ones. An amendment in 1992 established a Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program to (1) facilitate the collection and dissemination of reference data on the health of marine mammals and health trends of marine mammals in the wild; (2) correlate the health of marine mammals and marine mammal populations, in the wild, with available data on physical, chemical, and biological environmental parameters; and (3) coordinate effective responses to unusual mortality events by establishing a process in the Department of Commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Impacts of Anthropogenic Underwater Sound in the Marine Environment
    Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine environment Biodiversity Series 2009 Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine environment OSPAR Convention Convention OSPAR The Convention for the Protection of the La Convention pour la protection du milieu Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic marin de l'Atlantique du Nord-Est, dite (the “OSPAR Convention”) was opened for Convention OSPAR, a été ouverte à la signature at the Ministerial Meeting of the signature à la réunion ministérielle des former Oslo and Paris Commissions in Paris anciennes Commissions d'Oslo et de Paris, on 22 September 1992. The Convention à Paris le 22 septembre 1992. La Convention entered into force on 25 March 1998. It has est entrée en vigueur le 25 mars 1998. been ratified by Belgium, Denmark, Finland, La Convention a été ratifiée par l'Allemagne, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, la Belgique, le Danemark, la Finlande, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, la France, l’Irlande, l’Islande, le Luxembourg, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom la Norvège, les Pays-Bas, le Portugal, and approved by the European Community le Royaume-Uni de Grande Bretagne and Spain. et d’Irlande du Nord, la Suède et la Suisse et approuvée par la Communauté européenne et l’Espagne. 2 OSPAR Commission, 2009 Acknowledgements Author list (in alphabetical order) Thomas Götz Scottish Oceans Institute, East Sands University of St Andrews St Andrews, Fife KY16 8LB [email protected] Module 2, 8 Gordon Hastie SMRU Limited New Technology Centre North Haugh St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SR [email protected] Module 2, 8 Leila T.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Impacts of Noise from Human Activities on Cetaceans Knowledge Gap Analysis and Recommendations
    2014 Reducing Impacts of Noise from Human Activities on Cetaceans Knowledge Gap Analysis and Recommendations Prepared by Andrew J. Wright, Ph.D. For WWF Published in February 2014 by WWF, Gland, Switzerland. Any reproduction in full or in part must mention the title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as copyright holder. Text © 2014 A. J. Wright / WWF Written by Andrew J. Wright, Department of Environmental Science & Policy, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030, U.S.A. Cover image: © John Calambokidis, Cascadia Research Suggested citation Wright, A.J. 2014. Reducing Impacts of Human Ocean Noise on Cetaceans: Knowledge Gap Analysis and Recommendations. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland Prepared under contract for WWF International, Avenue du Mont-Blanc 27, 1196 Gland, Switzerland Authors Acknowledgements Thanks to WWF International for funding this report. Additionally, many thanks to Jakob Tougaard and Courtney Smith for extensive helpful discussions on a number of the topics and details contained within these pages. I am also grateful to Mikhail Babenko, Louise Blight and Aimée Leslie of WWF, as well as Thea Bechshøft, Chris Parsons and Leslie Walsh for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the report. Finally, thanks to Mark Simmonds and Naomi Rose for their help and advice with the overview and direc- tion of this report, and to Richard Greene and Michael Jasny for their assistance with tracking down various documents and publications. About WWF Since 1992, WWF’s Global Arctic Programme has been working with our partners across the Arctic to com- bat threats to the Arctic and to preserve its rich biodiversity in a sustainable way.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (Wgmme)
    WORKING GROUP ON MARINE MAMMAL ECOLOGY (WGMME) VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 39 ICES SCIENTIFIC REPORTS RAPPORTS SCIENTIFIQUES DU CIEM ICES INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE EXPLORATION OF THE SEA CIEM CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL POUR L’EXPLORATION DE LA MER ICES Scientific Reports Volume 2 | Issue 39 WORKING GROUP ON MARINE MAMMAL ECOLOGY (WGMME) Recommended format for purpose of citation: ICES. 2020. Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME). ICES Scientific Reports. 2:39. 85 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5975 Editors Anders Galatius • Anita Gilles Authors Markus Ahola • Matthieu Authier • Sophie Brasseur • Julia Carlström • Farah Chaudry • Ross Culloch • Peter Evans • Anders Galatius • Steve Geelhoed • Anita Gilles • Philip Hammond • Ailbhe Kavanagh • Karl Lundström • Kelly Macleod • Abbo van Neer • Kjell Nilssen • Graham Pierce • Janneke Ransijn • Bob Rumes • Begoña Santos ICES | WGMME 2020 | I Contents i Executive summary .......................................................................................................................iii ii Expert group information ..............................................................................................................iv 1 ToR A. Review and report on any new information on seal and cetacean population abundance, population/stock structure, management frameworks (including indicators and targets for MSFD assessments), and anthropogenic threats to individual health and population status..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Underlying Environmental Factors and Geomagnetic Fields Linked to 45 Pilot
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.25.432840; this version posted February 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Underlying environmental factors and geomagnetic fields linked to 45 2 pilot whales Globicephala macrorhynchus stranding in Modung white th 3 beach, Indonesian coast on 19 February 2021 4 ANDRI WIBOWO1,* 5 6 Abstract 7 The reason whale and dolphin stranding is not fully understood and it is not linked to a standalone variable. Theories 8 assume intertwined factors including sickness, underwater noise, navigational error, geographical features, the presence of 9 predators, poisoning from pollution or algal blooms, geomagnetic field, and extreme weather are responsible to whale 10 stranding. On 19th February 2021, a pod consists of 45 pilot whales Globicephala macrorhynchus was stranded in a remote 11 7050 m2 Modung white beach of Indonesian coast. This paper aims to assess the environmental factors that may be can 12 explain and link to this stranding cases. Those factors include bathymetry, plankton cell density measured using MODIS, 13 water sediment load measured using Sentinel 2 Bands 4,3,1, vessel traffic, precipitation (inch) and thunder (CAPE index 14 J/kg), water salinity and temperature, and geomagnetic field (nT). The results show the water near stranding sites were 15 shallow, has sediment load, high plankton density, warmer, receiving torrential rain prior stranding, having weak 16 geomagnetic field and high total magnetic field change/year.
    [Show full text]
  • Articles from Studies on Effects of Navy Sonar Testing on Whales and Dolphins
    Articles from studies on effects of navy sonar testing on whales and dolphins. Every year, thousands of whales, dolphins and porpoises get into trouble on coastlines around the world. There are reports of cetacean stranding since records began and it is a potential issue for every country with a coastline. Stranding occurs for two reasons – natural processes including age and disease, or human-related issues including bycatch, vessel collisions, navy sonar testing/blasting, and environmental degradation. Natural and human-related factors can also interact to cause stranding. Animals may strand alive on the beach, or die at sea and be carried on to land by the currents. There is evidence that active sonar leads to beaching. On some occasions cetaceans have stranded shortly after military sonar was active in the area, suggesting a link.[10] Theories describing how sonar may cause whale deaths have also been advanced after necropsies found internal injuries in stranded cetaceans. In contrast, some who strand themselves due to seemingly natural causes are usually healthy prior to beaching: The low frequency active sonar (LFA sonar) used by the military to detect submarines is the loudest sound ever put into the seas. Yet the U.S. Navy is planning to deploy LFA sonar across 80 percent of the world ocean. At an amplitude of two hundred forty decibels, it is loud enough to kill whales and dolphins and has already caused mass strandings and deaths in areas where U.S. and/or NATO forces have conducted exercises. — Julia Whitty, The Fragile Edge[11] The large and rapid pressure changes made by loud sonar can cause hemorrhaging.
    [Show full text]
  • ASCOBANS Advisory Committee Meeting AC22/Inf.4.6.F the Hague, Netherlands, 29 September - 1 October 2015 Dist
    22nd ASCOBANS Advisory Committee Meeting AC22/Inf.4.6.f The Hague, Netherlands, 29 September - 1 October 2015 Dist. 22 September 2015 Agenda Item 4.6 Review of New Information on Threats to Small Cetaceans Underwater Unexploded Ordnance Document Inf.4.6.f Investigation into the long-finned pilot whale mass stranding event, Kyle of Durness, 22nd July 2011 Action Requested Take note Submitted by CSIP NOTE: DELEGATES ARE KINDLY REMINDED TO BRING THEIR OWN COPIES OF DOCUMENTS TO THE MEETING Investigation into the long-finned pilot whale mass stranding event, Kyle of Durness, 22nd July 2011 Andrew Brownlow1, 9, Johanna Baily3, Mark Dagleish3, Rob Deaville2, Geoff Foster1, Silje-Kirstin Jensen7, Eva Krupp8, Robin Law6, Rod Penrose4, Matt Perkins2, Fiona Read5, Paul Jepson2 (1) SRUC Wildlife Unit, Drummondhill, Inverness, IV24JZ, UK (2) Institute of Zoology, Regent’s Park, London, NW1 4RY, UK; (3) Moredun Research Institute, Pentlands Science Park, Penicuik, Edinburgh EH26 0PZ, UK (4) Marine Environmental Monitoring, Penwalk, Llechryd, Cardigan, SA43 2PS, UK (5) University of Aberdeen, Zoology Department, Aberdeen, AB24 3UE (6 ) CEFAS Lowestoft Laboratory, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK (7) Sea Mammal Research Unit, University of St. Andrews, Fife, KY16 8LB, UK (8) University of Aberdeen, Chemistry Department, Meston Walk, Aberdeen, AB24 3UE (9) Email: [email protected] Compiled by Andrew Brownlow, SRUC Wildlife Unit, Inverness 1 | P a g e Table of Contents ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 SECTION 1: STRANDING SUMMARY AND INVESTIGATION OUTLINE ............................................................................... 6 SECTION 2: ECOLOGY OF LONG-FINNED PILOT WHALES (GLOBICEPHALA MELAS) ............................................................. 7 SECTION 3: LONG-FINNED PILOT WHALE STRANDINGS IN SCOTLAND ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Mammals- Strandings
    MARINE MAMMALS PROTOCOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR RESPONDING TO STRANDINGS January 2007 I. Background 1. This document was produced in response to recommendation III, Article IV, of the III Meeting of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) to the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) in the Wider Caribbean Region, held in Caracas, Venezuela, 4-8 October 2005. 2. Having reviewed the recommendations of the “Report of the Regional Workshop of Experts on the Development of the Marine Mammal Action Plan (MMAP) for the Wider Caribbean Region”, Bridgetown, Barbados, 18-21 July 2005 (UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.27/3), STAC recommended that the secretariat and the SPAW/RAC work toward implementing Recommendation No. 3 of the Annex IV of the Report of the Workshop of Experts as a priority action, which states: “…a. The SPAW/RAC in collaboration with Governments and relevant organizations compile and make available the following: iv. Protocols and techniques for responding to strandings ; …noting that this process is ever-evolving.” 3. It is clear that in the Wider Caribbean Region, there is a pressing need for capacity building in the area of response programmes to strandings. The first Eastern Caribbean Marine Mammal Stranding Response Training Workshop (MMSW) was held at the University of West Indies Veterinary School of Medicine at the Eric Williams Medical Sciences Complex, Champs Fleurs, Trinidad from November 15 to 18, 2005. The purpose of the workshop was to provide stranding response and necropsy training—a core of marine mammal stranding expertise and tools—in the Eastern Caribbean region. 4. Seeking to take advantage of the accumulated expertise of colleagues, the University of the West Indies (UWI) School of Veterinary Medicine collaborated with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • What Can Cetacean Stranding Records Tell Us? a Study of UK and Irish Cetacean Diversity Over the Past 100 Years
    Title What can cetacean stranding records tell us? A study of UK and Irish cetacean diversity over the past 100 years Authors Coombs, Ellen J; Deauville, R; Sabin, RC; Allan, Louise; O'Connell, M; Berrow, S; Smith, B; Brownlow, A; Ten Doeschate, M; Penrose, R; Williams, R; Perkins, MW; Jepson, PD; Cooper, N Date Submitted 2019-05-03 1 What can cetacean stranding records tell us? A study of UK and Irish cetacean 2 diversity over the past 100 years 3 4 Ellen J. Coombs1,2*, Rob Deaville3, Richard C. Sabin2, Louise Allan2, Mick O’Connell4, Simon 5 Berrow4,5,, Brian Smith2, Andrew Brownlow6, Mariel Ten Doeschate6, Rod Penrose7, Ruth 6 Williams8, Matthew W. Perkins3, Paul D. Jepson3 and Natalie Cooper2 7 8 9 1 University College London, Genetics, Evolution and Environment Department, Gower Street, WC1E 6BT, UK 10 2 Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD. UK. 11 3 UK Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme, The Wellcome Building, Institute of Zoology, Zoological 12 Society of London, Regent's Park, London NW1 4RY. UK. 13 4 Irish Whale and Dolphin Group, Merchants Quay, Kilrush V15 E762, County Clare, Ireland 14 5 Marine and Freshwater Research Centre, Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, Dublin Road, Galway H91 15 T8NW, Ireland. 16 6 Scottish Marine Mammal Stranding Scheme, SRUC Wildlife Unit, Drummondhill, Inverness, IV2 4JZ 17 7 Marine Environmental Monitoring, Penwalk, Llechryd, Cardigan, West Wales SA43 2PS 18 8 Cornwall Wildlife Trust, Five Acres, Allet, Truro, TR4 9DJl, UK 19 20 21 *Corresponding author 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 1 39 Abstract 40 There are many factors that may explain why cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 41 strand.
    [Show full text]
  • Cetacean Strandings Research
    SCIENCE REVIEW IMPACT AREAS Cetacean IMPACT strandings AREA research The Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme (CSIP), led by IoZ, coordinates the investigation of all cetaceans, marine turtles and basking sharks that strand around the UK coastline. The causes of cetacean stranding events are not always clear, and the role that human activity may play in either directly or indirectly causing strandings has often been called into question. Since 1990, data on more than 12,000 stranded cetaceans have been recorded and nearly 3,500 post-mortem examinations have been carried out by the CSIP, producing one of the world’s largest research datasets on strandings, causes of mortality, disease and many other aspects of the health of cetacean populations in UK waters. Our systematic and long-term monitoring programme of stranded animals facilitates the investigation of spatio-temporal trends in disease, causes of mortality and exposure to environmental pollutants. It also enables both ongoing assessment of the dynamics of particular threats and their response to specific conservation measures. The national cetacean tissue archive, with more than 80,000 samples held at IoZ alone, provides an internationally important resource for collaborative scientific research. The role of acoustic disturbance a sick pilot whale (found with an infected in cetacean strandings pectoral joint) could not be eliminated In 2014-2015, we continued to research as contributory factors to the stranding cetacean mass stranding events linked to (Brownlow et al. 2015). exposure to high-intensity, man-made acoustic This builds on a previous CSIP/IoZ-led sources, such as mid-frequency active naval investigation into a large common dolphin sonars used by warships and helicopters to (Delphinus delphis) mass stranding event in detect submarines.
    [Show full text]
  • Cetacean Strandings in the Canadian Maritime Provinces, 1990–2008
    Cetacean Strandings in the Canadian Maritime Provinces, 1990–2008 LEAH NEMIROFF 1, T ONYA WIMMER 2, P IERRE -Y VES DAOUST 3, and DONALD F. M CALPINE 4 1Biology Department, Dalhousie University, 1355 Oxford Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4J1 Canada 2Marine Animal Response Society, c/o Nova Scotia Museum, 1747 Summer Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3A6 Canada 3Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, 550 Uni - versity Avenue, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island C1A 4P3 Canada 4New Brunswick Museum, 277 Douglas Avenue, Saint John, New Brunswick E2K 1E5 Canada Nemiroff, Leah, Tonya Wimmer, Pierre-Yves Daoust, and Donald F. McAlpine. 2010. Cetacean strandings in the Canadian Maritime provinces, 1990–2008. Canadian Field-Naturalist 124(1): 32 –44. Organized cetacean stranding networks function to respond quickly and efficiently to strandings, to coordinate live releases, to gather and analyze data, and to educate the public. Stranding networks in the three Canadian Maritime provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island) recently cooperated to form the Marine Animal Response Network. The resulting collaborative database provides an opportunity to assess patterns of cetacean strandings encompassing 19 years (1990–2008 inclusive) from across the region. During this period, a total of 640 stranding events involving 19 species and 881individuals of both sexes and varying age groups were reported. Stranding events primarily involved single animals, although several mass strandings were recorded, the largest involving 60 Long-finned Pilot Whales ( Globicephala melas ). The number of strandings was found to vary substantially over time and among the three provinces. In part, this is likely a reflection of differences in local network effort among regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Agenda
    19th ASCOBANS Advisory Committee Meeting AC19/Doc.4-08 (WG) Galway, Ireland, 20-22 March Dist. 12 March 2012 Agenda Item 4.2 Priorities in the Implementation of the Triennium Work Plan (2010-2012) Review of New Information on the Extent of Negative Effects of Sound Document 4-08 Report of the Noise Working Group Action Requested Take note Comment Submitted by Noise Working Group NOTE: IN THE INTERESTS OF ECONOMY, DELEGATES ARE KINDLY REMINDED TO BRING THEIR OWN COPIES OF DOCUMENTS TO THE MEETING Report of the open-ended Inter-sessional Working Group on Noise Report of the open-ended Inter-sessional Working Group .................................................................... 1 on Noise ................................................................................................................................................... 1 I Relevant activities and developments including in other international bodies (e.g. ACCOBAMS, HELCOM and OSPAR) and under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive; .............................. 2 EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive ....................................................................................... 2 ACCOBAMS ...................................................................................................................................... 3 HELCOM ........................................................................................................................................... 3 OSPAR .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]