Pending: 32013D0749

                                January 16, 2026                            

12.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 333/81

(1)
Under Article 377 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax(2), Portugal may continue to exempt the transactions listed in points (2), (4), (7), (9), (10) and (13) of Annex X, Part B, in accordance with the conditions applying in that Member State on 1 January 1989; these transactions must be taken into account for the determination of the VAT resources base.

(2)
Portugal has requested authorisation from the Commission to use certain approximate estimates for the calculation of the VAT own resources base since it is unable to make the precise calculation of the VAT own resources base for transactions referred to in point (10) of Annex X, Part B to Directive 2006/112/EC. Such calculation is likely to involve an unjustified administrative burden in relation to the effect of these transactions on Portugal’s total VAT own resources base. Portugal is able to make a calculation using approximate estimates for this category of transactions. Portugal should therefore be authorised to calculate the VAT own resources base using approximate estimates in accordance with the second indent of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89.

(3)
For reasons of transparency and legal certainty it is appropriate to limit the applicability of the authorisation in time.

(4)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee on Own Resources,

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax(1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,

(1) Under Article 377 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax(2), Portugal may continue to exempt the transactions listed in points (2), (4), (7), (9), (10) and (13) of Annex X, Part B, in accordance with the conditions applying in that Member State on 1 January 1989; these transactions must be taken into account for the determination of the VAT resources base.

(2) Portugal has requested authorisation from the Commission to use certain approximate estimates for the calculation of the VAT own resources base since it is unable to make the precise calculation of the VAT own resources base for transactions referred to in point (10) of Annex X, Part B to Directive 2006/112/EC. Such calculation is likely to involve an unjustified administrative burden in relation to the effect of these transactions on Portugal’s total VAT own resources base. Portugal is able to make a calculation using approximate estimates for this category of transactions. Portugal should therefore be authorised to calculate the VAT own resources base using approximate estimates in accordance with the second indent of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89.

(3) For reasons of transparency and legal certainty it is appropriate to limit the applicability of the authorisation in time.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee on Own Resources,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1

For the purpose of calculating the VAT own resources base from 1 January 2013, Portugal is authorised to use approximate estimates in respect of the following categories of transactions referred to in Annex X, Part B to Directive 2006/112/EC:

Transport of passengers (point (10)).
Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2017.
Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax(1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,

(1) Under Article 377 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax(2), Portugal may continue to exempt the transactions listed in points (2), (4), (7), (9), (10) and (13) of Annex X, Part B, in accordance with the conditions applying in that Member State on 1 January 1989; these transactions must be taken into account for the determination of the VAT resources base.

(2) Portugal has requested authorisation from the Commission to use certain approximate estimates for the calculation of the VAT own resources base since it is unable to make the precise calculation of the VAT own resources base for transactions referred to in point (10) of Annex X, Part B to Directive 2006/112/EC. Such calculation is likely to involve an unjustified administrative burden in relation to the effect of these transactions on Portugal’s total VAT own resources base. Portugal is able to make a calculation using approximate estimates for this category of transactions. Portugal should therefore be authorised to calculate the VAT own resources base using approximate estimates in accordance with the second indent of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89.

(3) For reasons of transparency and legal certainty it is appropriate to limit the applicability of the authorisation in time.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee on Own Resources,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
For the purpose of calculating the VAT own resources base from 1 January 2013, Portugal is authorised to use approximate estimates in respect of the following categories of transactions referred to in Annex X, Part B to Directive 2006/112/EC:

Transport of passengers (point (10)).
This Decision shall apply from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2017.
This Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.

Pending: 32013D0707

                                January 16, 2026                            

5.12.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 325/214

(1)
By Regulation (EU) No 513/2013(3), the European Commission (‘the Commission’) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Union of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’).

(2)
The Commission, by Decision 2013/423/EU(4)accepted a price undertaking (‘the undertaking’) from a group of exporting producers together with the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (‘CCCME’) with regards to the provisional duties. By Regulation (EU) No 748/2013(5)the Commission amended Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 to introduce the technical changes necessary due to the acceptance of the undertaking.

(3)
On 8 November 2012, the Commission initiated an anti-subsidy proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in the People's Republic of China(6).

(4)
Following the adoption of the provisional anti-dumping measures, the Commission continued the investigation of dumping, injury and Union interest, as well as the parallel anti-subsidy proceeding. Wafers have been excluded from the scope of both investigations, hence from the scope of the definitive measures.

(5)
The anti-dumping investigation confirmed the provisional findings of injurious dumping. The definitive findings of the investigation are set out in Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/13(7)imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Union of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the PRC.

(6)
By Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/13(8), the Council also imposed a definitive countervailing duty on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the PRC.

(7)
Subsequent to the definitive disclosure of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy findings, the exporting producers together with the CCCME submitted a notification to amend their initial undertaking offer.

(8)
The exporting producers, together with the CCCME, within the deadline specified in Article 13(2) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, requested that the terms of the undertaking be accepted by the Commission to eliminate any injurious effects also of the subsidised imports.

(9)
In addition, a number of additional exporting producers, within the deadline stipulated in Article 8(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 13(2) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, requested to participate in the undertaking.

(10)
Furthermore, the CCCME and the exporting producers requested to revise the undertaking to take account of the exclusion of wafers from the scope of the investigation.

(11)
The undertaking offer as amended has been made available to interested parties. In the following the Commission addresses the main comments submitted by interested parties following the receipt of the undertaking offer.

(12)
Numerous parties requested access to information on minimum import prices (‘MIP’), the annual level or in general different terms of the undertaking. One party complained that it was not timely informed about the initial undertaking offer. The Commission notes that the non-confidential version of the initial undertaking offer was included in the file open for inspection by interested parties directly upon its receipt as foreseen in Article 8(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.

(13)
MIPs and annual level are subject to professional secrecy pursuant to Article 339 of the Treaty and confidential according to Articles 19 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 29 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. Therefore, in line with the Commission's practice, they are not disclosed to third parties. In the current case, upon parties' requests, the Commission requested CCCME whether some more information related to MIP and annual level could be disclosed. CCCME agreed to disclose an approximation of the MIP (defined as ‘below’ a specific value). Interested parties could consult that information on the non-confidential file. The Commission considers that such information, in this specific case, strikes an appropriate balance between the requirements of confidentiality and right of defence.

(14)
The Commission has also considered the requests relating to different terms of the undertaking. It has come to the conclusion that by revealing the information requested, it would increase the risk of price manipulation and gaming on the market for solar panels. In order not to unduly distort the functioning of the market for solar panels, the Commission considers that the information requested should not be available to buyers and competitors of the companies that have offered the undertaking. Those considerations apply as well to MIP and annual level, which should not be disclosed at a greater level of detail.

(15)
One interested party requested the Commission to allow for a transition period (and exemption from anti-dumping duties) when goods were ordered prior to the entry into force of the undertaking but presented for customs clearance after that date without an undertaking invoice. In order to be exempted from anti-dumping duties, goods presented for customs clearance have to fulfil the conditions set out in the Regulation (EU) No 748/2013. The argument therefore has to be rejected.

(16)
The Commission evaluated the undertaking offer as amended. First, it noted that the technical revision of the undertaking is necessary to reflect the definitive findings of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations (i.e. the exclusion of wafers from the scope of the investigation).

(17)
Second, the Commission concluded that, based on the investigation period data, the trade volume of the additional companies in total Chinese exports to the EU is very limited and thus does not change the Commission's provisional assessment that the undertaking removes the injurious effect of dumping, with the MIP and within the annual level as initially offered.

(18)
The Commission also assessed whether the inclusion of the additional exporting producers would be likely to jeopardize the effective monitoring of the undertaking or to increase the risk of circumvention. In this context, the Commission noted that the CCCME demonstrated its active role in the practical implementation of the undertaking. In addition, the inclusion of the additional exporting producers will not change the terms of the undertaking. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the inclusion of the additional producers does not alter its initial findings on the effective monitoring of the undertaking and on the limited risk of circumvention.

(19)
Third, anti-subsidy and anti-dumping investigations were carried out in parallel in the current case. As per the lesser duty a rule, a definitive countervailing duty rate was set at the level of the subsidy margin and a definitive anti-dumping duty at the injury elimination level. Hence, the combined anti-dumping and countervailing duty rate will be equal to the injury elimination level (countervailing duty topped-up with anti-dumping duty up to injury elimination level). Therefore, the Commission concluded that the undertaking still removes the injurious effects of both dumping and subsidization, thereby no change to the MIP is needed.

(20)
Fourth, one party contested the fact that the Commission had relied in Decision 2013/423/EU on post-IP data in order to assess whether the undertaking removed the injurious effect of dumping, relying on Article 6(1) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 11(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. Article 6(1) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation stipulates that ‘information relating to a period subsequent to the investigation period shall,normally[emphasis added], not be taken into account.’ Similar wording can be found in Article 11(1) last sentence of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. Recital 3 of Decision 2013/423/EU sets out the circumstances which led the Commission to rely on post-IP data in the present case. The party has not contested the factual accurateness of those circumstances. The argument is therefore rejected.

(21)
Fifth, the undertaking ensures stability of supply for the Union at a sustainable price level. Therefore, there are no reasons of general policy for not accepting the undertaking.

(22)
One party has considered that the MIP is set too high, one party has considered that it is set too low. As set out in recital 7 of Decision 2013/423/EU, in order to assess whether that price undertaking removes the injurious effect of dumping, the Commission has analysed, inter alia, the current export prices and the level of provisional duty. After having analysed the additional information provided by parties, the information available on the current and expected evolution of production costs, and price developments since the adoption of Decision 2013/423/EU, the Commission confirms the finding in recital 7 of Decision 2013/423/EU.

(23)
In the absence of other comments, the findings in recitals 3 to 9 of Decision 2013/423/EU, as complemented by the findings set out above in recitals 16 to 22 are confirmed.

(24)
The inclusion of new companies in the undertaking triggers changes to the list of related companies in the EU as submitted in the initial undertaking offer. In addition, one exporting producer requested inclusion of a new related company in the EU to replace another company.

(25)
Finally, one company changed its name.

(26)
In the view of the above, the undertaking as amended is acceptable. Interested parties have been informed of the essential facts, considerations and obligations upon which the acceptance is based. The Commission did not receive any comments.

Name of the company
TARIC additional code

Jiangsu Aide Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd
B798

Alternative Energy (AE) Solar Co. Ltd
B799

Anhui Chaoqun Power Co. Ltd
B800

Anji DaSol Solar Energy Science & Technology Co. Ltd
B802

Anhui Schutten Solar Energy Co. LtdQuanjiao Jingkun Trade Co. Ltd
B801

Anhui Titan PV Co. Ltd
B803

Xi'an SunOasis (Prime) Company LimitedTBEA SOLAR CO. LTDXINJIANG SANG'O SOLAR EQUIPMENT
B804

CSI Solar Power (China) Inc.Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc.Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc.CSI Cells Co. Ltd
B805

Changzhou NESL Solartech Co. Ltd
B806

Changzhou Shangyou Lianyi Electronic Co. Ltd
B807

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. LtdTrina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co. LtdChangzhou Youze Technology Co. LtdTrina Solar Energy (Shanghai) Co. LtdYancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd
B791

CHINALAND SOLAR ENERGY CO. LTD
B808

ChangZhou EGing Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
B811

CIXI CITY RIXING ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.ANHUI RINENG ZHONGTIAN SEMICONDUCTOR DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.HUOSHAN KEBO ENERGY & TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.
B812

CNPV Dongying Solar Power Co. Ltd
B813

CSG PVtech Co. Ltd
B814

China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co. LtdCEEG Nanjing Renewable Energy Co. LtdCEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science Technology Co. LtdChina Sunergy (Yangzhou) Co. LtdChina Sunergy (Shanghai) Co. Ltd
B809

Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd
B810

Delsolar (Wujiang) Ltd
B792

Dongfang Electric (Yixing) MAGI Solar Power Technology Co. Ltd
B816

EOPLLY New Energy Technology Co. LtdSHANGHAI EBEST SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CO. LTDJIANGSU EOPLLY IMPORT & EXPORT CO. LTD
B817

Era Solar Co. Ltd
B818

ET Solar Industry LimitedET Energy Co. Ltd
B819

GD Solar Co. Ltd
B820

Greenway Solar-Tech (Shanghai) Co. LtdGreenway Solar-Tech (Huaian) Co. Ltd
B821

Konca Solar Cell Co. LtdSuzhou GCL Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdJiangsu GCL Silicon Material Technology Development Co. LtdJiangsu Zhongneng Polysilicon Technology Development Co. LtdGCL-Poly (Suzhou) Energy LimitedGCL-Poly Solar Power System Integration (Taicang) Co. LtdGCL SOLAR POWER (SUZHOU) LIMITEDGCL Solar System (Suzhou) Limited
B850

Guodian Jintech Solar Energy Co. Ltd
B822

Hangzhou Bluesun New Material Technology Co. Ltd
B824

Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co. LtdZhejiang Jinbest Energy Science and Technology Co. Ltd
B825

Hanwha SolarOne (Qidong) Co. Ltd
B826

Hengdian Group DMEGC Magnetics Co. Ltd
B827

HENGJI PV-TECH ENERGY CO. LTD
B828

Himin Clean Energy Holdings Co. Ltd
B829

Jetion Solar (China) Co. LtdJunfeng Solar (Jiangsu) Co. LtdJetion Solar (Jiangyin) Co. Ltd
B830

Jiangsu Green Power PV Co. Ltd
B831

Jiangsu Hosun Solar Power Co. Ltd
B832

Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
B833

Jiangsu Runda PV Co. Ltd
B834

Jiangsu Sainty Photovoltaic Systems Co. LtdJiangsu Sainty Machinery Imp. And Exp. Corp. Ltd
B835

Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd
B836

Jiangsu Shunfeng Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdChangzhou Shunfeng Photovoltaic Materials Co. LtdJiangsu Shunfeng Photovoltaic Electronic Power Co. Ltd
B837

Jiangsu Sinski PV Co. Ltd
B838

Jiangsu Sunlink PV Technology Co. Ltd
B839

Jiangsu Zhongchao Solar Technology Co. Ltd
B840

Jiangxi Risun Solar Energy Co. Ltd
B841

Jiangxi LDK Solar Hi-Tech Co. LtdLDK Solar Hi-Tech (Nanchang) Co. LtdLDK Solar Hi-Tech (Suzhou) Co. Ltd
B793

Jiangyin Hareon Power Co. LtdHareon Solar Technology Co. LtdTaicang Hareon Solar Co. LtdHefei Hareon Solar Technology Co. LtdJiangyin Xinhui Solar Energy Co. LtdAltusvia Energy (Taicang) Co. Ltd
B842

Jiangyin Shine Science and Technology Co. Ltd
B843

JingAo Solar Co.LtdShanghai JA Solar Technology Co. LtdJA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. LtdHefei JA Solar Technology Co. LtdShanghai JA Solar PV Technology Co. Ltd
B794

Jinko Solar Co. LtdJinko Solar Import and Export Co. LtdZHEJIANG JINKO SOLAR CO. LTDZHEJIANG JINKO SOLAR TRADING CO. LTD
B845

Jinzhou Yangguang Energy Co. LtdJinzhou Huachang Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdJinzhou Jinmao Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdJinzhou Rixin Silicon Materials Co. LtdJinzhou Youhua Silicon Materials Co. Ltd
B795

Juli New Energy Co. Ltd
B846

Jumao Photonic (Xiamen) Co. Ltd
B847

King-PV Technology Co. Ltd
B848

Kinve Solar Power Co. Ltd (Maanshan)
B849

Lightway Green New Energy Co. LtdLightway Green New Energy (Zhuozhou) Co. Ltd
B851

MOTECH (SUZHOU) RENEWABLE ENERGY CO. LTD
B852

Nanjing Daqo New Energy Co. Ltd
B853

NICE SUN PV CO. LTDLEVO SOLAR TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD
B854

Ningbo Huashun Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd
B856

Ningbo Jinshi Solar Electrical Science & Technology Co. Ltd
B857

Ningbo Komaes Solar Technology Co. Ltd
B858

Ningbo Osda Solar Co. Ltd
B859

Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd
B860

Ningbo South New Energy Technology Co. Ltd
B861

Ningbo Sunbe Electric Ind Co. Ltd
B862

Ningbo Ulica Solar Science & Technology Co. Ltd
B863

Perfectenergy (Shanghai) Co. Ltd
B864

Perlight Solar Co. Ltd
B865

Phono Solar Technology Co. LtdSumec Hardware & Tools Co. Ltd
B866

RISEN ENERGY CO. LTD
B868

SHANDONG LINUO PHOTOVOLTAIC HI-TECH CO. LTD
B869

SHANGHAI ALEX SOLAR ENERGY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CO. LTDSHANGHAI ALEX NEW ENERGY CO. LTD
B870

Shanghai BYD Co. LtdBYD(Shangluo)Industrial Co.Ltd
B871

Shanghai Chaori Solar Energy Science & Technology Co. LtdShanghai Chaori International Trading Co. Ltd
B872

Propsolar (Zhejiang) New Energy Technology Co. LtdShanghai Propsolar New Energy Co. Ltd
B873

SHANGHAI SHANGHONG ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD
B874

SHANGHAI SOLAR ENERGY S&T CO. LTDShanghai Shenzhou New Energy Development Co. LtdLianyungang Shenzhou New Energy Co. Ltd
B875

Shanghai ST-Solar Co. LtdJiangsu ST-Solar Co. Ltd
B876

Shenzhen Sacred Industry Co. Ltd
B878

Shenzhen Topray Solar Co. LtdShanxi Topray Solar Co. LtdLeshan Topray Cell Co. Ltd
B880

Sopray Energy Co. LtdShanghai Sopray New Energy Co. Ltd
B881

SUN EARTH SOLAR POWER CO. LTDNINGBO SUN EARTH SOLAR POWER CO. LTDNingbo Sun Earth Solar Energy Co. Ltd
B882

SUZHOU SHENGLONG PV-TECH CO. LTD
B883

TDG Holding Co. Ltd
B884

Tianwei New Energy Holdings Co. LtdTianwei New Energy(Chengdu) PV Module Co. LtdTianwei New Energy (Yangzhou) Co. Ltd
B885

Wenzhou Jingri Electrical and Mechanical Co. Ltd
B886

Shanghai Topsolar Green Energy Co. Ltd
B877

Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co. Ltd
B879

Wuhu Zhongfu PV Co. Ltd
B889

Wuxi Saijing Solar Co. Ltd
B890

Wuxi Shangpin Solar Energy Science and Technology Co. Ltd
B891

Wuxi Solar Innova PV Co. Ltd
B892

Wuxi Suntech Power Co. LtdSuntech Power Co. LtdWuxi Sunshine Power Co. LtdLuoyang Suntech Power Co. LtdZhenjiang Rietech New Energy Science Technology Co. LtdZhenjiang Ren De New Energy Science Technology Co. Ltd
B796

Wuxi Taichang Electronic Co. LtdWuxi Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Co. LtdWuxi Taichen Machinery & Equipment Co. Ltd
B893

Xi'an Huanghe Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdState-run Huanghe Machine-Building Factory Import and Export CorporationShanghai Huanghe Fengjia Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
B896

Xi'an LONGi Silicon Materials Corp.Wuxi LONGi Silicon Materials Co. Ltd
B897

Years Solar Co. Ltd
B898

Yingli Energy (China) Co. LtdBaoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdHainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdHengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdTianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdLixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdBaoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdBeijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdYingli Energy (Beijing) Co. Ltd
B797

Yuhuan BLD Solar Technology Co. LtdZhejiang BLD Solar Technology Co. Ltd
B899

Yuhuan Sinosola Science & Technology Co. Ltd
B900

Zhangjiagang City SEG PV Co. Ltd
B902

Zhejiang Fengsheng Electrical Co. Ltd
B903

Zhejiang Global Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
B904

Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology Co. Ltd
B905

Zhejiang Jiutai New Energy Co. LtdZhejiang Topoint Photovoltaic Co. Ltd
B906

Zhejiang Kingdom Solar Energy Technic Co. Ltd
B907

Zhejiang Koly Energy Co. Ltd
B908

Zhejiang Mega Solar Energy Co. LtdZhejiang Fortune Photovoltaic Co. Ltd
B910

Zhejiang Shuqimeng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
B911

Zhejiang Shinew Photoelectronic Technology Co. Ltd
B912

Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Limited Liability CompanyZhejiang Yauchong Light Energy Science & Technology Co. Ltd
B914

Zhejiang Sunrupu New Energy Co. Ltd
B915

Zhejiang Tianming Solar Technology Co. Ltd
B916

Zhejiang Trunsun Solar Co. LtdZhejiang Beyondsun PV Co. Ltd
B917

Zhejiang Wanxiang Solar Co. LtdWANXIANG IMPORT & EXPORT CO LTD
B918

Zhejiang Xiongtai Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd
B919

ZHEJIANG YUANZHONG SOLAR CO. LTD
B920

RENESOLA ZHEJIANG LTDRENESOLA JIANGSU LTD
B921

Zhongli Talesun Solar Co. Ltd
B922

ZNSHINE PV-TECH CO. LTD
B923

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘the Treaty’),

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community(1)(‘the basic anti-dumping Regulation’), and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community(2)(‘the basic anti-subsidy Regulation’), and in particular Articles 13 and 15 thereof

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1

The undertaking offered by the exporting producers listed in the Annex of this Decision together with the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME), in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, is hereby accepted.
Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on 6 December 2013.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘the Treaty’),

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community(1)(‘the basic anti-dumping Regulation’), and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community(2)(‘the basic anti-subsidy Regulation’), and in particular Articles 13 and 15 thereof

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
The undertaking offered by the exporting producers listed in the Annex of this Decision together with the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME), in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, is hereby accepted.
This Decision shall enter into force on 6 December 2013.
ANNEXList of companies:
Name of the company | TARIC additional code

Jiangsu Aide Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd | B798

Alternative Energy (AE) Solar Co. Ltd | B799

Anhui Chaoqun Power Co. Ltd | B800

Anji DaSol Solar Energy Science & Technology Co. Ltd | B802

Anhui Schutten Solar Energy Co. LtdQuanjiao Jingkun Trade Co. Ltd | B801

Anhui Titan PV Co. Ltd | B803

Xi’an SunOasis (Prime) Company LimitedTBEA SOLAR CO. LTDXINJIANG SANG’O SOLAR EQUIPMENT | B804

CSI Solar Power (China) Inc.Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc.Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc.CSI Cells Co. Ltd | B805

Changzhou NESL Solartech Co. Ltd | B806

Changzhou Shangyou Lianyi Electronic Co. Ltd | B807

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. LtdTrina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co. LtdChangzhou Youze Technology Co. LtdTrina Solar Energy (Shanghai) Co. LtdYancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd | B791

CHINALAND SOLAR ENERGY CO. LTD | B808

ChangZhou EGing Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd | B811

CIXI CITY RIXING ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.ANHUI RINENG ZHONGTIAN SEMICONDUCTOR DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.HUOSHAN KEBO ENERGY & TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. | B812

CNPV Dongying Solar Power Co. Ltd | B813

CSG PVtech Co. Ltd | B814

China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co. LtdCEEG Nanjing Renewable Energy Co. LtdCEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science Technology Co. LtdChina Sunergy (Yangzhou) Co. LtdChina Sunergy (Shanghai) Co. Ltd | B809

Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd | B810

Delsolar (Wujiang) Ltd | B792

Dongfang Electric (Yixing) MAGI Solar Power Technology Co. Ltd | B816

EOPLLY New Energy Technology Co. LtdSHANGHAI EBEST SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CO. LTDJIANGSU EOPLLY IMPORT & EXPORT CO. LTD | B817

Era Solar Co. Ltd | B818

ET Solar Industry LimitedET Energy Co. Ltd | B819

GD Solar Co. Ltd | B820

Greenway Solar-Tech (Shanghai) Co. LtdGreenway Solar-Tech (Huaian) Co. Ltd | B821

Konca Solar Cell Co. LtdSuzhou GCL Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdJiangsu GCL Silicon Material Technology Development Co. LtdJiangsu Zhongneng Polysilicon Technology Development Co. LtdGCL-Poly (Suzhou) Energy LimitedGCL-Poly Solar Power System Integration (Taicang) Co. LtdGCL SOLAR POWER (SUZHOU) LIMITEDGCL Solar System (Suzhou) Limited | B850

Guodian Jintech Solar Energy Co. Ltd | B822

Hangzhou Bluesun New Material Technology Co. Ltd | B824

Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co. LtdZhejiang Jinbest Energy Science and Technology Co. Ltd | B825

Hanwha SolarOne (Qidong) Co. Ltd | B826

Hengdian Group DMEGC Magnetics Co. Ltd | B827

HENGJI PV-TECH ENERGY CO. LTD | B828

Himin Clean Energy Holdings Co. Ltd | B829

Jetion Solar (China) Co. LtdJunfeng Solar (Jiangsu) Co. LtdJetion Solar (Jiangyin) Co. Ltd | B830

Jiangsu Green Power PV Co. Ltd | B831

Jiangsu Hosun Solar Power Co. Ltd | B832

Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd | B833

Jiangsu Runda PV Co. Ltd | B834

Jiangsu Sainty Photovoltaic Systems Co. LtdJiangsu Sainty Machinery Imp. And Exp. Corp. Ltd | B835

Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd | B836

Jiangsu Shunfeng Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdChangzhou Shunfeng Photovoltaic Materials Co. LtdJiangsu Shunfeng Photovoltaic Electronic Power Co. Ltd | B837

Jiangsu Sinski PV Co. Ltd | B838

Jiangsu Sunlink PV Technology Co. Ltd | B839

Jiangsu Zhongchao Solar Technology Co. Ltd | B840

Jiangxi Risun Solar Energy Co. Ltd | B841

Jiangxi LDK Solar Hi-Tech Co. LtdLDK Solar Hi-Tech (Nanchang) Co. LtdLDK Solar Hi-Tech (Suzhou) Co. Ltd | B793

Jiangyin Hareon Power Co. LtdHareon Solar Technology Co. LtdTaicang Hareon Solar Co. LtdHefei Hareon Solar Technology Co. LtdJiangyin Xinhui Solar Energy Co. LtdAltusvia Energy (Taicang) Co. Ltd | B842

Jiangyin Shine Science and Technology Co. Ltd | B843

JingAo Solar Co.LtdShanghai JA Solar Technology Co. LtdJA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. LtdHefei JA Solar Technology Co. LtdShanghai JA Solar PV Technology Co. Ltd | B794

Jinko Solar Co. LtdJinko Solar Import and Export Co. LtdZHEJIANG JINKO SOLAR CO. LTDZHEJIANG JINKO SOLAR TRADING CO. LTD | B845

Jinzhou Yangguang Energy Co. LtdJinzhou Huachang Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdJinzhou Jinmao Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdJinzhou Rixin Silicon Materials Co. LtdJinzhou Youhua Silicon Materials Co. Ltd | B795

Juli New Energy Co. Ltd | B846

Jumao Photonic (Xiamen) Co. Ltd | B847

King-PV Technology Co. Ltd | B848

Kinve Solar Power Co. Ltd (Maanshan) | B849

Lightway Green New Energy Co. LtdLightway Green New Energy (Zhuozhou) Co. Ltd | B851

MOTECH (SUZHOU) RENEWABLE ENERGY CO. LTD | B852

Nanjing Daqo New Energy Co. Ltd | B853

NICE SUN PV CO. LTDLEVO SOLAR TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD | B854

Ningbo Huashun Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd | B856

Ningbo Jinshi Solar Electrical Science & Technology Co. Ltd | B857

Ningbo Komaes Solar Technology Co. Ltd | B858

Ningbo Osda Solar Co. Ltd | B859

Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd | B860

Ningbo South New Energy Technology Co. Ltd | B861

Ningbo Sunbe Electric Ind Co. Ltd | B862

Ningbo Ulica Solar Science & Technology Co. Ltd | B863

Perfectenergy (Shanghai) Co. Ltd | B864

Perlight Solar Co. Ltd | B865

Phono Solar Technology Co. LtdSumec Hardware & Tools Co. Ltd | B866

RISEN ENERGY CO. LTD | B868

SHANDONG LINUO PHOTOVOLTAIC HI-TECH CO. LTD | B869

SHANGHAI ALEX SOLAR ENERGY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CO. LTDSHANGHAI ALEX NEW ENERGY CO. LTD | B870

Shanghai BYD Co. LtdBYD(Shangluo)Industrial Co.Ltd | B871

Shanghai Chaori Solar Energy Science & Technology Co. LtdShanghai Chaori International Trading Co. Ltd | B872

Propsolar (Zhejiang) New Energy Technology Co. LtdShanghai Propsolar New Energy Co. Ltd | B873

SHANGHAI SHANGHONG ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD | B874

SHANGHAI SOLAR ENERGY S&T CO. LTDShanghai Shenzhou New Energy Development Co. LtdLianyungang Shenzhou New Energy Co. Ltd | B875

Shanghai ST-Solar Co. LtdJiangsu ST-Solar Co. Ltd | B876

Shenzhen Sacred Industry Co. Ltd | B878

Shenzhen Topray Solar Co. LtdShanxi Topray Solar Co. LtdLeshan Topray Cell Co. Ltd | B880

Sopray Energy Co. LtdShanghai Sopray New Energy Co. Ltd | B881

SUN EARTH SOLAR POWER CO. LTDNINGBO SUN EARTH SOLAR POWER CO. LTDNingbo Sun Earth Solar Energy Co. Ltd | B882

SUZHOU SHENGLONG PV-TECH CO. LTD | B883

TDG Holding Co. Ltd | B884

Tianwei New Energy Holdings Co. LtdTianwei New Energy(Chengdu) PV Module Co. LtdTianwei New Energy (Yangzhou) Co. Ltd | B885

Wenzhou Jingri Electrical and Mechanical Co. Ltd | B886

Shanghai Topsolar Green Energy Co. Ltd | B877

Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co. Ltd | B879

Wuhu Zhongfu PV Co. Ltd | B889

Wuxi Saijing Solar Co. Ltd | B890

Wuxi Shangpin Solar Energy Science and Technology Co. Ltd | B891

Wuxi Solar Innova PV Co. Ltd | B892

Wuxi Suntech Power Co. LtdSuntech Power Co. LtdWuxi Sunshine Power Co. LtdLuoyang Suntech Power Co. LtdZhenjiang Rietech New Energy Science Technology Co. LtdZhenjiang Ren De New Energy Science Technology Co. Ltd | B796

Wuxi Taichang Electronic Co. LtdWuxi Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Co. LtdWuxi Taichen Machinery & Equipment Co. Ltd | B893

Xi’an Huanghe Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdState-run Huanghe Machine-Building Factory Import and Export CorporationShanghai Huanghe Fengjia Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd | B896

Xi’an LONGi Silicon Materials Corp.Wuxi LONGi Silicon Materials Co. Ltd | B897

Years Solar Co. Ltd | B898

Yingli Energy (China) Co. LtdBaoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdHainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdHengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdTianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdLixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdBaoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdBeijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdYingli Energy (Beijing) Co. Ltd | B797

Yuhuan BLD Solar Technology Co. LtdZhejiang BLD Solar Technology Co. Ltd | B899

Yuhuan Sinosola Science & Technology Co. Ltd | B900

Zhangjiagang City SEG PV Co. Ltd | B902

Zhejiang Fengsheng Electrical Co. Ltd | B903

Zhejiang Global Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd | B904

Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology Co. Ltd | B905

Zhejiang Jiutai New Energy Co. LtdZhejiang Topoint Photovoltaic Co. Ltd | B906

Zhejiang Kingdom Solar Energy Technic Co. Ltd | B907

Zhejiang Koly Energy Co. Ltd | B908

Zhejiang Mega Solar Energy Co. LtdZhejiang Fortune Photovoltaic Co. Ltd | B910

Zhejiang Shuqimeng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd | B911

Zhejiang Shinew Photoelectronic Technology Co. Ltd | B912

Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Limited Liability CompanyZhejiang Yauchong Light Energy Science & Technology Co. Ltd | B914

Zhejiang Sunrupu New Energy Co. Ltd | B915

Zhejiang Tianming Solar Technology Co. Ltd | B916

Zhejiang Trunsun Solar Co. LtdZhejiang Beyondsun PV Co. Ltd | B917

Zhejiang Wanxiang Solar Co. LtdWANXIANG IMPORT & EXPORT CO LTD | B918

Zhejiang Xiongtai Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd | B919

ZHEJIANG YUANZHONG SOLAR CO. LTD | B920

RENESOLA ZHEJIANG LTDRENESOLA JIANGSU LTD | B921

Zhongli Talesun Solar Co. Ltd | B922

ZNSHINE PV-TECH CO. LTD | B923

Pending: 32013D0657

                                January 16, 2026                            

15.11.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 305/19

(1)
Commission Decisions 2006/265/EC(3)and 2006/533/EC(4)were adopted following positive findings for highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1 in wild birds in Croatia and Switzerland. Those Decisions provided that Member States were to suspend imports from certain parts of Croatia and Switzerland of live poultry, ratites, farmed and wild feathered game and certain other live birds, including pet birds and hatching eggs of those species, as well as certain products of birds.

(2)
Commission Decision 2006/415/EC(5)lays down certain biosecurity and restriction measures to prevent the spread of that disease, including the establishment of areas A and B following a suspected or confirmed outbreak of the disease in poultry.

(3)
Commission Decision 2006/563/EC(6)lays down certain protection measures to prevent the spread of that disease from wild birds to poultry including, based on risk assessment, the establishment of control and monitoring areas taking into account the epidemiological, geographical and ecological factors following a suspected or confirmed positive finding for that disease in wild birds.

(4)
The protection measures laid down in Decisions 2006/265/EC and 2006/533/EC expired on 30 June 2007. However, in the light of the epidemiological situation as regards highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1 in the Union and in third countries, the protection measures laid down in those Decisions were included in Commission Decision 2008/555/EC(7). Decision 2008/555/EC was replaced by Commission Decision 2009/494/EC(8), which applies until 31 December 2013.

(5)
In view of Croatia’s accession to the Union on 1 July 2013, the measures provided for in Decision 2009/494/EC no longer apply to that Member State. However, in the light of the epidemiological situation with respect to the risks posed by the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of the subtype H5N1, it is appropriate to maintain the protection measures with respect to Switzerland until 31 December 2015.

(6)
Switzerland has notified the Commission that the competent authorities of that third country are applying protection measures that are equivalent to those applied by the competent authorities of the Member States, as provided for in Decisions 2006/415/EC and 2006/563/EC, when highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1 is suspected or confirmed in poultry or wild birds and that it will immediately notify the Commission of any future changes to its animal health status, including specifically any outbreak or positive findings of that disease in poultry or wild birds. Account should also be taken of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products(9).

(7)
The Commission will immediately inform the Member States and forward any such information received from the competent authority of Switzerland to them.

(8)
In the light of the guarantees received from Switzerland, it is appropriate, that in the event of a positive finding of avian influenza of subtype H5N1 in a wild bird or an outbreak of that disease in poultry in the territory of Switzerland, protection measures concerning that country be only applied to those parts of Switzerland for which the competent authority of that country does apply equivalent protection measures as laid down in Decisions 2006/415/EC and 2006/563/EC.

(9)
Commission Decision 2007/777/EC(10)lays down the list of third countries from which Member States may authorise the importation of meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, and establishes treatment regimes considered effective in inactivating the respective pathogens. In order to prevent the risk of disease transmission via such products, appropriate treatment must be applied depending on the health status of the country of origin and the species the products are obtained from. It is therefore appropriate that a derogation from the provision suspending imports of meat products of wild feathered game originating in Switzerland be granted, provided the products have been treated with certain specific treatments set out in Part 4 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC.

(10)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008(11)lays down veterinary certification conditions for imports into and transit through the Union of poultry and certain products thereof. In the interests of clarity and consistency of Union legislation, it is appropriate that the definitions of poultry and hatching eggs laid down in that Regulation be taken into account for the purposes of this Decision.

(11)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013(12)lays down the animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union from third countries and parts thereof. In the interests of clarity and consistency of Union rules, it is appropriate that the definition of birds laid down in that Regulation be taken into account for the purposes of this Decision.

(12)
For the sake of clarity and simplification of Union legislation, it is appropriate to repeal Decision 2009/494/EC and replace it with this Decision.

(13)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

(a)
poultry as defined in point (1) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 798/2008;

(b)
hatching eggs as defined in point (2) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 798/2008;

(c)
birds as defined in point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 and their hatching eggs;

(d)
meat, minced meat, meat preparations, and mechanically separated meat of wild feathered game;

(e)
meat products consisting of or containing meat of wild feathered game;

(f)
raw pet food and unprocessed feed material containing any parts of wild feathered game;

(g)
non-treated game trophies from any birds.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC(1), and in particular Article 18(1) and (7) thereof,

Having regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries(2), and in particular Article 22(1) and (6) thereof,

(1) Commission Decisions 2006/265/EC(3)and 2006/533/EC(4)were adopted following positive findings for highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1 in wild birds in Croatia and Switzerland. Those Decisions provided that Member States were to suspend imports from certain parts of Croatia and Switzerland of live poultry, ratites, farmed and wild feathered game and certain other live birds, including pet birds and hatching eggs of those species, as well as certain products of birds.

(2) Commission Decision 2006/415/EC(5)lays down certain biosecurity and restriction measures to prevent the spread of that disease, including the establishment of areas A and B following a suspected or confirmed outbreak of the disease in poultry.

(3) Commission Decision 2006/563/EC(6)lays down certain protection measures to prevent the spread of that disease from wild birds to poultry including, based on risk assessment, the establishment of control and monitoring areas taking into account the epidemiological, geographical and ecological factors following a suspected or confirmed positive finding for that disease in wild birds.

(4) The protection measures laid down in Decisions 2006/265/EC and 2006/533/EC expired on 30 June 2007. However, in the light of the epidemiological situation as regards highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1 in the Union and in third countries, the protection measures laid down in those Decisions were included in Commission Decision 2008/555/EC(7). Decision 2008/555/EC was replaced by Commission Decision 2009/494/EC(8), which applies until 31 December 2013.

(5) In view of Croatia’s accession to the Union on 1 July 2013, the measures provided for in Decision 2009/494/EC no longer apply to that Member State. However, in the light of the epidemiological situation with respect to the risks posed by the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of the subtype H5N1, it is appropriate to maintain the protection measures with respect to Switzerland until 31 December 2015.

(6) Switzerland has notified the Commission that the competent authorities of that third country are applying protection measures that are equivalent to those applied by the competent authorities of the Member States, as provided for in Decisions 2006/415/EC and 2006/563/EC, when highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1 is suspected or confirmed in poultry or wild birds and that it will immediately notify the Commission of any future changes to its animal health status, including specifically any outbreak or positive findings of that disease in poultry or wild birds. Account should also be taken of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products(9).

(7) The Commission will immediately inform the Member States and forward any such information received from the competent authority of Switzerland to them.

(8) In the light of the guarantees received from Switzerland, it is appropriate, that in the event of a positive finding of avian influenza of subtype H5N1 in a wild bird or an outbreak of that disease in poultry in the territory of Switzerland, protection measures concerning that country be only applied to those parts of Switzerland for which the competent authority of that country does apply equivalent protection measures as laid down in Decisions 2006/415/EC and 2006/563/EC.

(9) Commission Decision 2007/777/EC(10)lays down the list of third countries from which Member States may authorise the importation of meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, and establishes treatment regimes considered effective in inactivating the respective pathogens. In order to prevent the risk of disease transmission via such products, appropriate treatment must be applied depending on the health status of the country of origin and the species the products are obtained from. It is therefore appropriate that a derogation from the provision suspending imports of meat products of wild feathered game originating in Switzerland be granted, provided the products have been treated with certain specific treatments set out in Part 4 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC.

(10) Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008(11)lays down veterinary certification conditions for imports into and transit through the Union of poultry and certain products thereof. In the interests of clarity and consistency of Union legislation, it is appropriate that the definitions of poultry and hatching eggs laid down in that Regulation be taken into account for the purposes of this Decision.

(11) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013(12)lays down the animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union from third countries and parts thereof. In the interests of clarity and consistency of Union rules, it is appropriate that the definition of birds laid down in that Regulation be taken into account for the purposes of this Decision.

(12) For the sake of clarity and simplification of Union legislation, it is appropriate to repeal Decision 2009/494/EC and replace it with this Decision.

(13) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1

1.   Member States shall suspend imports into the Union from all areas of the territory of Switzerland for which the competent authorities of Switzerland formally apply protection measures that are equivalent to those laid down in Decisions 2006/415/EC and 2006/563/EC of the following commodities:

(a)

poultry as defined in point (1) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 798/2008;

(b)

hatching eggs as defined in point (2) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 798/2008;

(c)

birds as defined in point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 and their hatching eggs;

(d)

meat, minced meat, meat preparations, and mechanically separated meat of wild feathered game;

(e)

meat products consisting of or containing meat of wild feathered game;

(f)

raw pet food and unprocessed feed material containing any parts of wild feathered game;

(g)

non-treated game trophies from any birds.

2.   By way of derogation from paragraph 1(e), Member States shall authorise imports into the Union of meat products consisting of or containing meat of wild feathered game under the condition that the meat of these species has undergone at least one of the specific treatments referred to under point B, C or D in Part 4 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC.
Article 2

Member States shall, immediately upon receipt of information from the Commission on the change in the animal health status of Switzerland with regard to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5N1 take the necessary measures to comply with Article 1 of this Decision and publish those measures.
Article 3

Decision 2009/494/EC is repealed.
Article 4

This Decision shall apply until 31 December 2015.
Article 5

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC(1), and in particular Article 18(1) and (7) thereof,

Having regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries(2), and in particular Article 22(1) and (6) thereof,

(1) Commission Decisions 2006/265/EC(3)and 2006/533/EC(4)were adopted following positive findings for highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1 in wild birds in Croatia and Switzerland. Those Decisions provided that Member States were to suspend imports from certain parts of Croatia and Switzerland of live poultry, ratites, farmed and wild feathered game and certain other live birds, including pet birds and hatching eggs of those species, as well as certain products of birds.

(2) Commission Decision 2006/415/EC(5)lays down certain biosecurity and restriction measures to prevent the spread of that disease, including the establishment of areas A and B following a suspected or confirmed outbreak of the disease in poultry.

(3) Commission Decision 2006/563/EC(6)lays down certain protection measures to prevent the spread of that disease from wild birds to poultry including, based on risk assessment, the establishment of control and monitoring areas taking into account the epidemiological, geographical and ecological factors following a suspected or confirmed positive finding for that disease in wild birds.

(4) The protection measures laid down in Decisions 2006/265/EC and 2006/533/EC expired on 30 June 2007. However, in the light of the epidemiological situation as regards highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1 in the Union and in third countries, the protection measures laid down in those Decisions were included in Commission Decision 2008/555/EC(7). Decision 2008/555/EC was replaced by Commission Decision 2009/494/EC(8), which applies until 31 December 2013.

(5) In view of Croatia’s accession to the Union on 1 July 2013, the measures provided for in Decision 2009/494/EC no longer apply to that Member State. However, in the light of the epidemiological situation with respect to the risks posed by the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of the subtype H5N1, it is appropriate to maintain the protection measures with respect to Switzerland until 31 December 2015.

(6) Switzerland has notified the Commission that the competent authorities of that third country are applying protection measures that are equivalent to those applied by the competent authorities of the Member States, as provided for in Decisions 2006/415/EC and 2006/563/EC, when highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1 is suspected or confirmed in poultry or wild birds and that it will immediately notify the Commission of any future changes to its animal health status, including specifically any outbreak or positive findings of that disease in poultry or wild birds. Account should also be taken of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products(9).

(7) The Commission will immediately inform the Member States and forward any such information received from the competent authority of Switzerland to them.

(8) In the light of the guarantees received from Switzerland, it is appropriate, that in the event of a positive finding of avian influenza of subtype H5N1 in a wild bird or an outbreak of that disease in poultry in the territory of Switzerland, protection measures concerning that country be only applied to those parts of Switzerland for which the competent authority of that country does apply equivalent protection measures as laid down in Decisions 2006/415/EC and 2006/563/EC.

(9) Commission Decision 2007/777/EC(10)lays down the list of third countries from which Member States may authorise the importation of meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and intestines, and establishes treatment regimes considered effective in inactivating the respective pathogens. In order to prevent the risk of disease transmission via such products, appropriate treatment must be applied depending on the health status of the country of origin and the species the products are obtained from. It is therefore appropriate that a derogation from the provision suspending imports of meat products of wild feathered game originating in Switzerland be granted, provided the products have been treated with certain specific treatments set out in Part 4 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC.

(10) Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008(11)lays down veterinary certification conditions for imports into and transit through the Union of poultry and certain products thereof. In the interests of clarity and consistency of Union legislation, it is appropriate that the definitions of poultry and hatching eggs laid down in that Regulation be taken into account for the purposes of this Decision.

(11) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013(12)lays down the animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union from third countries and parts thereof. In the interests of clarity and consistency of Union rules, it is appropriate that the definition of birds laid down in that Regulation be taken into account for the purposes of this Decision.

(12) For the sake of clarity and simplification of Union legislation, it is appropriate to repeal Decision 2009/494/EC and replace it with this Decision.

(13) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
1.   Member States shall suspend imports into the Union from all areas of the territory of Switzerland for which the competent authorities of Switzerland formally apply protection measures that are equivalent to those laid down in Decisions 2006/415/EC and 2006/563/EC of the following commodities:

(a)

poultry as defined in point (1) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 798/2008;

(b)

hatching eggs as defined in point (2) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 798/2008;

(c)

birds as defined in point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2013 and their hatching eggs;

(d)

meat, minced meat, meat preparations, and mechanically separated meat of wild feathered game;

(e)

meat products consisting of or containing meat of wild feathered game;

(f)

raw pet food and unprocessed feed material containing any parts of wild feathered game;

(g)

non-treated game trophies from any birds.

2.   By way of derogation from paragraph 1(e), Member States shall authorise imports into the Union of meat products consisting of or containing meat of wild feathered game under the condition that the meat of these species has undergone at least one of the specific treatments referred to under point B, C or D in Part 4 of Annex II to Decision 2007/777/EC.
Member States shall, immediately upon receipt of information from the Commission on the change in the animal health status of Switzerland with regard to highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5N1 take the necessary measures to comply with Article 1 of this Decision and publish those measures.
Decision 2009/494/EC is repealed.
This Decision shall apply until 31 December 2015.
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Pending: 32013D0527

                                January 16, 2026                            

26.10.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 284/23

(1)
On 8 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/819/CFSP(1)appointing Mr Alexander RONDOS as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Horn of Africa. The EUSR’s mandate expires on 31 October 2013.

(2)
On 11 August 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/450/CFSP(2)appointing Mrs Rosalind MARSDEN as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Sudan. The EUSR’s mandate expires on 31 October 2013.

(3)
The mandate of the EUSR for the Horn of Africa, Mr Alexander RONDOS, should be expanded to include elements on Sudan and South Sudan and should be extended for a further period of 12 months.

(4)
The EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,

(a)
the continued stabilisation of Somalia, in particular from a regional dimension perspective;

(b)
the peaceful coexistence of Sudan and South Sudan as two viable and prosperous states with robust and accountable political structures;

(c)
the resolution of current conflicts and the avoidance of potential conflicts between or within countries in the region;

(d)
the support of political, security and economic regional cooperation.

(a)
engage with all relevant stakeholders of the region, governments, regional authorities, international and regional organisations, civil society and diasporas, with a view to furthering the Union's policy objectives and contribute to a better understanding of the role of the Union in the region;

(b)
represent the Union in relevant international fora, as appropriate, and ensure visibility for Union support to crisis management, as well as conflict resolution and prevention;

(c)
encourage and support effective political and security cooperation and economic integration in the region through the Union's partnership with the African Union (AU) and sub-regional organisations, in particular the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD);

(d)
follow political developments in the region and contribute to the development of the Union's policy towards the region, including in relation to Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, the Ethiopia-Eritrea border issue and implementation of the Algiers Agreement, the Nile Basin initiative and other concerns in the region that have an impact on its security, stability and prosperity

(e)
with regard to Somalia, and working in close coordination with the EU Special Envoy for Somalia and relevant regional and international partners, including the United Nations Secretary-General Special Representative for Somalia and the African Union, contribute actively to actions and initiatives leading to further stabilization and post transition arrangements for Somalia, with an emphasis on promoting a coordinated and coherent international approach towards Somalia, building good neighbourly relations and supporting the development of the security sector in Somalia, including, through the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia), EUNAVFOR Atalanta, EUCAP Nestor and the Union's continued support to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), working closely with Member States;

(f)
with regard to Sudan and South Sudan, and working in close cooperation with the respective Heads of Union delegations, contribute to the coherence and effectiveness of Union policy towards Sudan and South Sudan and support their peaceful coexistence, in particular through implementation of the Addis Agreements and resolution of the outstanding issues in relation to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, including Abyei, political solutions to the ongoing conflicts, particularly in Darfur, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, institution-building in South Sudan and national reconciliation. In this regard, the EUSR will contribute to a coherent international approach in close cooperation with the AU and in particular the AU High Level Implementation Panel for Sudan (AUHIP), the United Nations (UN) and other leading regional and international stakeholders.

(g)
follow closely the trans-boundary challenges affecting the Horn of Africa, including terrorism, radicalisation, maritime security and piracy, organised crime, arms smuggling, refugee and migration flows and any political and security consequences of humanitarian crises;

(h)
promote humanitarian access throughout the region;

(i)
contribute to the implementation of the Council Decision 2011/168/CFSP(3)and the Union's human rights policy in cooperation with the EUSR for Human Rights, including the EU Guidelines on human rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the Union's policy regarding UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments as well as formulating recommendations in this regard.

(a)
advise and report on the definition of Union positions in international fora, as appropriate, in order to promote proactively the Union's comprehensive policy approach towards the Horn of Africa;

(b)
maintain an overview of all activities of the Union.

(a)
establishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area as well as the management of security incidents and including a mission contingency plan and evacuation plan;

(b)
ensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance, as required by the conditions in the mission area;

(c)
ensuring that all members of the EUSR's team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the EEAS;

(d)
ensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the progress report and the report on the implementation of the mandate.

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

(1) On 8 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/819/CFSP(1)appointing Mr Alexander RONDOS as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Horn of Africa. The EUSR’s mandate expires on 31 October 2013.

(2) On 11 August 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/450/CFSP(2)appointing Mrs Rosalind MARSDEN as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Sudan. The EUSR’s mandate expires on 31 October 2013.

(3) The mandate of the EUSR for the Horn of Africa, Mr Alexander RONDOS, should be expanded to include elements on Sudan and South Sudan and should be extended for a further period of 12 months.

(4) The EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union’s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
European Union Special Representative

Article 1

1.   The mandate of Mr Alexander RONDOS as the EUSR for the Horn of Africa is hereby extended until 31 October 2014. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).

2.   For the purposes of the mandate of the EUSR, the Horn of Africa is defined as comprising the Republic of Djibouti, the State of Eritrea, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Republic of Kenya, the Federal Republic of Somalia, the Republic of the Sudan, the Republic of South Sudan and the Republic of Uganda. For issues with broader regional implications, the EUSR shall engage with countries and regional entities beyond the Horn of Africa, as appropriate.
Policy objectives

Article 2

1.   The mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the Union’s policy objectives in relation to the Horn of Africa as set out in its strategic framework adopted on 14 November 2011 and in relevant Council Conclusions, to contribute actively to regional and international efforts to achieve peaceful co-existence and lasting peace, security and development within and among the countries in the region. The EUSR shall furthermore aim to enhance the quality, intensity, impact and visibility of the Union’s multi-faceted engagement in the Horn of Africa.

2.   The Union’s policy objectives include, inter alia:

(a)

the continued stabilisation of Somalia, in particular from a regional dimension perspective;

(b)

the peaceful coexistence of Sudan and South Sudan as two viable and prosperous states with robust and accountable political structures;

(c)

the resolution of current conflicts and the avoidance of potential conflicts between or within countries in the region;

(d)

the support of political, security and economic regional cooperation.
Mandate

Article 3

1.   In order to achieve the Union’s policy objectives in relation to the Horn of Africa, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:

(a)

engage with all relevant stakeholders of the region, governments, regional authorities, international and regional organisations, civil society and diasporas, with a view to furthering the Union’s policy objectives and contribute to a better understanding of the role of the Union in the region;

(b)

represent the Union in relevant international fora, as appropriate, and ensure visibility for Union support to crisis management, as well as conflict resolution and prevention;

(c)

encourage and support effective political and security cooperation and economic integration in the region through the Union’s partnership with the African Union (AU) and sub-regional organisations, in particular the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD);

(d)

follow political developments in the region and contribute to the development of the Union’s policy towards the region, including in relation to Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, the Ethiopia-Eritrea border issue and implementation of the Algiers Agreement, the Nile Basin initiative and other concerns in the region that have an impact on its security, stability and prosperity

(e)

with regard to Somalia, and working in close coordination with the EU Special Envoy for Somalia and relevant regional and international partners, including the United Nations Secretary-General Special Representative for Somalia and the African Union, contribute actively to actions and initiatives leading to further stabilization and post transition arrangements for Somalia, with an emphasis on promoting a coordinated and coherent international approach towards Somalia, building good neighbourly relations and supporting the development of the security sector in Somalia, including, through the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia), EUNAVFOR Atalanta, EUCAP Nestor and the Union’s continued support to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), working closely with Member States;

(f)

with regard to Sudan and South Sudan, and working in close cooperation with the respective Heads of Union delegations, contribute to the coherence and effectiveness of Union policy towards Sudan and South Sudan and support their peaceful coexistence, in particular through implementation of the Addis Agreements and resolution of the outstanding issues in relation to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, including Abyei, political solutions to the ongoing conflicts, particularly in Darfur, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, institution-building in South Sudan and national reconciliation. In this regard, the EUSR will contribute to a coherent international approach in close cooperation with the AU and in particular the AU High Level Implementation Panel for Sudan (AUHIP), the United Nations (UN) and other leading regional and international stakeholders.

(g)

follow closely the trans-boundary challenges affecting the Horn of Africa, including terrorism, radicalisation, maritime security and piracy, organised crime, arms smuggling, refugee and migration flows and any political and security consequences of humanitarian crises;

(h)

promote humanitarian access throughout the region;

(i)

contribute to the implementation of the Council Decision 2011/168/CFSP(3)and the Union’s human rights policy in cooperation with the EUSR for Human Rights, including the EU Guidelines on human rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the Union’s policy regarding UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments as well as formulating recommendations in this regard.

2.   For the purpose of the fulfilment of the mandate, the EUSR shall, inter alia:

(a)

advise and report on the definition of Union positions in international fora, as appropriate, in order to promote proactively the Union’s comprehensive policy approach towards the Horn of Africa;

(b)

maintain an overview of all activities of the Union.
Implementation of the mandate

Article 4

1.   The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.

2.   The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR’s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.

3.   The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS) and its relevant departments, the Union delegations in the region and the Commission.
Financing

Article 5

1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 November 2013 to 31 October 2014 shall be EUR 2 720 000.

2.   The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.

3.   The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.
Constitution and composition of the team

Article 6

1.   Within the limits of the EUSR’s mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy and security issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall promptly and regularly inform the Council and the Commission of the composition of the team.

2.   Member States, the institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.

3.   All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, the sending institution of the Union or the EEAS, and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.

4.   The EUSR staff shall be co-located with the relevant EEAS departments or Union delegations in order to contribute to the coherence and consistency of their respective activities.
Privileges and immunities of the EUSR and the staff of the EUSR

Article 7

The privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the missions of the EUSR and the members of the EUSR’s staff shall be agreed with the host countries, as appropriate. Member States and the EEAS shall grant all necessary support to such effect.
Security of EU classified information

Article 8

The EUSR and the members of the EUSR’s team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU(4).
Access to information and logistical support

Article 9

1.   Member States, the Commission, the EEAS and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.

2.   The Union delegations in the region and/or the Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.
Security

Article 10

In accordance with the Union’s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with the EUSR’s mandate and the security situation in the geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under the direct authority of the EUSR, in particular by:

(a)

establishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area as well as the management of security incidents and including a mission contingency plan and evacuation plan;

(b)

ensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance, as required by the conditions in the mission area;

(c)

ensuring that all members of the EUSR’s team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the EEAS;

(d)

ensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the progress report and the report on the implementation of the mandate.
Reporting

Article 11

1.   The EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report to Council working parties as necessary. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports. In accordance with Article 36 of the Treaty the EUSR may be involved in briefing the European Parliament.

2.   The EUSR shall report on the best way of pursuing Union initiatives, such as the contribution of the Union to reforms, and including the political aspects of relevant Union development projects, in coordination with the Union delegations in the region.
Coordination

Article 12

1.   The EUSR shall contribute to the unity, consistency and effectiveness of the Union’s actions and shall help to ensure that all Union instruments and Member States’ action are engaged consistently, to attain the Union’s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of Union Delegations and of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSR’s active in the region, in particular with the EUSR to the AU and with the EU Special Envoy for Somalia. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States’ missions and the Union delegations in the region.

2.   In the field, close liaison and communication shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegation and Member States’ Heads of Mission. They shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR, in close co-ordination with the relevant Union delegations, shall provide local political guidance to the Force Commander of EUNAVFOR Atalanta, the Mission Commander of EUTM Somalia, the Head of EUCAP Nestor and the Head of EUAVSEC in South Sudan. The EUSR, the EU Operation Commanders and the Civilian Operation Commander shall consult each other as required.

3.   The EUSR shall closely cooperate with the authorities of the countries involved, the UN, the AU, IGAD, other national regional and international stakeholders, and also with civil society in the region.
Review

Article 13

The implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present to the Council, the HR and the Commission a progress report by the end of April 2014 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.
Entry into force

Article 14

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

(1) On 8 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/819/CFSP(1)appointing Mr Alexander RONDOS as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Horn of Africa. The EUSR’s mandate expires on 31 October 2013.

(2) On 11 August 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/450/CFSP(2)appointing Mrs Rosalind MARSDEN as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Sudan. The EUSR’s mandate expires on 31 October 2013.

(3) The mandate of the EUSR for the Horn of Africa, Mr Alexander RONDOS, should be expanded to include elements on Sudan and South Sudan and should be extended for a further period of 12 months.

(4) The EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union’s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
European Union Special Representative1.   The mandate of Mr Alexander RONDOS as the EUSR for the Horn of Africa is hereby extended until 31 October 2014. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).

2.   For the purposes of the mandate of the EUSR, the Horn of Africa is defined as comprising the Republic of Djibouti, the State of Eritrea, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Republic of Kenya, the Federal Republic of Somalia, the Republic of the Sudan, the Republic of South Sudan and the Republic of Uganda. For issues with broader regional implications, the EUSR shall engage with countries and regional entities beyond the Horn of Africa, as appropriate.
Policy objectives1.   The mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the Union’s policy objectives in relation to the Horn of Africa as set out in its strategic framework adopted on 14 November 2011 and in relevant Council Conclusions, to contribute actively to regional and international efforts to achieve peaceful co-existence and lasting peace, security and development within and among the countries in the region. The EUSR shall furthermore aim to enhance the quality, intensity, impact and visibility of the Union’s multi-faceted engagement in the Horn of Africa.

2.   The Union’s policy objectives include, inter alia:

(a)

the continued stabilisation of Somalia, in particular from a regional dimension perspective;

(b)

the peaceful coexistence of Sudan and South Sudan as two viable and prosperous states with robust and accountable political structures;

(c)

the resolution of current conflicts and the avoidance of potential conflicts between or within countries in the region;

(d)

the support of political, security and economic regional cooperation.
Mandate1.   In order to achieve the Union’s policy objectives in relation to the Horn of Africa, the mandate of the EUSR shall be to:

(a)

engage with all relevant stakeholders of the region, governments, regional authorities, international and regional organisations, civil society and diasporas, with a view to furthering the Union’s policy objectives and contribute to a better understanding of the role of the Union in the region;

(b)

represent the Union in relevant international fora, as appropriate, and ensure visibility for Union support to crisis management, as well as conflict resolution and prevention;

(c)

encourage and support effective political and security cooperation and economic integration in the region through the Union’s partnership with the African Union (AU) and sub-regional organisations, in particular the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD);

(d)

follow political developments in the region and contribute to the development of the Union’s policy towards the region, including in relation to Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, the Ethiopia-Eritrea border issue and implementation of the Algiers Agreement, the Nile Basin initiative and other concerns in the region that have an impact on its security, stability and prosperity

(e)

with regard to Somalia, and working in close coordination with the EU Special Envoy for Somalia and relevant regional and international partners, including the United Nations Secretary-General Special Representative for Somalia and the African Union, contribute actively to actions and initiatives leading to further stabilization and post transition arrangements for Somalia, with an emphasis on promoting a coordinated and coherent international approach towards Somalia, building good neighbourly relations and supporting the development of the security sector in Somalia, including, through the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia), EUNAVFOR Atalanta, EUCAP Nestor and the Union’s continued support to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), working closely with Member States;

(f)

with regard to Sudan and South Sudan, and working in close cooperation with the respective Heads of Union delegations, contribute to the coherence and effectiveness of Union policy towards Sudan and South Sudan and support their peaceful coexistence, in particular through implementation of the Addis Agreements and resolution of the outstanding issues in relation to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, including Abyei, political solutions to the ongoing conflicts, particularly in Darfur, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, institution-building in South Sudan and national reconciliation. In this regard, the EUSR will contribute to a coherent international approach in close cooperation with the AU and in particular the AU High Level Implementation Panel for Sudan (AUHIP), the United Nations (UN) and other leading regional and international stakeholders.

(g)

follow closely the trans-boundary challenges affecting the Horn of Africa, including terrorism, radicalisation, maritime security and piracy, organised crime, arms smuggling, refugee and migration flows and any political and security consequences of humanitarian crises;

(h)

promote humanitarian access throughout the region;

(i)

contribute to the implementation of the Council Decision 2011/168/CFSP(3)and the Union’s human rights policy in cooperation with the EUSR for Human Rights, including the EU Guidelines on human rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the Union’s policy regarding UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments as well as formulating recommendations in this regard.

2.   For the purpose of the fulfilment of the mandate, the EUSR shall, inter alia:

(a)

advise and report on the definition of Union positions in international fora, as appropriate, in order to promote proactively the Union’s comprehensive policy approach towards the Horn of Africa;

(b)

maintain an overview of all activities of the Union.
Implementation of the mandate1.   The EUSR shall be responsible for the implementation of the mandate, acting under the authority of the HR.

2.   The Political and Security Committee (PSC) shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR and shall be the EUSR’s primary point of contact with the Council. The PSC shall provide the EUSR with strategic guidance and political direction within the framework of the mandate, without prejudice to the powers of the HR.

3.   The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS) and its relevant departments, the Union delegations in the region and the Commission.
Financing1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 November 2013 to 31 October 2014 shall be EUR 2 720 000.

2.   The expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.

3.   The management of the expenditure shall be subject to a contract between the EUSR and the Commission. The EUSR shall be accountable to the Commission for all expenditure.
Constitution and composition of the team1.   Within the limits of the EUSR’s mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting a team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy and security issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall promptly and regularly inform the Council and the Commission of the composition of the team.

2.   Member States, the institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of such seconded personnel shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.

3.   All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, the sending institution of the Union or the EEAS, and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.

4.   The EUSR staff shall be co-located with the relevant EEAS departments or Union delegations in order to contribute to the coherence and consistency of their respective activities.
Privileges and immunities of the EUSR and the staff of the EUSRThe privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of the missions of the EUSR and the members of the EUSR’s staff shall be agreed with the host countries, as appropriate. Member States and the EEAS shall grant all necessary support to such effect.
Security of EU classified informationThe EUSR and the members of the EUSR’s team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU(4).
Access to information and logistical support1.   Member States, the Commission, the EEAS and the General Secretariat of the Council shall ensure that the EUSR is given access to any relevant information.

2.   The Union delegations in the region and/or the Member States, as appropriate, shall provide logistical support in the region.
SecurityIn accordance with the Union’s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with the EUSR’s mandate and the security situation in the geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under the direct authority of the EUSR, in particular by:

(a)

establishing a mission-specific security plan based on guidance from the EEAS, including mission-specific physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing the management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area as well as the management of security incidents and including a mission contingency plan and evacuation plan;

(b)

ensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance, as required by the conditions in the mission area;

(c)

ensuring that all members of the EUSR’s team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area by the EEAS;

(d)

ensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented, and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the progress report and the report on the implementation of the mandate.
Reporting1.   The EUSR shall regularly provide the HR and the PSC with oral and written reports. The EUSR shall also report to Council working parties as necessary. Regular written reports shall be circulated through the COREU network. Upon recommendation of the HR or the PSC, the EUSR may provide the Foreign Affairs Council with reports. In accordance with Article 36 of the Treaty the EUSR may be involved in briefing the European Parliament.

2.   The EUSR shall report on the best way of pursuing Union initiatives, such as the contribution of the Union to reforms, and including the political aspects of relevant Union development projects, in coordination with the Union delegations in the region.
Coordination1.   The EUSR shall contribute to the unity, consistency and effectiveness of the Union’s actions and shall help to ensure that all Union instruments and Member States’ action are engaged consistently, to attain the Union’s policy objectives. The activities of the EUSR shall be coordinated with those of Union Delegations and of the Commission, as well as those of other EUSR’s active in the region, in particular with the EUSR to the AU and with the EU Special Envoy for Somalia. The EUSR shall provide regular briefings to Member States’ missions and the Union delegations in the region.

2.   In the field, close liaison and communication shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegation and Member States’ Heads of Mission. They shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR, in close co-ordination with the relevant Union delegations, shall provide local political guidance to the Force Commander of EUNAVFOR Atalanta, the Mission Commander of EUTM Somalia, the Head of EUCAP Nestor and the Head of EUAVSEC in South Sudan. The EUSR, the EU Operation Commanders and the Civilian Operation Commander shall consult each other as required.

3.   The EUSR shall closely cooperate with the authorities of the countries involved, the UN, the AU, IGAD, other national regional and international stakeholders, and also with civil society in the region.
ReviewThe implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present to the Council, the HR and the Commission a progress report by the end of April 2014 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.
Entry into forceThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Pending: 32013D0519

                                January 16, 2026                            

23.10.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 281/20

(1)
Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Union of certain animals. It provides that the import conditions for dogs, cats and ferrets are to be at least equivalent to the relevant conditions provided for in Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on the non-commercial movement of pet animals and repealing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003(2).

(2)
Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 provides that where the number of dogs, cats or ferrets moved for non-commercial purposes during a single movement exceeds five, those pet animals are to comply with the animal health requirements laid down in Directive 92/65/EEC for the species concerned, except for certain categories of animals for which a derogation is provided for by Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 under certain conditions.

(3)
Directive 92/65/EEC provides that dogs, cats and ferrets are to be imported into the Union only from a third country which is on a list drawn up in accordance with the procedure referred to in that Directive. In addition, such animals are to be accompanied by a health certificate corresponding to a specimen drawn up in accordance with the procedure referred to therein.

(4)
Commission Implementing Decision 2011/874/EU of 15 December 2011 laying down the list of third countries and territories authorised for imports of dogs, cats and ferrets and for non-commercial movements of more than five dogs, cats and ferrets into the Union and the model certificates for imports and non-commercial movements of those animals into the Union(3)establishes the model health certificate for imports into the Union of dogs, cats and ferrets and provides that the territories or third countries they come from and any territories or third countries they transit must be either listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC(4)or listed in Part 1 of Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 of 12 March 2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements(5).

(5)
In the interest of consistency of Union legislation, it is appropriate to include in that list of authorised territories and third countries the list of third countries that are approved for the importation of equidae into the Union, because those third countries have equally provided sufficient guarantees as to the existence and implementation of rules and principles of certification to be observed by third-country certifying officers in issuing the certificates required by veterinary legislation to prevent misleading or fraudulent certification. The list of third countries from which Member States authorise the import of live equidae is currently set out in Annex I to Commission Decision 2004/211/EC of 6 January 2004 establishing the list of third countries and parts of territory thereof from which Member States authorise imports of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species, and amending Decisions 93/195/EEC and 94/63/EC(6).

(6)
Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 has been repealed by Regulation (EU) No 576/2013. Consequently, the list of territories and third countries previously listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 is now set out in Annex II to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013 of 28 June 2013 on the model identification documents for the non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets, the establishment of lists of territories and third countries and the format, layout and language requirements of the declarations attesting compliance with certain conditions provided for in Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council(7).

(7)
This Decision should therefore provide that imports of dogs, cats or ferrets into the Union are authorised only from territories and third countries listed in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC, in Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 or in Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013.

(8)
Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 provides that dogs, cats and ferrets are not to be moved into a Member State from a territory or a third country other than those listed in Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013 unless they have undergone a rabies antibody titration test that complies with the validity requirements set out in Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 576/2013.

(9)
Those requirements include the obligation to perform that test in a laboratory approved in accordance with Council Decision 2000/258/EC of 20 March 2000 designating a specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines(8)which provides that theAgence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments(AFSSA) in Nancy, France (integrated since 1 July 2010 into theAgence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail, ANSES) is to appraise the laboratories in Member States and third countries for the purposes of their authorisation to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in dogs, cats and ferrets.

(10)
Commission Decision 2005/64/EC of 26 January 2005 implementing Council Directive 92/65/EEC as regards import conditions for cats, dogs and ferrets for approved bodies, institutes and centres(9)establishes a model veterinary certificate for the imports into the Union of such animals destined for bodies, institutes and centres approved in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC and provides that imports of those animals are to be authorised from territories or third countries listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003.

(11)
This Decision should therefore provide that imports into the Union of dogs, cats or ferrets destined for bodies, institutes and centres approved in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC are authorised only from territories and third countries listed in Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013.

(12)
This Decision should therefore establish the new list of territories and third countries authorised for imports of dogs, cats or ferrets into the Union and a common model health certificate for imports into the Union of such animals. Decision 2005/64/EC should therefore be repealed.

(13)
In addition, Commission Decision 94/274/EC of 18 April 1994 laying down the system of identification for dogs and cats that are placed on the market in the United Kingdom and Ireland and not originating in those countries(10)and Commission Decision 94/275/EC of 18 April 1994 on recognising rabies vaccines(11), adopted on the basis of Directive 92/65/EEC before the amendments introduced by Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, have become obsolete and should therefore be repealed.

(14)
Council Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on the certification of animals and animal products(12)lays down the rules to be observed in issuing the certificates required by veterinary legislation to prevent misleading or fraudulent certification. It is appropriate to ensure that rules and principles at least equivalent to those laid down in that Directive are applied by official veterinarians of third countries.

(15)
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011 of 14 July 2011 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards preventive health measures for the control ofEchinococcus multilocularisinfection in dogs(13)provides that from 1 January 2012, dogs entering Member States or parts thereof listed in Annex I thereto are to be treated against the parasiteEchinococcus multilocularisin accordance with the requirements set out in that Regulation.

(16)
It is necessary to provide for a transitional period in order to give Member States time to adjust to the new rules laid down in this Decision and in particular to allow, subject to certain conditions, for the use of animal health certificates issued in accordance with Union rules applicable before the date of application of this Decision.

(17)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

(a)
Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC;

(b)
Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010;

(c)
Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013.

(a)
they are accompanied by an animal health certificate drawn up in accordance with the model set out in Part 1 of the Annex and completed and signed by an official veterinarian in accordance with the explanatory notes set out in Part 2 of the Annex;

(b)
they comply with the requirements of the animal health certificate referred to in point (a) in respect of the territories or third countries that they come from and any territories or third countries they transit, as referred to in paragraphs 1(a), (b) and (c) of Article 1.

(a)
Where the certificate states that certain statements shall be kept as appropriate, statements which are not relevant may be crossed out and initialled and stamped by the official veterinarian, or completely deleted from the certificate.

(b)
The original of each certificate shall consist of a single sheet of paper, or, where more text is required it must be in such a form that all sheets of paper required are part of an integrated whole and indivisible.

(c)
The certificate shall be drawn up in at least one of the official languages of the Member State of the border inspection post of introduction of the consignment into the Union and of the Member State of destination. However, those Member States may authorise the certificate to be drawn up in the official language(s) of another Member State, and accompanied, if necessary, by an official translation.

(d)
If for reasons of identification of the items of the consignment (schedule in point I.28 of the model animal health certificate), additional sheets of paper or supporting documents are attached to the certificate, those sheets of paper or documents shall also be considered as forming part of the original of the certificate by the application of the signature and stamp of the official veterinarian, on each of the pages.

(e)
When the certificate, including additional sheets or documents referred to in point (d), comprises more than one page, each page shall be numbered (page number of total number of pages) at the end of the page and shall bear the certificate reference number that has been designated by the competent authority at the top of the pages.

(f)
The original of the certificate shall be completed and signed by an official veterinarian of the exporting territory or third country. The competent authority of the exporting territory or third country shall ensure that rules and principles of certification equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 96/93/EC are followed.The colour of the signature shall be different from that of the printing. This requirement also applies to stamps other than those embossed or watermarked.

(g)
The certificate reference number referred to in Boxes I.2 and II.a shall be issued by the competent authority of the exporting territory or third country.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC(1), and in particular the introductory phrase and point (b) of Article 17(2), point (a) of Article 17(3) and Article 19 thereof,

(1) Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Union of certain animals. It provides that the import conditions for dogs, cats and ferrets are to be at least equivalent to the relevant conditions provided for in Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on the non-commercial movement of pet animals and repealing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003(2).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 provides that where the number of dogs, cats or ferrets moved for non-commercial purposes during a single movement exceeds five, those pet animals are to comply with the animal health requirements laid down in Directive 92/65/EEC for the species concerned, except for certain categories of animals for which a derogation is provided for by Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 under certain conditions.

(3) Directive 92/65/EEC provides that dogs, cats and ferrets are to be imported into the Union only from a third country which is on a list drawn up in accordance with the procedure referred to in that Directive. In addition, such animals are to be accompanied by a health certificate corresponding to a specimen drawn up in accordance with the procedure referred to therein.

(4) Commission Implementing Decision 2011/874/EU of 15 December 2011 laying down the list of third countries and territories authorised for imports of dogs, cats and ferrets and for non-commercial movements of more than five dogs, cats and ferrets into the Union and the model certificates for imports and non-commercial movements of those animals into the Union(3)establishes the model health certificate for imports into the Union of dogs, cats and ferrets and provides that the territories or third countries they come from and any territories or third countries they transit must be either listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC(4)or listed in Part 1 of Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 of 12 March 2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements(5).

(5) In the interest of consistency of Union legislation, it is appropriate to include in that list of authorised territories and third countries the list of third countries that are approved for the importation of equidae into the Union, because those third countries have equally provided sufficient guarantees as to the existence and implementation of rules and principles of certification to be observed by third-country certifying officers in issuing the certificates required by veterinary legislation to prevent misleading or fraudulent certification. The list of third countries from which Member States authorise the import of live equidae is currently set out in Annex I to Commission Decision 2004/211/EC of 6 January 2004 establishing the list of third countries and parts of territory thereof from which Member States authorise imports of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species, and amending Decisions 93/195/EEC and 94/63/EC(6).

(6) Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 has been repealed by Regulation (EU) No 576/2013. Consequently, the list of territories and third countries previously listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 is now set out in Annex II to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013 of 28 June 2013 on the model identification documents for the non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets, the establishment of lists of territories and third countries and the format, layout and language requirements of the declarations attesting compliance with certain conditions provided for in Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council(7).

(7) This Decision should therefore provide that imports of dogs, cats or ferrets into the Union are authorised only from territories and third countries listed in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC, in Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 or in Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013.

(8) Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 provides that dogs, cats and ferrets are not to be moved into a Member State from a territory or a third country other than those listed in Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013 unless they have undergone a rabies antibody titration test that complies with the validity requirements set out in Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 576/2013.

(9) Those requirements include the obligation to perform that test in a laboratory approved in accordance with Council Decision 2000/258/EC of 20 March 2000 designating a specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines(8)which provides that theAgence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments(AFSSA) in Nancy, France (integrated since 1 July 2010 into theAgence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail, ANSES) is to appraise the laboratories in Member States and third countries for the purposes of their authorisation to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in dogs, cats and ferrets.

(10) Commission Decision 2005/64/EC of 26 January 2005 implementing Council Directive 92/65/EEC as regards import conditions for cats, dogs and ferrets for approved bodies, institutes and centres(9)establishes a model veterinary certificate for the imports into the Union of such animals destined for bodies, institutes and centres approved in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC and provides that imports of those animals are to be authorised from territories or third countries listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003.

(11) This Decision should therefore provide that imports into the Union of dogs, cats or ferrets destined for bodies, institutes and centres approved in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC are authorised only from territories and third countries listed in Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013.

(12) This Decision should therefore establish the new list of territories and third countries authorised for imports of dogs, cats or ferrets into the Union and a common model health certificate for imports into the Union of such animals. Decision 2005/64/EC should therefore be repealed.

(13) In addition, Commission Decision 94/274/EC of 18 April 1994 laying down the system of identification for dogs and cats that are placed on the market in the United Kingdom and Ireland and not originating in those countries(10)and Commission Decision 94/275/EC of 18 April 1994 on recognising rabies vaccines(11), adopted on the basis of Directive 92/65/EEC before the amendments introduced by Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, have become obsolete and should therefore be repealed.

(14) Council Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on the certification of animals and animal products(12)lays down the rules to be observed in issuing the certificates required by veterinary legislation to prevent misleading or fraudulent certification. It is appropriate to ensure that rules and principles at least equivalent to those laid down in that Directive are applied by official veterinarians of third countries.

(15) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011 of 14 July 2011 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards preventive health measures for the control ofEchinococcus multilocularisinfection in dogs(13)provides that from 1 January 2012, dogs entering Member States or parts thereof listed in Annex I thereto are to be treated against the parasiteEchinococcus multilocularisin accordance with the requirements set out in that Regulation.

(16) It is necessary to provide for a transitional period in order to give Member States time to adjust to the new rules laid down in this Decision and in particular to allow, subject to certain conditions, for the use of animal health certificates issued in accordance with Union rules applicable before the date of application of this Decision.

(17) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
List of territories or third countries from which dogs, cats or ferrets are authorised to be imported in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC

Article 1

1.   Consignments of dogs, cats or ferrets which are subject to the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC shall only be imported into the Union provided that the territories or third countries they come from and any territories or third countries they transit are included in one of the lists set out in:

(a)

Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC;

(b)

Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010;

(c)

Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013.

2.   By way of derogation from paragraph 1, consignments of dogs, cats or ferrets destined for bodies, institutes and centres approved in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC shall only be imported into the Union provided that the territories or third countries they come from and any territories or third countries they transit are included in the list referred to in paragraph 1(c).
Animal health certificate for imports from territories or third countries

Article 2

Member States shall only authorise imports of dogs, cats or ferrets, which comply with the following conditions:

(a)

they are accompanied by an animal health certificate drawn up in accordance with the model set out in Part 1 of the Annex and completed and signed by an official veterinarian in accordance with the explanatory notes set out in Part 2 of the Annex;

(b)

they comply with the requirements of the animal health certificate referred to in point (a) in respect of the territories or third countries that they come from and any territories or third countries they transit, as referred to in paragraphs 1(a), (b) and (c) of Article 1.
Repeals

Article 3

Decisions 94/274/EC, 94/275/EC and 2005/64/EC are repealed.
Transitional provisions

Article 4

For a transitional period until 29 April 2015, Member States shall authorise imports into the Union of dogs, cats or ferrets which are accompanied by a health certificate issued not later than 28 December 2014 in accordance with the models set out in the Annex to Decision 2005/64/EC or in Annex I to Implementing Decision 2011/874/EU.
Applicability

Article 5

This Decision shall apply from 29 December 2014.
Addressees

Article 6

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC(1), and in particular the introductory phrase and point (b) of Article 17(2), point (a) of Article 17(3) and Article 19 thereof,

(1) Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Union of certain animals. It provides that the import conditions for dogs, cats and ferrets are to be at least equivalent to the relevant conditions provided for in Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on the non-commercial movement of pet animals and repealing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003(2).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 provides that where the number of dogs, cats or ferrets moved for non-commercial purposes during a single movement exceeds five, those pet animals are to comply with the animal health requirements laid down in Directive 92/65/EEC for the species concerned, except for certain categories of animals for which a derogation is provided for by Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 under certain conditions.

(3) Directive 92/65/EEC provides that dogs, cats and ferrets are to be imported into the Union only from a third country which is on a list drawn up in accordance with the procedure referred to in that Directive. In addition, such animals are to be accompanied by a health certificate corresponding to a specimen drawn up in accordance with the procedure referred to therein.

(4) Commission Implementing Decision 2011/874/EU of 15 December 2011 laying down the list of third countries and territories authorised for imports of dogs, cats and ferrets and for non-commercial movements of more than five dogs, cats and ferrets into the Union and the model certificates for imports and non-commercial movements of those animals into the Union(3)establishes the model health certificate for imports into the Union of dogs, cats and ferrets and provides that the territories or third countries they come from and any territories or third countries they transit must be either listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC(4)or listed in Part 1 of Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 of 12 March 2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements(5).

(5) In the interest of consistency of Union legislation, it is appropriate to include in that list of authorised territories and third countries the list of third countries that are approved for the importation of equidae into the Union, because those third countries have equally provided sufficient guarantees as to the existence and implementation of rules and principles of certification to be observed by third-country certifying officers in issuing the certificates required by veterinary legislation to prevent misleading or fraudulent certification. The list of third countries from which Member States authorise the import of live equidae is currently set out in Annex I to Commission Decision 2004/211/EC of 6 January 2004 establishing the list of third countries and parts of territory thereof from which Member States authorise imports of live equidae and semen, ova and embryos of the equine species, and amending Decisions 93/195/EEC and 94/63/EC(6).

(6) Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 has been repealed by Regulation (EU) No 576/2013. Consequently, the list of territories and third countries previously listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 is now set out in Annex II to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013 of 28 June 2013 on the model identification documents for the non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets, the establishment of lists of territories and third countries and the format, layout and language requirements of the declarations attesting compliance with certain conditions provided for in Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council(7).

(7) This Decision should therefore provide that imports of dogs, cats or ferrets into the Union are authorised only from territories and third countries listed in Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC, in Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 or in Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013.

(8) Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 provides that dogs, cats and ferrets are not to be moved into a Member State from a territory or a third country other than those listed in Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013 unless they have undergone a rabies antibody titration test that complies with the validity requirements set out in Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 576/2013.

(9) Those requirements include the obligation to perform that test in a laboratory approved in accordance with Council Decision 2000/258/EC of 20 March 2000 designating a specific institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines(8)which provides that theAgence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments(AFSSA) in Nancy, France (integrated since 1 July 2010 into theAgence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail, ANSES) is to appraise the laboratories in Member States and third countries for the purposes of their authorisation to carry out serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines in dogs, cats and ferrets.

(10) Commission Decision 2005/64/EC of 26 January 2005 implementing Council Directive 92/65/EEC as regards import conditions for cats, dogs and ferrets for approved bodies, institutes and centres(9)establishes a model veterinary certificate for the imports into the Union of such animals destined for bodies, institutes and centres approved in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC and provides that imports of those animals are to be authorised from territories or third countries listed in Section 2 of Part B or in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003.

(11) This Decision should therefore provide that imports into the Union of dogs, cats or ferrets destined for bodies, institutes and centres approved in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC are authorised only from territories and third countries listed in Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013.

(12) This Decision should therefore establish the new list of territories and third countries authorised for imports of dogs, cats or ferrets into the Union and a common model health certificate for imports into the Union of such animals. Decision 2005/64/EC should therefore be repealed.

(13) In addition, Commission Decision 94/274/EC of 18 April 1994 laying down the system of identification for dogs and cats that are placed on the market in the United Kingdom and Ireland and not originating in those countries(10)and Commission Decision 94/275/EC of 18 April 1994 on recognising rabies vaccines(11), adopted on the basis of Directive 92/65/EEC before the amendments introduced by Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, have become obsolete and should therefore be repealed.

(14) Council Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on the certification of animals and animal products(12)lays down the rules to be observed in issuing the certificates required by veterinary legislation to prevent misleading or fraudulent certification. It is appropriate to ensure that rules and principles at least equivalent to those laid down in that Directive are applied by official veterinarians of third countries.

(15) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011 of 14 July 2011 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards preventive health measures for the control ofEchinococcus multilocularisinfection in dogs(13)provides that from 1 January 2012, dogs entering Member States or parts thereof listed in Annex I thereto are to be treated against the parasiteEchinococcus multilocularisin accordance with the requirements set out in that Regulation.

(16) It is necessary to provide for a transitional period in order to give Member States time to adjust to the new rules laid down in this Decision and in particular to allow, subject to certain conditions, for the use of animal health certificates issued in accordance with Union rules applicable before the date of application of this Decision.

(17) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
List of territories or third countries from which dogs, cats or ferrets are authorised to be imported in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC1.   Consignments of dogs, cats or ferrets which are subject to the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC shall only be imported into the Union provided that the territories or third countries they come from and any territories or third countries they transit are included in one of the lists set out in:

(a)

Annex I to Decision 2004/211/EC;

(b)

Part 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010;

(c)

Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013.

2.   By way of derogation from paragraph 1, consignments of dogs, cats or ferrets destined for bodies, institutes and centres approved in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC shall only be imported into the Union provided that the territories or third countries they come from and any territories or third countries they transit are included in the list referred to in paragraph 1(c).
Animal health certificate for imports from territories or third countriesMember States shall only authorise imports of dogs, cats or ferrets, which comply with the following conditions:

(a)

they are accompanied by an animal health certificate drawn up in accordance with the model set out in Part 1 of the Annex and completed and signed by an official veterinarian in accordance with the explanatory notes set out in Part 2 of the Annex;

(b)

they comply with the requirements of the animal health certificate referred to in point (a) in respect of the territories or third countries that they come from and any territories or third countries they transit, as referred to in paragraphs 1(a), (b) and (c) of Article 1.
RepealsDecisions 94/274/EC, 94/275/EC and 2005/64/EC are repealed.
Transitional provisionsFor a transitional period until 29 April 2015, Member States shall authorise imports into the Union of dogs, cats or ferrets which are accompanied by a health certificate issued not later than 28 December 2014 in accordance with the models set out in the Annex to Decision 2005/64/EC or in Annex I to Implementing Decision 2011/874/EU.
ApplicabilityThis Decision shall apply from 29 December 2014.
AddresseesThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.
PART 1ANNEX

Model animal health certificate for imports into the Union of dogs, cats and ferrets

Part I: Details of dispatched consignment

COUNTRY

Veterinary certificate to EU

I.1. Consignor

Name

Address

Country

Tel.

I.2. Certificate reference No

I.2.a.

I.3. Central competent authority

I.4. Local competent authority

I.5. Consignee

Name

Address

Country

Tel.

I.6. I.7. Country of origin

ISO code

I.8. I.9. Country of destination

ISO code

I.10. Region of destination

Code

I.11. Place of origin

Name

Approval number

Address

Name

Approval number

Address

Name

Approval number

Address

I.12. Place of destination

Name

Approval number

Address

I.13. Place of loading

I.14. Date of departure

I.15. Means of transport

Aeroplane

Ship

Railway wagon

Road vehicle

Other

Identification

Documentary references

I.16. Entry BIP in EU

I.17. I.18. Description of commodity

I.19. Commodity code (HS code)

010619

I.20. Quantity

I.21. I.22. Number of packages

I.23. Seal/Container No

I.24. I.25. Commodities certified for:

Others

Pets

Approved bodies

I.26. I.27. For import or admission into EU

I.28. Identification of the commodities

Species

(Scientific name)

Identification system

Date of application and/or reading of the transponder or tattoo

[dd/mm/yyyy]

Identification number

Date of birth

[dd/mm/yyyy]

Part II: Certification

COUNTRY

Imports into the Union of dogs, cats, ferrets

II. Health information

II.a. Certificate reference No

II.b.

I, the undersigned official veterinarian of … (insert name of third country) certify that the animals described in Box I.28:

II.1. come from holdings or businesses described in Box I.11 which are registered by the competent authority and are not subject to any ban on animal health grounds, where the animals are examined regularly and which comply with the requirements ensuring the welfare of the animals held;

II.2. showed no signs of diseases and were fit to be transported for the intended journey at the time of examination by a veterinarian authorised by the competent authority within 48 hours prior to the time of dispatch;

(1) either [II.3. are destined for a body, institute or centre described in Box I.12 and approved in accordance with Annex C to Council Directive 92/65/EEC, and come from a territory or third country listed in Annex II to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013.]

(1) or [II.3. were at least 12 weeks old at the time of vaccination against rabies and at least 21 days have elapsed since the completion of the primary anti-rabies vaccination (2) carried out in accordance with the validity requirements set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and any subsequent revaccination was carried out within the period of validity of the preceding vaccination (3); and

(1) either [II.3.1. they come from a territory or third country listed in Annex II to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2013 and details of the current anti-rabies vaccination are provided in the table];

(1) or [II.3.1. they come from or are scheduled to transit through, a territory or third country listed in Annex I to Commission Decision 2004/211/EC or in Part 1 of Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010, and a rabies antibody titration test (4), carried out on a blood sample taken by the veterinarian authorised by the competent authority not less than 30 days after the preceding vaccination and at least 3 months prior to the date of issue of this certificate, proved an antibody titre equal to or greater than 0,5 IU/ml and any subsequent revaccination was carried out within the period of validity of the preceding vaccination, and the details of the current anti-rabies vaccination and the date of sampling for testing the immune response are provided in the table below:

Transponder or tattoo alphanumeric code of the animal

Date of vaccination

[dd/mm/yyyy]

Name and manufacturer of vaccine

Batch number

Validity of vaccination

Date of blood sampling

[dd/mm/yyyy]

From

[dd/mm/yyyy]

To

[dd/mm/yyyy]

];

(1) either [II.4. are dogs destined for a Member State listed in Annex I to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011 and have been treated against Echinococcus multilocularis, and the details of the treatment carried out by the administering veterinarian in accordance with Article 7 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011 (5) (6) are provided in the table below.]

(1) or [II.4. have not been treated against Echinococcus multilocularis.]

COUNTRY

Imports into the Union of dogs, cats, ferrets

II. Health information

II.a. Certificate reference No

II.b.

Transponder or tattoo number of the dog

Anti-echinococcus treatment

Administering veterinarian

Name and manufacturer of the product

Date [dd/mm/yyyy] and time of treatment [00:00]

Name in capitals, stamp and signature

]]

Notes

(a) This certificate is meant for dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), cats (Felis silvestris catus) and ferrets (Mustela putorius furo).

(b) This certificate is valid for 10 days from the date of issue by the official veterinarian. In the case of transport by sea, that period of 10 days is extended by an additional period corresponding to the duration of the journey by sea.

Part I:

Box I.11: Place of origin: name and address of the dispatch establishment. Indicate approval or registration number.

Box I.12: Place of destination: mandatory where the animals are destined for a body, institute or centre approved in accordance with Annex C to Council Directive 92/65/EEC.

Box I.25: Commodities certified for: indicate ‘others’ where the animals are moved in accordance with Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Box I.28: Identification system: select transponder or tattoo.

In the case of a transponder: select date of application or reading

In the case of a tattoo: select date of application and reading. The tattoo must be clearly readable and applied before 3 July 2011. Identification number: indicate the transponder or tattoo alphanumeric code.

Part II:

(1) Keep as appropriate.

(2) Any revaccination must be considered a primary vaccination if it was not carried out within the period of validity of a previous vaccination.

(3) A certified copy of the identification and vaccination details of the animals concerned shall be attached to the certificate.

(4) The rabies antibody titration test referred to in point II.3.1:

must be carried out on a sample collected by a veterinarian authorised by the competent authority, at least 30 days after the date of vaccination and 3 months before the date of import;

must measure a level of neutralising antibody to rabies virus in serum equal to or greater than 0,5 IU/ml;

must be performed by a laboratory approved in accordance with Article 3 of Council Decision 2000/258/EC (list of approved laboratories available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/pets/approval_en.htm);

does not have to be renewed on an animal, which following that test with satisfactory results, has been revaccinated against rabies within the period of validity of a previous vaccination.

COUNTRY

Imports into the Union of dogs, cats, ferrets

II. Health information

II.a. Certificate reference No

II.b.

A certified copy of the official report from the approved laboratory on the result of the rabies antibody test referred to in point II.3.1 shall be attached to the certificate.

(5) The treatment against Echinococcus multilocularis referred to in point II.4 must:

be administered by a veterinarian within a period of not more than 120 hours and not less than 24 hours before the time of the scheduled entry of the dogs into one of the Member States or parts thereof listed in Annex I to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011;

consist of an approved medicinal product which contains the appropriate dose of praziquantel or pharmacologically active substances, which alone or in combination, have been proven to reduce the burden of mature and immature intestinal forms of Echinococcus multilocularis in the host species concerned.

(6) The table referred to in point II.4 must be used to document the details of a further treatment if administered after the date the certificate was signed and prior to the scheduled entry into one of the Member States or parts thereof listed in Annex I to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011. Official veterinarian

Name (in capital letters):

Qualification and title:

Date:

Signature:

Stamp:

PART 2

Explanatory notes for completing the animal health certificates
 | (a) | Where the certificate states that certain statements shall be kept as appropriate, statements which are not relevant may be crossed out and initialled and stamped by the official veterinarian, or completely deleted from the certificate.

 | (b) | The original of each certificate shall consist of a single sheet of paper, or, where more text is required it must be in such a form that all sheets of paper required are part of an integrated whole and indivisible.

 | (c) | The certificate shall be drawn up in at least one of the official languages of the Member State of the border inspection post of introduction of the consignment into the Union and of the Member State of destination. However, those Member States may authorise the certificate to be drawn up in the official language(s) of another Member State, and accompanied, if necessary, by an official translation.

 | (d) | If for reasons of identification of the items of the consignment (schedule in point I.28 of the model animal health certificate), additional sheets of paper or supporting documents are attached to the certificate, those sheets of paper or documents shall also be considered as forming part of the original of the certificate by the application of the signature and stamp of the official veterinarian, on each of the pages.

 | (e) | When the certificate, including additional sheets or documents referred to in point (d), comprises more than one page, each page shall be numbered (page number of total number of pages) at the end of the page and shall bear the certificate reference number that has been designated by the competent authority at the top of the pages.

 | (f) | The original of the certificate shall be completed and signed by an official veterinarian of the exporting territory or third country. The competent authority of the exporting territory or third country shall ensure that rules and principles of certification equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 96/93/EC are followed.The colour of the signature shall be different from that of the printing. This requirement also applies to stamps other than those embossed or watermarked.

 | (g) | The certificate reference number referred to in Boxes I.2 and II.a shall be issued by the competent authority of the exporting territory or third country.

Pending: 32013D0480

                                January 16, 2026                            

8.10.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 266/1



(1)
Article 4(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 2000/60/EC requires the Member States to protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water with the aim of achieving good surface water status at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of the Directive, subject to certain derogations in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex V thereto. Article 4(1)(a)(iii) of Directive 2000/60/EC requires the Member States to protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status at the latest 15 years from the date of entry into force of the Directive, subject to certain derogations, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex V thereto. In accordance with Section 1.4.1(i) of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC the references to ecological status should be construed as references to ecological potential as regards artificial and heavily modified water bodies.



(2)
The intercalibration exercise envisages a harmonised approach to define one of the main environmental objectives of Directive 2000/60/EC, namely good ecological status.



(3)
Section 1.4.1 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC provides a process to ensure the comparability between the biological monitoring results of Member States as a central part of the ecological status classification. This requires the Member States’ biological monitoring results and their monitoring system classifications to be compared through an intercalibration network comprised of monitoring sites in each Member State and in each ecoregion of the Union. Directive 2000/60/EC requires the Member States to collect, as appropriate, the necessary information for the sites included in the intercalibration network, in order to enable the assessment of the consistency of the national monitoring system classifications with the normative definitions of Section 1.2 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC and the comparability of the results of monitoring system classifications between the Member States.



(4)
In order to carry out the intercalibration exercise Member States are organised in Geographical Intercalibration Groups, consisting of Member States sharing particular surface water body types, as defined in Section 2 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2005/646/EC of 17 August 2005 on the establishment of a register of sites to form the intercalibration network in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(2).



(5)
Section 1.4.1 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC specifies that the intercalibration exercise is to be carried out at biological element level, comparing the classification results of the national monitoring system for each biological element and for each common surface water body type among Member States in the same Geographical Intercalibration Group, and assessing the consistency of the results with the normative definitions set out in Section 1.2 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC.



(6)
The Commission has facilitated two phases of the intercalibration exercise through the Institute of Environment and Sustainability of the Joint Research Centre.



(7)
Under the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy three Guidance Documents (No 6(3)and 14 (two versions)(4)) were prepared to facilitate the intercalibration process. They provided an overview of the key principles of the intercalibration process and the options for carrying out the exercise including timescales and reporting requirements.



(8)
By 2007 the Commission had received intercalibration results for a number of biological quality elements. They were included in Commission Decision 2008/915/EC of 30 October 2008 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise(5), which sets out the values of the boundaries between classes that Member States should use in their national monitoring system classifications. The results of the first phase of the intercalibration exercise were incomplete, in so far as not all biological quality elements were covered. It was necessary however to adopt the available results of the intercalibration exercise to inform the development of the first river basin management plans and programmes of measures in accordance with Articles 11 and 13 of Directive 2000/60/EC.



(9)
The results of this first phase of the intercalibration exercise were adopted in Decision 2008/915/EC. Those results were included on a provisional basis with an understanding that further results would be subject to a new Decision when the relevant information in accordance with Section 1.4.1 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC would have been provided by the Member States.



(10)
In order to close the gaps and improve the comparability of the intercalibration results in time for the second river basin management plans due in 2015, the Commission initiated a second phase of the intercalibration exercise.



(11)
Annex I to this Decision sets out the results of the intercalibration exercise for which intercalibration is successfully achieved, within the limits of what is technically feasible at this point in time.



(12)
Annex II to this Decision sets out the results of the intercalibration exercise for which intercalibration is partially achieved. The completion of all the necessary steps in the intercalibration exercise should be carried out in order for the results to be included in a new Decision. Accordingly, those results are provisional.



(13)
Member States should complete the intercalibration exercise by 22 December 2016 to allow the Commission to move the results contained in Annexes I and II of this Decision to a sole Annex of a new Decision. This will allow for these results to be used in the third river basin planning cycle.



(14)
The completion of all the necessary steps in the intercalibration exercise should also be carried out by 22 December 2016 for those Geographical Intercalibration Groups and biological quality elements where there are as yet no intercalibration results for inclusion in this Decision. This will also allow for these results to be included in a new Decision and to be used in the third river basin planning cycle.



(15)
While Directive 2000/60/EC requires that intercalibration is to be carried out at biological quality element level, single parameters (e.g. chlorophyll –a concentration, or depth limits of macroalgae and angiosperms) are in some cases considered to be representative for a full biological quality element. In such cases, the results of the intercalibration exercise are set out in Annex I.



(16)
There are cases where Member States have developed independent methods covering only a part of a biological quality element (e.g. independent method for macrophytes and phytobenthos for the quality element ‘macrophytes and phytobenthos’). In cases where intercalibration for such sub- biological quality elements has been successfully completed the results of the intercalibration exercise are included in the Annexes and identified as a sub biological quality element.



(17)
The results of the intercalibration exercise should refer to the ecological status of water bodies. If water bodies corresponding to the intercalibrated types are designated as heavily modified water bodies in accordance with Article 4(3) of Directive 2000/60/EC, the results presented in Annex I and II to this Decision could be used to derive their good ecological potential, taking into account their physical modifications and their associated water use in accordance with the normative definitions in Section 1.2.5 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC.



(18)
Member States should apply the results of the intercalibration exercise to their national classification systems in order to set the boundaries between high and good status and between good and moderate status for all their national types.



(19)
The information that is made available through the establishment of the monitoring programmes provided for in Article 8 of Directive 2000/60/EC and the review and update of the characteristics of river basin districts provided for in Article 5 of Directive 2000/60/EC could bring new evidence that may lead to the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the Member States’ monitoring and classification systems and eventually to a review of the results of the intercalibration exercise in order to improve their quality.



(20)
Decision 2008/915/EC should therefore be repealed and replaced accordingly.



(21)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 21(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC,



Type
River characterisation
Catchment (km2)
Altitude and geomorphology
Alkalinity
Flow regime

R-A1
Pre-Alpine, small to medium, high altitude calcareous
10-1 000
800-2 500 m (catchment), boulders/cobble
high (but not extremely high) alkalinity


R-A2
Small to medium, high altitude, siliceous
10-1 000
500-1 000  m (max. altitude of catchment 3 000  m, mean 1 500  m), boulders
Non-calcareous (granite, metamorphic). medium to low alkalinity
nival-glacial flow regime



Type R-A1
:
Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Slovenia

Type R-A2
:
Austria, France, Italy, Spain



Type and country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Type R-A1

Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements – part benthic invertebrates [Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente – Teil Makrozoobenthos (Detaillierte MZB-Methode)]
0,80
0,60

France
Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,93
0,79

Germany
PERLODES – Bewertungsverfahren von Fließgewässern auf Basis des Makrozoobenthos
0,80
0,60

Italy
MacrOper, based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index (STAR_ICMi)
0,97
0,73

Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek z bentoškimi nevretenčarji v Sloveniji (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using benthic invertebrates in Slovenia)
0,80
0,60

Type R-A2

Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements – part benthic invertebrates [Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente – Teil Makrozoobenthos (Detaillierte MZB-Methode)]
0,80
0,60

France (Alps)
Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,93
0,71

France (Pyrenees)
Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,94
0,81

Italy
MacrOper, based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index (STAR_ICMi)
0,95
0,71

Spain
Iberian BMWP (IBMWP)
0,83
0,53



Type and country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Type R-A1

Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements – part phytobenthos [Leitfaden zur Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente, Teil A3 – Fließgewässer/Phytobenthos]
0,88
0,56

France
IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,94
0,78

Germany
Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Fließgewässern zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (Phylib), Modul Diatomeen
0,735
0,54

Italy
ICMi (Intercalibration Common Metric) Index (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009, Phytobenthos Intercalibration Common Metric (pICM: Kelly et al., 2009)
0,87
0,70

Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek s fitobentosom in makrofiti v Sloveniji; fitobentos (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos and macrophytes in Slovenia; Phytobenthos)
0,80
0,60

Type R-A2

Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements – part phytobenthos [Leitfaden zur Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente, Teil A3 – Fließgewässer/Phytobenthos]
0,88
0,56

France
IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,94
0,78

Spain
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,94
0,74

Italy
ICMi (Intercalibration Common Metric) Index (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009, Phytobenthos Intercalibration Common Metric (pICM: Kelly et al., 2009)
0,85
0,64



Type
River characterisation
Catchment (km2)
Altitude & geomorphology
Alkalinity (meq/l)

R-C1
Small lowland siliceous sand
10-100
lowland, dominated by sandy substrate (small particle size), 3-8 m width (bankfull size)
> 0,4

R-C2
Small lowland siliceous – rock
10-100
lowland, rock material3-8 m width (bankfull size)
< 0,4

R-C3
Small mid-altitude siliceous
10-100
mid-altitude, rock (granite) – gravel substrate, 2-10 m width (bankfull size)
< 0,4

R-C4
Medium lowland mixed
100-1 000
lowland, sandy to gravel substrate, 8-25 m width (bankfull size)
> 0,4

R-C5
Large lowland mixed
1 000 -10 000
lowland, barbel zone, variation in velocity, max. altitude in catchment: 800 m, > 25 m width (bankfull size)
> 0,4

R-C6
Small, lowland, calcareous
10-300
lowland, gravel substrate (limestone), width 3-10 m (bankfull size)
> 2



Type R-C1
:
Belgium (Flanders), Belgium (Wallonia), Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-C2
:
Spain, France, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-C3
:
Austria, Belgium (Wallonia), Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, France, Latvia, Luxembourg, United Kingdom

Type R-C4
:
Belgium (Flanders), Belgium (Wallonia), Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-C5
:
Belgium (Wallonia), Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Spain, Ireland. Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-C6
:
Belgium (Wallonia), Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden, United Kingdom



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements – part benthic invertebrates
0,80
0,60

Belgium (Flanders)
Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index Flanders (MMIF)
0,90
0,70

Belgium (Wallonia)
Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN) (Norme AFNOR NF T 90 350, 1992) and Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 13 septembre 2012 relatif à l’identification, à la caractérisation et à la fixation des seuils d’état écologique applicables aux masses d’eau de surface et modifiant le Livre II du Code de l’Environnement, contenant le Code de l’Eau. Moniteur belge 12.10.2012
0,97 (types R-C3,, R-C5, R-C6)0,94 (type R-C1)
0,74 (types R-C3,, R-C5, R-C6)0,75 (type R-C1)

Czech Republic
Czech system for ecological status assessment of rivers using benthic macroinvertebrates
0,80
0,60

Denmark
Danish Stream Fauna Index (DSFI)
1,00
0,71

Estonia
Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment – river macroinvertebrates
0,90
0,70

Germany
PERLODES – Bewertungsverfahren von Fließgewässern auf Basis des Makrozoobenthos
0,80
0,60

France
Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,94
0,80

Ireland
Quality Rating System (Q-value)
0,85
0,75

Italy
MacrOper, based on STAR_ICM index calculation
0,96
0,72

Luxembourg
Classification luxembourgeoise DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN) 1992, AFNOR NF-T-90-350 et circulaire DCE 2007/22 MEDD/DE/MAGE/BEMA 07/no4 du 11 avril 2007
0,96
0,72

Netherlands
KRW-maatlat
0,80
0,60

Poland
RIVECOmacrofor ecological status assessment of rivers using benthic macroinvertebrates(Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index, based on STAR_ICM)
0,91(type RC1)
0,72 (type RC1)

Spain
METI
0,93
0,70

Sweden
DJ-index (Dahl & Johnson 2004)
0,80
0,60

United Kingdom
River Invertebrate Classification Tool (RICT)- WHPT
0,97
0,86



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Type
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Austria
AIM for Rivers (Austrian Index Macrophytes for rivers)
RC-3
0,875
0,625

Belgium (Flanders)
MAFWAT – Flemish macrophyte assessment system
R-C1
0,80
0,60

Belgium (Wallonia)
IBMR-WL – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers (Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 13 septembre 2012 relatif à l’identification, à la caractérisation et à la fixation des seuils d’état écologique applicables aux masses d’eau de surface et modifiant le Livre II du Code de l’Environnement, contenant le Code de l’Eau. Moniteur belge 12.10.2012)
R-C3
0,925
0,607

Denmark
DSPI – Danish Stream Plant Index
R-C1
0,70
0,50

R-C4
0,70
0,50

Germany
Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Fließgewässern zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (Phylib), Modul Makrophyten
R-C1
0,745
0,495

R-C3
0,80
0,55

R-C4
0,575
0,395

France
French standard NF T90-395 (2003-10-01). Qualité de l'eau – Détermination de l'indice biologique macrophytique en rivière (IBMR)
R-C3
0,93
0,79

R-C4
0,905
0,79

Ireland
MTR – IE – Mean Trophic Ranking
R-C4
0,74
0,62

Italy
IBMR – IT – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
R-C1
0,90
0,80

R-C4
0,90
0,80

Luxembourg
IBMR – LU – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
R-C3
0,89
0,79

R-C4
0,89
0,79

Poland
MIR – Macrophyte Index for Rivers
R-C1
0,90
0,65

R-C3
0,91
0,684

R-C4
0,90
0,65

United Kingdom
LEAFPACS – Ecological Classification of Rivers using Macrophytes
R-C1
0,80
0,60

R-C3
0,80
0,60

R-C4
0,80
0,60



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Type
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements – part Phytobenthos [Leitfaden zur Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente, Teil A3 -Fließgewässer/Phytobenthos]
All types, altitude < 500 m
0,70
0,42

All types, altitude > 500 m
0,71
0,43

Belgium (Flanders)
Proportions of Impact-Sensitive and Impact-Associated Diatoms (PISIAD)
All types
0,80
0,60

Belgium (Wallonia)
IPS (Coste, in CEMAGREF, 1982; Lenoir & Coste, 1996 and Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 13 septembre 2012 relatif à l’identification, à la caractérisation et à la fixation des seuils d’état écologique applicables aux masses d’eau de surface et modifiant le Livre II du Code de l’Environnement, contenant le Code de l’Eau. Moniteur belge 12.10.2012)
All types
0,98
0,73

Estonia
Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS)
All types
0,85
0,70

France
IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
All types
0,94
0,78

Germany
Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Fließgewässern zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (Phylib), Modul Diatomeen
R-C1
0,67
0,43

R-C3
0,67
0,43

R-C4
0,61
0,43

R-C5
0,73
0,55

Ireland
Revised form of Trophic Diatom Index (TDI)
All types
0,93
0,78

Italy
ICMi (Intercalibration Common Metric) Index (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009, Phytobenthos Intercalibration Common Metric (pICM: Kelly et al., 2009)
All types
0,84
0,65

Luxembourg
Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS)
All types
0,90
0,70

Netherlands
KRW Maatlat
All types
0,80
0,60

Poland
Indeks Okrzemkowy IO dla rzek (Diatom Index for rivers)
All types
0,80
0,58

Spain
Diatom multimetric (MDIAT)
R-C2, R-C3, R-C4
0,93
0,70

Sweden
Swedish assessment methods, Swedish EPA regulations (NFS 2008:1) based on Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS)
All types
0,89
0,74

United Kingdom
Diatom Assessment for River Ecological Status (DARLEQ2)
All types
1,00
0,75



Type
River characterisation
Ecoregion
Catchment (km2)
Altitude (m)
Geology
Substrate

R-E1a
Carpathians: small to medium, mid-altitude
10
10 – 1 000
500 – 800
mixed


R-E1b
Carpathians: small to medium, mid-altitude
10
10 – 1 000
200 – 500
mixed


R-E2
Plains: medium-sized, lowland
11 and 12
100 – 1 000
< 200
mixed
sand and silt

R-E3
Plains: large, lowland
11 and 12
> 1 000
< 200
mixed
sand, silt and gravel

R-E4
Plains: medium-sized, mid-altitude
11 and 12
100 – 1 000
200 – 500
mixed
sand and gravel

R-EX4
Large, mid-altitude
10, 11 and 12
> 1 000
200 – 500
mixed
gravel and boulder

R-EX5
Plains: small lowland
11 and 12
10 – 100
< 200
mixed
sand and silt

R-EX6
Plains: small, mid-altitude
11 and 12
10 – 100
200 – 500
mixed
gravel

R-EX7
Balkan: small, calcareous, mid-altitude
5
10-100
200-500
calcareous
gravel

R-EX8
Balkan: small to medium-sized, calcareous karst spring
5
10-1 000

calcareous
gravel, sand and silt



Type R-E1a
:
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia

Type R-E1b
:
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia

Type R-E2
:
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia

Type R-E3
:
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia

Type R-E4
:
Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia

Type R-EX4
:
Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia

Type R-EX5
:
Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia

Type R-EX6
:
Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia

Type R-EX7
:
Slovenia

Type R-EX8
:
Bulgaria, Slovenia



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Type
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements – part benthic invertebrates
R-E4
0,80
0,60

Bulgaria
Irish biotic index
R-E1a, R-E1b
0,86
0,67

Czech Republic
Czech system for ecological status assessment of rivers using benthic macroinvertebrates
R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E2, R-E3
0,80
0,60

Hungary
Hungarian Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index
R-E1b, R-E3, R-E4, R-EX5, R-EX6
0,80
0,60

Romania
Assessment method for ecological status of water bodies based on macroinvertebrates
R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E3, R-EX4
0,74
0,58

Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek z bentoškimi nevretenčarji v Sloveniji
R-E4, R-EX5, R-EX6
0,80
0,60

Slovakia
Slovak assessment of benthic invertebrates in rivers
R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E2, R-E3, R-E4, R-EX4
0,80
0,60



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Type
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Austria
AIM for Rivers (Austrian Index Macrophytes for rivers)
R-E4
0,875
0,625

Bulgaria
Reference Index
R-E2, R-E3
0,570
0,370

Bulgaria
Reference Index
R-E4
0,510
0,270

Hungary
Reference Index
R-E2, R-E3
0,700
0,370

Slovenia
River Macrophyte Index
R-E2, R-E3, R-E4
0,800
0,600

Slovakia
Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
R-E2, R-E3, R-E4
0,800
0,600



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Type
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements – part phytobenthos
R-E4
0,70
0,42

Bulgaria
Ecological status assessment of rivers in Bulgaria based on IPS diatom index
R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E3
0,87 (national type R2, R4)0,85 (national type R7, R8)
0,66 (national type R2, R4)0,64 (national type R7, R8)

Czech Republic
Assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos
R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E2, R-E3, R-EX4
0,80
0,60

Hungary
Ecological status assessment for rivers based on diatoms
R-E2, R-E3, R-EX5
0,80
0,60

Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek s fitobentosom in makrofiti v Sloveniji; fitobentos (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos and macrophytes in Slovenia; Phytobenthos)
R-E4, R-EX5, R-EX6, R-EX7, R-EX8
0,80
0,60

Slovakia
Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos
R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E2, R-E3, R-E4, R-EX4
0,90
0,70



Type
River characterisation
Catchment (km2)
Geology
Flow regime

R-M1
Small mediterranean streams
< 100
Mixed (except silicious)
Highly seasonal

R-M2
Medium mediterranean streams
100-1 000
Mixed (except silicious)
Highly seasonal

R-M4
Mediterranean mountain streams

Non-silicious
Highly seasonal

R-M5
Temporaty streams


Temporary



Type R-M1
:
France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain

Type R-M2
:
France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain

Type R-M4
:
Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Spain

Type R-M5
:
Cyprus, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain



Type and country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

R-M1

France
Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,940
0,700

Italy
MacrOper (based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index ICMi)
0,970
0,720

Portugal
Rivers Biological Quality Assessment Method-Benthic Invertebrates (IptIN, IptIS)
0,870 (type 1)0,850 (type 3)
0,678 (type 1)0,686 (type 3)

Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek z bentoškimi nevretenčarji v Sloveniji (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using benthic invertebrates in Slovenia)
0,800
0,600

Spain
Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party (IBMWP)
0,845
0,698

Spain
Iberian Mediterranean Multimetric Index—using quantitative data (IMMi-T)
0,811
0,707

R-M2

France
Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,940
0,700

Italy
MacrOper (based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index ICMi)
0,940
0,700

Portugal
Rivers Biological Quality Assessment Method-Benthic Invertebrates (IptIN, IptIS)
0,830 (type 2)0,880 (type 4)
0,693 (type 2)0,676 (type 4)

Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek z bentoškimi nevretenčarji v Sloveniji (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using benthic invertebrates in Slovenia)
0,800
0,600

Spain
Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party (IBMWP)
0,845
0,698

Spain
Iberian Mediterranean Multimetric Index—using quantitative data (IMMi-T)
0,811
0,707

R-M4

France
Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,940
0,700

Cyprus
STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index (STAR_ICMi)
0,972
0,729

Italy
MacrOper (based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index ICMi)
0,940
0,700

Spain
Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party (IBMWP)
0,840
0,700

Spain
Iberian Mediterranean Multimetric Index—using quantitative data (IMMi-T)
0,850
0,694

R-M5

Cyprus
STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index (STAR_ICMi)
0,982
0,737

Italy
MacrOper (based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index ICMi)
0,970
0,730

Portugal
Rivers Biological Quality Assessment Method-Benthic Invertebrates (IptIN, IptIS)
0,973 (type 5)0,961 (type 6)
0,705 (type 5)0,708 (type 6)

Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek z bentoškimi nevretenčarji v Sloveniji (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using benthic invertebrates in Slovenia)
0,800
0,600

Spain
Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party (IBMWP)
0,830
0,630

Spain
Iberian Mediterranean Multimetric Index—using quantitative data (IMMi-T)
0,830
0,620



Type and country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

R-M1, 2, 4

Cyprus
IBMR – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
0,795
0,596

France
French standard NF T90-395 (2003-10-01) Qualité de l'eau – Détermination de l'indice biologique macrophytique en rivière (IBMR)
0,930
0,745

Greece
IBMR – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
0,750
0,560

Italy
IBMR – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
0,900
0,800

Portugal
IBMR – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
0,920
0,690

Slovenia
RMI – River Macrophyte Index
0,800
0,600

Spain
IBMR – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
0,950
0,740



Type and country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

R-M1

France
IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,940
0,780

Italy
ICMi (Intercalibration Common Metric) Index (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009)
0,800
0,610

Portugal
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,970 (type 1)0,910 (type 3)
0,730 (type 1)0,680 (type 3)

Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek s fitobentosom in makrofiti v Sloveniji; fitobentos (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos and macrophytes in Slovenia; Phytobenthos)
0,800
0,600

Spain
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,937
0,727

R-M2

France
IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,940
0,780

Italy
ICMi (Intercalibration Common Metric) Index (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009)
0,800
0,610

Portugal
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,910 (type 2)0,970 (type 4)
0,680 (type 2)0,730 (type 4)

Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek s fitobentosom in makrofiti v Sloveniji; fitobentos (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos and macrophytes in Slovenia; Phytobenthos)
0,800
0,600

Spain
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,938
0,727

R-M4

Cyprus
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,910
0,683

France
IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009)AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,940
0,780

Italy
ICMi (Intercalibration Common Metric) Index (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009)
0,800
0,610

Spain
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,935
0,727

R-M5

Cyprus
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,958
0,718

Italy
ICMi (Intercalibration Common Metric) Index (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009)
0,880
0,650

Portugal
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,940
0,700

Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek s fitobentosom in makrofiti v Sloveniji; fitobentos (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos and macrophytes in Slovenia; Phytobenthos)
0,800
0,600

Spain
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,935
0,700



Type
River characterisation
Catchment area (of stretch)
Altitude & geomorphology
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Organic material (mg Pt/l)

R-N1
Small lowland siliceous moderate alkalinity
10-100 km2
< 200 m or below the highest coastline
0,2 – 1
< 30(< 150 in Ireland)

R-N3
Small/medium lowland organic low alkalinity
10-1 000 km2
< 0,2
> 30

R-N4
Medium lowland siliceous moderate alkalinity
100-1 000 km2
0,2 – 1
< 30

R-N5
Small mid-altitude siliceous low alkalinity
10-100 km2
Between lowland and highland
< 0,2
< 30



Type R-N1
:
Finland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-N3
:
Finland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-N4
:
Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-N5
:
Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Finland
Multimetric system, first version established
0,80
0,60

Ireland
Quality Rating System (Q-value)
0,85
0,75

Norway
ASPT
0,99
0,87

Sweden
DJ-index (Dahl & Johnson 2004)
0,80
0,60

United Kingdom
River Invertebrate Classification Tool (RICT)- WHPT
0,97
0,86



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Norway
AcidIndex2 (Modified Raddum index2) (river acidification)
0,675
0,515

United Kingdom – Scotland
WFD-AWICsp: WFD Acid Water Indicator Community species
0,910
0,830

United Kingdom – England and Wales
WFD-AWICsp: WFD Acid Water Indicator Community species
0,980
0,890



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Sweden
MISA: Multimetric Invertebrate Stream Acidification index
0,550
0,400

United Kingdom
WFD-AWICsp: WFD Acid Water Indicator Community species
0,930
0,830



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Finland
Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS)
0,91
0,80

Sweden
Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS)
0,89
0,74

Ireland
Revised form of Trophic Diatom Index (TDI)
0,93
0,78

United Kingdom
DARLEQ 2
1,00
0,75

Norway
Periphyton Index of Trophic Status (PIT)
0,99 (Ca ≤ 1 mg/L)0,95 (Ca > 1 mg/L)
0,83



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Belgium Flanders
Upstream and Lowland IBI
0,850
0,650

Belgium Wallonia
IBIP (Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 13 septembre 2012 relatif à l’identification, à la caractérisation et à la fixation des seuils d’état écologique applicables aux masses d’eau de surface et modifiant le Livre II du Code de l’Environnement, contenant le Code de l’Eau. Moniteur belge 12.10.2012)
0,958
0,792

France
Classification française DCE Indice Poissons Rivière (IPR). AFNOR NF-T-90-344. Arrêté du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
1,131
0,835

Germany
FIBS – fischbasiertes Bewertungssystem für Fließgewässer zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland
1,086
0,592

Luxembourg
Classification française DCE Indice Poissons Rivière (IPR). AFNOR NF-T-90-344. Arrêté du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
1,131
0,835

Netherlands
NLFISR
0,800
0,600

Lithuania
LZI
0,940
0,720



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Finland
Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) – type L2
0,665
0,499

Finland
Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) – type L3
0,658
0,493

Finland
Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) – type M1
0,709
0,532

Finland
Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) – type M2
0,734
0,550

Finland
Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) – type M3
0,723
0,542

Ireland
FCS2 IRELAND
0,845
0,540

Sweden
Swedish method VIX
0,739
0,467

United Kingdom – Northern Ireland
IR_FCS2
0,845
0,540

United Kingdom –Scotland
FCS2 Scotland
0,850
0,600



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Portugal
F_IBIP
0,850
0,675

Spain
IBIMED – type T2
0,816
0,705

Spain
IBIMED – type T3
0,929
0,733

Spain
IBIMED – type T4
0,864
0,758

Spain
IBIMED – type T5
0,866
0,650

Spain
IBIMED – type T6
0,916
0,764



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Czech Republic
Czech multimetric method CZI
0,780
0,585

Romania
EFI+ European Fish index (cyprinid_wading type)
0,939
0,700

Romania
EFI+ European Fish index (salmonid type)
0,911
0,755

Slovakia
Fish Index of SlovakiaFIS
0,710
0,570



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good
Good-Moderate

Austria
FIA
0,875
0,625

France
FBI
1,131
0,876

Germany
FIBS – fischbasiertes Bewertungssystem für Fließgewässer zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland
1,086
0,592

Slovenia
SIFAIR
0,800
0,600



Type
River characterisation
Catchment area (of stretch)
Alkalinity (meq/l)

R-L1
Very large low alkalinity rivers
> 10 000  km2
< 0,5

R-L2
Very large medium to high alkalinity rivers
> 10 000  km2
> 0,5



Type R-L1
:
Finland, Norway, Sweden

Type R-L2
:
Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Finland
Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (Specific Pollution Sensitivity Index SPI)
0,80
0,60

Sweden
Benthic algae in running water – diatom analysis
0,89
0,74



Country
National classification system intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Austria
Assessment of the Biological Quality Elements – part phytobenthos
0,85
0,57

Czech Republic
Assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos
0,80
0,60

Estonia
Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment – river phytobenthos
0,83
0,64

Germany
Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Fließgewässern zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (Phylib), Modul Diatomeen
0,725
0,545

Hungary
Ecological status assessment for rivers based on diatoms
0,762
0,60

Netherlands
WFD-metrics for natural water types
0,80
0,60

Slovakia
Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos
0,90
0,70

Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek s fitobentosom in makrofiti v Sloveniji; fitobentos (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos and macrophytes in Slovenia; Phytobenthos)
0,80
0,60



Type
Lake characterisation
Altitude (m above sea level)
Mean depth (m)
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Lake size (km2)

L-AL3
Lowland or mid-altitude, deep, moderate to high alkalinity (alpine influence), large
50 – 800
> 15
> 1
> 0,5

L-AL4
Mid-altitude, shallow, moderate to high alkalinity (alpine influence), large
200 – 800
3 – 15
> 1
> 0,5



Types L-AL3
:
Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia

Types L-AL4
:
Austria, France, Germany, Italy



Member State
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

Austria
Evaluation of the biological quality elements, Part B2 – phytoplankton
0,80
0,60

Germany
PSI (Phyto-Seen-Index) – Bewertungsverfahren für Seen mittels Phytoplankton zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland
0,80
0,60

Italy
Italian Phytoplankton Assessment Method (IPAM)
0,80
0,60

Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja jezer s fitoplanktonom v Sloveniji (Ecological status assessment system for lakes using phytoplankton in Slovenia)
0,80
0,60



Member State
National classification systems intercalibrated

Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

Austria
AIM for Lakes (Austrian Index Macrophytes for lakes)
L-AL3+L-AL4
0,80
0,60

France
IBML (French Macrophyte Index for Lakes)
L-AL3+L-AL4
0,92
0,72

Germany
PHYLIB for Lakes (German Assessment system for Macrophytes & Phytobenthos for lakes for implementation of the WFD): Module Macrophytes
L-AL3+L-AL4
0,76
0,51

Germany
PHYLIB for Lakes (German Assessment system for Macrophytes & Phytobenthos for lakes for implementation of the WFD): Modules Macrophytes & Phytobenthos
LAL4
0,74
0,47

Italy
MacroIMMI (Macrophytic index for the evaluation of the ecological quality of the Italian lakes)
L-AL3+L-AL4
0,80
0,60

Slovenia
SMILE (Slovenian macrophyte-based index for lake ecosystems)
L-AL3
0,80
0,60



Member State
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja jezer z bentoškimi nevretenčarji v Sloveniji (Ecological status assessment system for lakes using benthic invertebrates in Slovenia)
0,80
0,60

Germany
AESHNA – Bewertungsverfahren für das eulitorale Makrozoobenthos in Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland
0,80
0,60



Member State
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

Austria
ALFI (Austrian lake fish index): A multimetric index to assess the ecological status of alpine lakes based on fish fauna.
0,80
0,60

Germany
DELAFI_SITE – Deutsches probennahmestandort-spezifisches Bewertungsverfahren für Fische in Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie
0,85
0,69

Italy
Lake Fish Index (LFI)
0,82
0,64



Type
Lake characterisation
Altitude (m above sea level)
Mean depth (m)
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Residence time (years)

L-CB1
Lowland, shallow, calcareous
< 200
3 – 15
> 1
1 – 10

L-CB2
Lowland, very shallow, calcareous
< 200
< 3
> 1
0,1 – 1



Types L-CB1
:
Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom

Types L-CB2
:
Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom




National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

Belgium (Flanders)
Flemish phytoplankton assessment method for lakes
0,80
0,60

Germany
PSI (Phyto-See-Index) – Bewertungsverfahren für Seen mittels Phytoplankton zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland – German Phyto-Lake-Index (Phyto-See-Index)
0,80
0,60

Denmark
Danish Phytoplankton Index
0,80
0,60

Estonia
Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment – lake phytoplankton
0,80
0,60

Ireland
IE Lake Phytoplankton Index
0,80
0,60

Netherlands
WFD- metrics for natural watertypes
0,80
0,60

Poland
Phytoplankton method for Polish Lakes (PMPL)
0,80
0,60

United Kingdom
Phytoplankton Lakes Assessment Tool (PLUTO)
0,80
0,60



Member State
National classification systems intercalibrated
IC Type
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

Belgium (Flanders)
Flemish macrophyte assessment system
All types
0,80
0,60

Denmark
Danish Lake Macrophytes Index
All types
0,80
0,60

Estonia
Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment – lake macrophytes
LCB1
0,78
0,52

LCB2
0,76
0,50

Germany
Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (Phylib), Modul Makrophyten
All types
0,80
0,60

Lithuania
Lithuanian macrophyte assessment method
All types
0,75
0,50

Latvia
Latvian macrophyte assessment method
All types
0,80
0,60

Netherlands
WFD-metrics for natural water types
All types
0,80
0,60

Poland
Macrophyte based indication method for lakes – Ecological Status Macrophyte Index ESMI (multimetric)
All types
0,68
0,41

United Kingdom
LEAFPACS lake macrophyte classification tool(*1)
All types
0,80
0,66



Member State
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate

Belgium (Flanders)
Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index Flanders (MMIF)
0,90
0,70

Germany
AESHNA – Bewertungsverfahren für das eulitorale Makrozoobenthos in Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland
0,80
0,60

Estonia
Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment – lake macroinvertebrates
0,86
0,70

Lithuania
Lithuanian Lake Macroinvertebrate Index
0,74
0,50

Netherlands
WFDi – Metric for Natural Watertypes
0,80
0,60

United Kingdom
Chironomid Pupal Exuvial Technique (CPET)
0,77
0,64



Type
Lake characterization
Altitude (m)
Annual mean precipitation (mm) and T (°C)
Mean depth (m)
Area (km2)
Catchment (km2)
Alkalinity (meq/l)

L-M5/7
Reservoirs, deep, large,siliceous, “wet”areas
< 1 000
> 800 and /or < 15
> 15
0,5-50
< 20 000
< 1

L-M8
Reservoirs, deep, large,calcareous
< 1 000
—
> 15
0,5-50
< 20 000
> 1



Types L-M5/7
:
Greece, France, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain

Types L-M8
:
Cyprus, France, Italy, Romania, Spain



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good
Good-moderate

LM 5/7

Spain
Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton (MASRP).
n.d.(*2)
0,58

Portugal
Reservoirs Biological Quality Assessment Method – Phytoplankton (New Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton: NMASRP).
n.d.
0,60

Italy
New Italian Method (NITMET)
n.d.
0,60

L-M8

Spain
Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton (MASRP).
n.d.
0,60

Cyprus
New Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton (NMASRP).
n.d.
0,60

Italy
New Italian Method (NITMET)
n.d.
0,60



Type
Lake characterisation
Altitude (m above sea level)
Mean depth (m)
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Colour (mg Pt/l)

L-N1
Lowland, shallow, moderate alkalinity, clear
< 200
3 – 15
0,2 – 1
< 30

L-N2a
Lowland, shallow, low alkalinity, clear
< 200
3 – 15
< 0,2
< 30

L-N2b
Lowland, deep, low alkalinity, clear
< 200
> 15
< 0,2
< 30

L-N3a
Lowland, shallow, low alkalinity, meso-humic
< 200
3 – 15
< 0,2
30 – 90

L-N5
Mid-altitude, shallow, low alkalinity, clear
200-800
3 – 15
< 0,2
< 30

L-N6a
Mid-altitude, shallow, low alkalinity, meso-humic
200-800
3 – 15
< 0,2
30 – 90

L-N8a
Lowland, shallow, moderate alkalinity, meso-humic
< 200
3 – 15
0,2 – 1
30 – 90



Types L-N1, L-N2a, L-N3a, LN-8a
:
Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.

Types LN-2b
:
Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom

Types LN-5, LN-6a
:
Norway, Sweden



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good
Good-moderate

Finland
Finnish phytoplankton assessment method for lakes
0,80
0,60

Ireland
IE Lake Phytoplankton Index
0,80
0,60

Norway
Lake phytoplankton ecological status classification method
0,80
0,60

Sweden
Ecological assessment methods for lakes. quality factor phytoplankton
0,80
0,60

United Kingdom
Phytoplankton Lakes Assessment Tool (PLUTO)
0,80
0,60



Type
Lake characterisation
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Color (mg Pt/l)

L-N-M 101
Low alkalinity, clear
0,05 – 0,2
< 30

L-N-M 102
Low alkalinity, humic
0,05 – 0,2
> 30

L-N-M 201
Moderate alkalinity, clear
0,2 – 1,0
< 30

L-N-M 202
Moderate alkalinity, humic
0,2 – 1,0
> 30

L-N-M 301a
High alkalinity, clear, atlantic subtype
> 1,0
< 30

L-N-M 302a
High alkalinity, humic, atlantic subtype
> 1,0
> 30



Types 101, 102, 201 and 202
:
Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.

Type 301a
:
Ireland, United Kingdom.

Type 302a
:
Ireland, United Kingdom



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate

Finland
Finnish macrophyte classification system (Finnmac)
0,8 (all types)
0,6 (all types)

Ireland
Free Macrophyte Index
0,9 (all types)
0,68 (all types)

Norway
National macrophyte index (Trophic Index – TIc)
Type 101: 0,98Type 102: 0,96Type 201: 0,95Type 202: 0,99
Type 101: 0,87Type 102: 0,87Type 201: 0,75Type 202: 0,77

Sweden
Trophic Macrophyte Index (TMI)
Type 101: 0,93Type 102: 0,93Type 201: 0,89Type 202: 0,91
Type 101: 0,80Type 102: 0,83Type 201: 0,78Type 202: 0,78

United Kingdom
LEAFPACS lake macrophyte classification tool(*3)
0,8 (all types)
0,66 (all types)

United Kingdom
Free Macrophyte Index(*4)
0,9 (all types)
0,68 (all types)



Type
Lake characterisation
Ecoregion
Altitude(m absl)
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Colour (mg Pt/l)

Lake littoral acidification

L-N-BF1
Lowland/mid-altitude, low alkalinity, clear
n.d.
< 800
0,05 – 0,2
< 30

Lake profundal eutrophication

L-N-BF2
Ecoregion 22, low alkalinity, clear and humic
22
Area > 1 km2, max depth > 6 m
< 0,2
n.d.



Types L-N-BF1
:
Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Ireland, Finland

Types L-N-BF2
:
Finland, Sweden



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good
Good-moderate

Lake littoral acidification

Sweden
MILA: Multimetric Invertebrate Lake Acidification index
0,85
0,60

United Kingdom
LAMM (Lake Acidification Macroinvertebrate Metric)
0,86
0,70

Norway
MultiClear: Multimetric Invertebrate Index for Clear Lakes
0,95
0,74

Lake profundal eutrophication

Sweden
BQI (Benthic Quality Index)
0,84
0,67

Finland
BQI (Benthic Quality Index)
0,75
0,63



Type
Lake characterisation
Lake area km2
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Colour (mg Pt/l)

L-N-F1
Dimictic clear water lakes
< 40
< 0,2
< 30

L-N-F2
Dimictic humic lakes
< 5
< 0,2
30-90



Types L-N-F1
:
Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom

Types L-N-F2
:
Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

Finland
EQR4
0,80
0,60

Ireland
FIL2
0,76
0,53

United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)
FIL2
0,76
0,53



Type
Lake characterisation
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Ecoregions

HA
High alkalinity lakes
> 1
Central-Baltic, Mediterranean

MA
Moderate alkalinity lakes
0,2-1
Central-Baltic, Northern

LA
Low alkalinity lakes
< 0,2
Northern



Types HA
:
Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia, United Kingdom

Types MA
:
Belgium, France, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, United Kingdom

Types LA
:
Finland, Ireland, Sweden, United Kingdom



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

HA type

Belgium (Flanders)
Proportions of Impact-Sensitive and Impact-Associated Diatoms (PISIAD)
0,80
0,60

Germany
Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (Phylib), Modul Phytobenthos
0,80
0,55

Hungary
MIL- Multimetric Index for Lakes
0,80
0,69

Ireland
Lake Trophic Diatom Index (IE)
0,90
0,63

Poland
PL IOJ (Multimetryczny Indeks Okrzemkowy dla Jezior = Multimetric Diatom Index for Lakes)
0,91
0,76

Sweden
IPS
0,89
0,74

Slovenia
Trophic Index (TI)
0,80
0,60

United Kingdom
DARLEQ 2
0,92
0,70

MA type

Belgium (Flanders)
Proportions of Impact-Sensitive and Impact-Associated Diatoms (PISIAD)
0,80
0,60

Finland
IPS
0,80
0,64

Ireland
Lake Trophic Diatom Index (IE)
0,90
0,63

Sweden
IPS
0,89
0,74

United Kingdom
DARLEQ 2
0,93
0,66

LA type

Ireland
Lake Trophic Diatom Index (IE)
0,90
0,66

United Kingdom
DARLEQ 2
0,92
0,70



Type
Surface salinityPsu
Bottom salinity
Exposure
Ice days
Other Characteristics

BT 1
0-8Oligohaline
0 – 8
Very sheltered
—
Polish Vistula lagoon and Lithuanian Curonian lagoon.

BC1
0,5 – 6Oligohaline
1 – 6
Exposed
90 – 150
Sites in the Quark and the Bothnian Sea, extending to the Archipelago Sea (for phytoplankton the latter is excluded and integrated in type BC9)Influence of humic substances

BC3
3 – 6Oligohaline
3 – 6
Sheltered
90 – 150
Finnish and Estonian coasts of Gulf of Finland

BC4
5 – 8Lower mesohaline
5 – 8
Sheltered
< 90
Sites of Estonia and Latvia in the Gulf of Riga

BC5
6 – 8Lower mesohaline
6 – 12
Exposed
< 90
Sites in the southeastern Baltic Sea along the coast of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland

BC6
8 – 12Mid mesohaline
8 -12
Sheltered
< 90
Sites along the Western Baltic Sea at the southern Swedish coast and the southeastern Danish coast

BC7
6 – 8Mid mesohaline
8 – 11
Exposed
< 90
Western Polish coast and eastern German coast

BC8
13 -18Upper mesohaline
18 -23
Sheltered
< 90
Danish and German coasts in the Western Baltic Sea

BC9
3 – 6Lower mesohaline
3 – 6
Moderately exposed to exposed
90 – 150
Sites in the western Gulf of Finland, Archipelago Sea and Asko archipelago (only for phytoplankton)



Type BC1
:
Finland, Sweden.

Type BC3
:
Finland, Estonia

Type BC4
:
Estonia, Latvia

Type BC5
:
Lithuania, Latvia, Poland.

Type BC6
:
Sweden, Denmark.

Type BC7
:
Germany, Poland.

Type BC8
:
Germany, Denmark.

Type BC9
:
Finland, Sweden, Estonia (type only relevant for phytoplankton)



Type BT1
:
Lithuania, Poland.



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

BC1

Finland
BBI- Finnish Brackish water Benthic Index
0,96
0,56

Sweden
BQI–Swedish multimetric biological quality index (soft sediment infauna)
0,77
0,31

BC3

Estonia
ZKI – Estonian coastal water macrozoobenthos community index
0,39
0,24

Finland
BBI – Finnish Brackish water Benthic Index
0,94
0,56

BC6

Denmark
DKI ver2 – Danish Quality Index version 2
0,84
0,68

Sweden
BQI–Swedish multimetric biological quality index (soft sediment infauna)
0,76
0,27

BC8

Denmark
DKI ver2 – Danish Quality Index version 2
0,86
0,72

Germany
MarBIT – Marine Biotic Index Tool
0,8
0,6



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios of the national classification systems

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

BC7

Germany
German coastal phytoplankton method
0,8
0,6

Poland
Polish coastal phytoplankton method
0,8
0,6

BC8

Denmark
Danish coastal phytoplankton method
0,8
0,6

Germany
German coastal phytoplankton method
0,8
0,6



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

BC3

Estonia
EPI- Estonian coastal water phytobenthos Index (macroalgae and angiosperms)
0,98
0,86

Finland
Fucus depth limit (macroalgae)
0,92
0,79



Type and country
Ecological Quality Ratios for the national classification systems
Parameter values/rangesDepth limit (m)Eelgrass Zostera marina

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

BC8

Denmark and GermanyOpen coast
0,90
0,74
8,5
7



Type
Characterisation
Salinity (psu)Tidal Range(m)Depth (m)
Current Velocity (knots)Exposure
MixingResidence Time

Type for opportunistic blooming macroalgae, seagrasses, saltmarshes and benthic invertebrate fauna

NEA1/26
Open oceanic or enclosed seas, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow
> 30Mesotidal 1 – 5< 30
Medium 1 – 3Exposed or sheltered
Fully mixedDays (to weeks in the Wadden Sea)

Subtypes for intertidal macroalgae

NEA1/26 A2
Open oceanic, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallowTemperate waters (mainly, > 13 °C) and high irradiance (mainly, PAR > 29 Mol/m2day)
> 30Mesotidal 1–5< 30
Medium 1 – 3Exposed or sheltered
Fully mixed Days

NEA1/26 B21
Open oceanic or enclosed seas, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallowCool waters (mainly, < 13 °C) and medium irradiance (mainly, PAR < 29 Mol/m2day)
> 30Mainly mesotidal 1–5< 30
Medium 1 – 3Exposed or sheltered
Fully mixedDays

Subtypes for phytoplankton

NEA1/26a
Open oceanic, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow
> 30Mesotidal 1 – 5< 30
Medium 1 – 3Exposed or sheltered
Fully mixedDays

NEA1/26b
Enclosed seas, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow
> 30Mesotidal 1 – 5< 30
Medium 1 – 3Exposed or sheltered
Fully mixedDays

NEA1/26c
Enclosed seas, enclosed or sheltered, partly stratified
> 30Microtidal/Mesotidal < 1 – 5< 30
Medium 1 – 3Exposed or sheltered
Partly stratifiedDays to weeks

NEA1/26d
Scandinavian coast, exposed or sheltered, shallow
> 30Microtidal < 1< 30
Low < 1Exposed or moderately exposed
Partly stratifiedDays to weeks

NEA1/26e
Areas of upwelling, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow
> 30Mesotidal 1 – 5< 30
Medium 1 – 3Exposed or sheltered
Fully mixedDays

Types for phytoplankton, macroalgae, seagrasses, saltmarshes, benthic invertebrate fauna and fish (transitional waters)

NEA3/4
Polyhaline, Exposed or moderately exposed (Wadden Sea type)
Polyhaline 18 – 30Mesotidal 1 – 5< 30
Medium 1 – 3Exposed or moderately exposed
Fully mixedDays

NEA7
Deep fjordic and sea loch systems
> 30Mesotidal 1 -5> 30
Low < 1Sheltered
Fully mixedDays

NEA8a
Skagerrak Inner Arc Type, polyhaline, microtidal, moderately exposed, shallow
Polyhaline 25 – 30Microtidal < 1> 30
Low < 1Moderately exposed
Fully mixedDays to weeks

NEA8b
Skagerrak Inner Arc Type, polyhaline, microtidal, moderately sheltered, shallow
Polyhaline 10 – 30Microtidal < 1< 30
Low < 1Sheltered to moderately exposed
Partly stratifiedDays to weeks

NEA9
Fjord with a shallow sill at the mouth with a very deep maximum depth in the central basin with poor deepwater exchange
Polyhaline 25 – 30Microtidal < 1> 30
Low < 1Sheltered
Partly stratifiedWeeks

NEA10
Skagerrak Outer Arc Type, polyhaline, microtidal, exposed, deep
Polyhaline 25 – 30Microtidal < 1> 30
Low < 1Exposed
Partly stratifiedDays

NEA11
Transitional Waters
Oligohaline 0 – 35Micro to macrotidal< 30
VariableSheltered or moderately exposed
Partly permanently stratifiedDays to weeks



Type NEA1/26 opportunistic blooming macroalgae, seagrasses, saltmarshes
:
Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom

Type NEA1/26 A2 intertidal macroalgae
:
France, Spain, Portugal

Type NEA1/26 B21 intertidal macroalgae
:
France, Ireland, Norway, United Kingdom

Type NEA1/26a phytoplankton
:
Spain, France, Ireland, Norway, United Kingdom

Type NEA1/26b phytoplankton
:
Belgium, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom

Type NEA1/26c phytoplankton
:
Germany, Denmark

Type NEA1/26d phytoplankton
:
Denmark

Type NEA1/26e phytoplankton
:
Portugal, Spain

Type NEA3/4
:
Germany, Netherlands

Type NEA7
:
Norway, United Kingdom

Type NEA8a
:
Norway, Sweden

Type NEA8b
:
Denmark, Sweden

Type NEA9
:
Norway, Sweden

Type NEA10
:
Norway, Sweden



Type NEA11
:
Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

Type NEA8b

Denmark
DKI
0,84
0,68

Sweden
BQI
0,71
0,54

Types NEA8a/9/10

Norway
NQI
0,82
0,63

Sweden
BQI
0,71
0,54



Member State
Ecological Quality Ratios
Values (μg/l, 90 %ile)

High-good
Good-moderate
High-good
Good-moderate

NEA1/26c





Denmark
0,67
0,44
5
7,5

Germany
0,67
0,44
5
7,5



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

Type NEA1/26 A2 intertidal macroalgae

France
CCO – Cover, Characteristic species, Opportunistic species on intertidal rocky bottoms
0,80
0,60

Portugal
PMarMAT – Marine Macroalgae Assessment Tool
0,80
0,61

Spain
CFR – Quality of Rocky Bottoms
0,81
0,60

Spain
RICQI – Rocky Intertidal Community Quality Index
0,82
0,60

Spain
RSL – Reduced Species List
0,75
0,48

Type NEA1/26 B21 intertidal macroalgae

Ireland
RSL – Rocky Shore Reduced Species List
0,80
0,60

Norway
RSLA – Rocky Shore Reduced Species List
0,80
0,60

United Kingdom
RSL – Rocky Shore Reduced Species List
0,80
0,60

Type NEA7 intertidal macroalgae

Norway
RSLA – Rocky Shore Reduced Species List with Abundance
0,80
0,60

United Kingdom
RSL – Rocky Shore Reduced Species List
0,80
0,60

Type NEA8a/9/10 subtidal macroalgae

Norway
MSMDI – Multi Species Maximum Depth Index
0,80
0,60

Sweden
MSMDI – Multi Species Maximum Depth Index
0,80
0,60



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

Type NEA3/4

Germany
SG – Bewertungssystem für Makroalgen und Seegräser der Küsten- und Übergangsgewässer zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland
0,80
0,60

Netherlands
Monitoring beds of SG per waterbody using arial photographs, ground truth and specifyting surface & density per species
0,80
0,60



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

Belgium
EBI – Zeeschelde Estuarine Biotic Index
0,85
0,615

France
ELFI – Estuarine and Lagoon Fish Index
0,91
0,675

Germany
FAT – TW – Fischbasiertes Bewertungswerkzeug für Übergangsgewässer der norddeutschen Ästuare
0,84
0,62

Ireland
TFCI – Transitional Fish Classification Index
0,81
0,58

Netherlands
FAT – TW – WFD Fish index for transitional waters, type O2
0,80
0,60

Portugal
EFAI – Estuarine Fish Assessment Index
0,865
0,70

Spain
AFI – AZTI’s Fish Index
0,78
0,55

Spain
TFCI – Transitional Fish Classification Index
0,90
0,65

United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)
TFCI – Transitional Fish Classification Index
0,81
0,58



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

Methods including diversity parameter

Italy
M-AMBI
0,81
0,61

Slovenia
M-AMBI
0,83
0,62

Methods not including diversity parameter

Cyprus
Bentix
0,75
0,58

France
AMBI
0,83
0,58

Greece
Bentix
0,75
0,58

Spain
BOPA
0,95
0,54

Spain
MEDOCC
0,73
0,47



Type
Description
Density (kg/m3)
Annual mean salinity (psu)

Type I
Highly influenced by freshwater input
< 25
< 34,5

Type IIA,IIA Adriatic
Moderately influenced by freshwater input (continent influence)
25-27
34,5-37,5

Type IIIW
Continental coast, not influenced by freshwater input (Western Basin).
> 27
> 37,5

Type IIIE
Not influenced by freshwater input (Eastern Basin)
> 27
> 37,5

Type Island-W
Island coast (Western Basin)
All range
All range



Type I
:
France, Italy

Type IIA
:
France, Spain, Italy

Type IIA Adriatic
:
Italy, Slovenia

Type Island-W
:
France, Spain, Italy

Type IIIW
:
France, Spain, Italy

Type IIIE
:
Greece, Cyprus



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

Cyprus
EEI-c – Ecological Evaluation Index
0,76
0,48

France
CARLIT – Cartography of Littoral and upper-sublittoral rocky-shore communities
0,75
0,60

Greece
EEI-c – Ecological Evaluation Index
0,76
0,48

Italy
CARLIT – Cartography of Littoral and upper-sublittoral rocky-shore communities
0,75
0,60

Slovenia
EEI-c – Ecological Evaluation Index
0,76
0,48

Spain
CARLIT – Cartography of Littoral and upper-sublittoral rocky-shore communities
0,75
0,60



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

Cyprus
PREI – Posidonia oceanica Rapid Easy Index
0,775
0,55

France
PREI – Posidonia oceanica Rapid Easy Index
0,775
0,55

Italy
PREI – Posidonia oceanica Rapid Easy Index
0,775
0,55

Spain
POMI – Posidonia oceanica Multivariate Index
0,775
0,55

Spain
Valencian-CS
0,775
0,55



Member State
National classification methods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

France
Exclame
0,80
0,60

Greece
EEI-c – Ecological Evaluation Index
0,70
0,40

Italy
MaQI – Macrophyte Quality Index
0,80
0,60



Type
Description

CW-BL1
Coastal watersMesohaline, microtidal (< 1 m), shallow (< 30 m), moderately exposed, mixed substratum



Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Bulgaria
IBI
0,80
0,63

Romania
IBI
0,80
0,63



Member State
Ecological Quality Ratios for the national classification systems
Parameter values / rangesChlorophyll-a (μg/l)

High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary

BC1

Finland
0,76
0,59
1,7
2,2

Sweden
0,87
0,65
1,5
2,0

BC9

Estonia
0,82
0,67
2,2
2,7

Finland
0,79
0,65
1,9
2,3

Sweden
0,80
0,67
1,5
1,8



Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Types NEA1/26 and NEA 7 (Indices responsive primarily to organic enrichment and toxic pollution pressures in soft sediment habitats)

Denmark
DKI
0,67
0,53

France
M-AMBI
0,77
0,53

Germany
M-AMBI
0,85
0,70

Ireland
IQI
0,75
0,64

Netherlands
BEQI2
0,78
0,58

Norway
NQI
0,92
0,81

Portugal
P-BAT
0,79
0,58

Spain
M-AMBI
0,77
0,53

Spain
BO2A
0,78
0,44

United Kingdom
IQI
0,75
0,64

Types NEA1/26 (Index responsive to multiple pressures in multiple habitats)

Belgium
BEQI
0,80
0,60



Type
Ecological Quality Ratios
Values (μg/l, 90 %ile)

High-Good
Good-Moderate
High-Good
Good-Moderate

NEA 1/26a

France
0,67
0,33
5
10

Ireland
0,67
0,33
5
10

Norway
0,67
0,33
2,5
5

Spain South
0,67
0,33
5
10

Spain North East Cantabrian
0,67
0,33
1,5
3

Spain North Central Cantabrian
0,67
0,33
3
6

United Kingdom
0,67
0,33
5
10

NEA1/26b

Belgium
0,67
0,44
10
15

France
0,67
0,44
10
15

Netherlands
0,67
0,44
10
15

United Kingdom
0,67
0,44
10
15

NEA3/4

Germany
0,66
0,44
7-10
11-15

Netherlands
0,66
0,44
10-14
15-21

NEA1/26e

Portugal
0,67
0,44
6 – 8
9 – 12

Spain
0,67
0,44
6 – 8
9 – 12

NEA9

Norway
0,67
0,33
2,5
5

Sweden
0,67
0,33
2,5
5

NEA10

Norway
0,67
0,33
3
6

Sweden
0,67
0,33
3
6



Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Type NEA1/26

Germany
Bewertungssystem für opportunistische Makroalgen auf eulitoralen Weichböden der Küstengewässer
0,80
0,60

Ireland
OGA Tool – Opportunistic Green Macroalgal Abundance
0,80
0,60

United Kingdom
Opportunistic Macroalgae Blooming Tool OMBT
0,80
0,60



Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Type NEA11

Ireland
OGA Tool – Opportunistic Green Macroalgal Abundance
0,80
0,60

Portugal
BMI – Blooming Macroalgal Index (Assessment of blooming macroalgae)
0,80
0,60

United Kingdom
Opportunistic Macroalgae Blooming Tool OMBT
0,80
0,60



Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Type NEA1/26

France
SBQ – Seagrass beds quality in coastal and transitional water bodies
0,80
0,60

Germany
SG – Bewertungssystem für Makroalgen und Seegräser der Küsten- und Übergangsgewässer zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland
0,80
0,60

Ireland
Intertidal Seagrass Abundance and Species Composition
0,80
0,63



Type and country
National parameter intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary

Type NEA11

France
SBQ – Seagrass beds quality in coastal and transitional water bodies
0,80
0,60

Germany
SG – Bewertungssystem für Makroalgen und Seegräser der Küsten- und Übergangsgewässer zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmen-richtlinie in Deutschland
0,80
0,60

Ireland
Intertidal Seagrass Abundance and Species Composition
0,83
0,70

Netherlands
Monitoring beds of SG per waterbody using arial photographs, ground truth and specifying surface & density per species
0,80
0,60

Portugal
SQI – Seagrass quality index for intertidal TW
0,80
0,60



Type
Ecological Quality Ratios
Values (μg/l, 90 %ile)

High-Good
Good-Moderate
High-Good
Good-Moderate

Type II-A

France
0,80
0,53
2,38
3,58

Spain
0,80
0,53
2,38
3,58

Italy (Tyrrhenian)
0,76
0,59
1,06
2,19

Type II-A Adriatic

Italy
0,75
0,58
1,58
3,81

Slovenia
0,75
0,58
1,58
3,81

Type Island – W

France
0,80
0,50
0,75
1,20

Spain
0,80
0,50
0,75
1,20

Type III-W

France
0,80
0,50
1,13
1,80

Spain
0,80
0,50
1,13
1,80

Type III-E

Cyprus
0,80
0,20
0,10
0,40

Greece
0,80
0,20
0,10
0,40

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to 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(1), and in particular Section 1.4.1(ix) of Annex V thereof,

(1) Article 4(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 2000/60/EC requires the Member States to protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water with the aim of achieving good surface water status at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of the Directive, subject to certain derogations in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex V thereto. Article 4(1)(a)(iii) of Directive 2000/60/EC requires the Member States to protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status at the latest 15 years from the date of entry into force of the Directive, subject to certain derogations, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex V thereto. In accordance with Section 1.4.1(i) of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC the references to ecological status should be construed as references to ecological potential as regards artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

(2) The intercalibration exercise envisages a harmonised approach to define one of the main environmental objectives of Directive 2000/60/EC, namely good ecological status.

(3) Section 1.4.1 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC provides a process to ensure the comparability between the biological monitoring results of Member States as a central part of the ecological status classification. This requires the Member States’ biological monitoring results and their monitoring system classifications to be compared through an intercalibration network comprised of monitoring sites in each Member State and in each ecoregion of the Union. Directive 2000/60/EC requires the Member States to collect, as appropriate, the necessary information for the sites included in the intercalibration network, in order to enable the assessment of the consistency of the national monitoring system classifications with the normative definitions of Section 1.2 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC and the comparability of the results of monitoring system classifications between the Member States.

(4) In order to carry out the intercalibration exercise Member States are organised in Geographical Intercalibration Groups, consisting of Member States sharing particular surface water body types, as defined in Section 2 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2005/646/EC of 17 August 2005 on the establishment of a register of sites to form the intercalibration network in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(2).

(5) Section 1.4.1 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC specifies that the intercalibration exercise is to be carried out at biological element level, comparing the classification results of the national monitoring system for each biological element and for each common surface water body type among Member States in the same Geographical Intercalibration Group, and assessing the consistency of the results with the normative definitions set out in Section 1.2 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC.

(6) The Commission has facilitated two phases of the intercalibration exercise through the Institute of Environment and Sustainability of the Joint Research Centre.

(7) Under the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy three Guidance Documents (No 6(3)and 14 (two versions)(4)) were prepared to facilitate the intercalibration process. They provided an overview of the key principles of the intercalibration process and the options for carrying out the exercise including timescales and reporting requirements.

(8) By 2007 the Commission had received intercalibration results for a number of biological quality elements. They were included in Commission Decision 2008/915/EC of 30 October 2008 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise(5), which sets out the values of the boundaries between classes that Member States should use in their national monitoring system classifications. The results of the first phase of the intercalibration exercise were incomplete, in so far as not all biological quality elements were covered. It was necessary however to adopt the available results of the intercalibration exercise to inform the development of the first river basin management plans and programmes of measures in accordance with Articles 11 and 13 of Directive 2000/60/EC.

(9) The results of this first phase of the intercalibration exercise were adopted in Decision 2008/915/EC. Those results were included on a provisional basis with an understanding that further results would be subject to a new Decision when the relevant information in accordance with Section 1.4.1 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC would have been provided by the Member States.

(10) In order to close the gaps and improve the comparability of the intercalibration results in time for the second river basin management plans due in 2015, the Commission initiated a second phase of the intercalibration exercise.

(11) Annex I to this Decision sets out the results of the intercalibration exercise for which intercalibration is successfully achieved, within the limits of what is technically feasible at this point in time.

(12) Annex II to this Decision sets out the results of the intercalibration exercise for which intercalibration is partially achieved. The completion of all the necessary steps in the intercalibration exercise should be carried out in order for the results to be included in a new Decision. Accordingly, those results are provisional.

(13) Member States should complete the intercalibration exercise by 22 December 2016 to allow the Commission to move the results contained in Annexes I and II of this Decision to a sole Annex of a new Decision. This will allow for these results to be used in the third river basin planning cycle.

(14) The completion of all the necessary steps in the intercalibration exercise should also be carried out by 22 December 2016 for those Geographical Intercalibration Groups and biological quality elements where there are as yet no intercalibration results for inclusion in this Decision. This will also allow for these results to be included in a new Decision and to be used in the third river basin planning cycle.

(15) While Directive 2000/60/EC requires that intercalibration is to be carried out at biological quality element level, single parameters (e.g. chlorophyll –a concentration, or depth limits of macroalgae and angiosperms) are in some cases considered to be representative for a full biological quality element. In such cases, the results of the intercalibration exercise are set out in Annex I.

(16) There are cases where Member States have developed independent methods covering only a part of a biological quality element (e.g. independent method for macrophytes and phytobenthos for the quality element ‘macrophytes and phytobenthos’). In cases where intercalibration for such sub- biological quality elements has been successfully completed the results of the intercalibration exercise are included in the Annexes and identified as a sub biological quality element.

(17) The results of the intercalibration exercise should refer to the ecological status of water bodies. If water bodies corresponding to the intercalibrated types are designated as heavily modified water bodies in accordance with Article 4(3) of Directive 2000/60/EC, the results presented in Annex I and II to this Decision could be used to derive their good ecological potential, taking into account their physical modifications and their associated water use in accordance with the normative definitions in Section 1.2.5 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC.

(18) Member States should apply the results of the intercalibration exercise to their national classification systems in order to set the boundaries between high and good status and between good and moderate status for all their national types.

(19) The information that is made available through the establishment of the monitoring programmes provided for in Article 8 of Directive 2000/60/EC and the review and update of the characteristics of river basin districts provided for in Article 5 of Directive 2000/60/EC could bring new evidence that may lead to the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the Member States’ monitoring and classification systems and eventually to a review of the results of the intercalibration exercise in order to improve their quality.

(20) Decision 2008/915/EC should therefore be repealed and replaced accordingly.

(21) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 21(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1

1.   For the purposes of section 1.4.1(iii) of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC, Member States shall use in their monitoring systems classification the values of the boundaries between classes that are set out in Annex I and II to this Decision.

2.   Member States shall complete all the necessary steps in the intercalibration exercise for the results included in Annex II to this Decision by 22 December 2016.
Article 2

Decision 2008/915/EC is repealed.
Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to 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(1), and in particular Section 1.4.1(ix) of Annex V thereof,

(1) Article 4(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 2000/60/EC requires the Member States to protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water with the aim of achieving good surface water status at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of the Directive, subject to certain derogations in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex V thereto. Article 4(1)(a)(iii) of Directive 2000/60/EC requires the Member States to protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status at the latest 15 years from the date of entry into force of the Directive, subject to certain derogations, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex V thereto. In accordance with Section 1.4.1(i) of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC the references to ecological status should be construed as references to ecological potential as regards artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

(2) The intercalibration exercise envisages a harmonised approach to define one of the main environmental objectives of Directive 2000/60/EC, namely good ecological status.

(3) Section 1.4.1 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC provides a process to ensure the comparability between the biological monitoring results of Member States as a central part of the ecological status classification. This requires the Member States’ biological monitoring results and their monitoring system classifications to be compared through an intercalibration network comprised of monitoring sites in each Member State and in each ecoregion of the Union. Directive 2000/60/EC requires the Member States to collect, as appropriate, the necessary information for the sites included in the intercalibration network, in order to enable the assessment of the consistency of the national monitoring system classifications with the normative definitions of Section 1.2 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC and the comparability of the results of monitoring system classifications between the Member States.

(4) In order to carry out the intercalibration exercise Member States are organised in Geographical Intercalibration Groups, consisting of Member States sharing particular surface water body types, as defined in Section 2 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2005/646/EC of 17 August 2005 on the establishment of a register of sites to form the intercalibration network in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(2).

(5) Section 1.4.1 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC specifies that the intercalibration exercise is to be carried out at biological element level, comparing the classification results of the national monitoring system for each biological element and for each common surface water body type among Member States in the same Geographical Intercalibration Group, and assessing the consistency of the results with the normative definitions set out in Section 1.2 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC.

(6) The Commission has facilitated two phases of the intercalibration exercise through the Institute of Environment and Sustainability of the Joint Research Centre.

(7) Under the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy three Guidance Documents (No 6(3)and 14 (two versions)(4)) were prepared to facilitate the intercalibration process. They provided an overview of the key principles of the intercalibration process and the options for carrying out the exercise including timescales and reporting requirements.

(8) By 2007 the Commission had received intercalibration results for a number of biological quality elements. They were included in Commission Decision 2008/915/EC of 30 October 2008 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise(5), which sets out the values of the boundaries between classes that Member States should use in their national monitoring system classifications. The results of the first phase of the intercalibration exercise were incomplete, in so far as not all biological quality elements were covered. It was necessary however to adopt the available results of the intercalibration exercise to inform the development of the first river basin management plans and programmes of measures in accordance with Articles 11 and 13 of Directive 2000/60/EC.

(9) The results of this first phase of the intercalibration exercise were adopted in Decision 2008/915/EC. Those results were included on a provisional basis with an understanding that further results would be subject to a new Decision when the relevant information in accordance with Section 1.4.1 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC would have been provided by the Member States.

(10) In order to close the gaps and improve the comparability of the intercalibration results in time for the second river basin management plans due in 2015, the Commission initiated a second phase of the intercalibration exercise.

(11) Annex I to this Decision sets out the results of the intercalibration exercise for which intercalibration is successfully achieved, within the limits of what is technically feasible at this point in time.

(12) Annex II to this Decision sets out the results of the intercalibration exercise for which intercalibration is partially achieved. The completion of all the necessary steps in the intercalibration exercise should be carried out in order for the results to be included in a new Decision. Accordingly, those results are provisional.

(13) Member States should complete the intercalibration exercise by 22 December 2016 to allow the Commission to move the results contained in Annexes I and II of this Decision to a sole Annex of a new Decision. This will allow for these results to be used in the third river basin planning cycle.

(14) The completion of all the necessary steps in the intercalibration exercise should also be carried out by 22 December 2016 for those Geographical Intercalibration Groups and biological quality elements where there are as yet no intercalibration results for inclusion in this Decision. This will also allow for these results to be included in a new Decision and to be used in the third river basin planning cycle.

(15) While Directive 2000/60/EC requires that intercalibration is to be carried out at biological quality element level, single parameters (e.g. chlorophyll –a concentration, or depth limits of macroalgae and angiosperms) are in some cases considered to be representative for a full biological quality element. In such cases, the results of the intercalibration exercise are set out in Annex I.

(16) There are cases where Member States have developed independent methods covering only a part of a biological quality element (e.g. independent method for macrophytes and phytobenthos for the quality element ‘macrophytes and phytobenthos’). In cases where intercalibration for such sub- biological quality elements has been successfully completed the results of the intercalibration exercise are included in the Annexes and identified as a sub biological quality element.

(17) The results of the intercalibration exercise should refer to the ecological status of water bodies. If water bodies corresponding to the intercalibrated types are designated as heavily modified water bodies in accordance with Article 4(3) of Directive 2000/60/EC, the results presented in Annex I and II to this Decision could be used to derive their good ecological potential, taking into account their physical modifications and their associated water use in accordance with the normative definitions in Section 1.2.5 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC.

(18) Member States should apply the results of the intercalibration exercise to their national classification systems in order to set the boundaries between high and good status and between good and moderate status for all their national types.

(19) The information that is made available through the establishment of the monitoring programmes provided for in Article 8 of Directive 2000/60/EC and the review and update of the characteristics of river basin districts provided for in Article 5 of Directive 2000/60/EC could bring new evidence that may lead to the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the Member States’ monitoring and classification systems and eventually to a review of the results of the intercalibration exercise in order to improve their quality.

(20) Decision 2008/915/EC should therefore be repealed and replaced accordingly.

(21) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 21(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
1.   For the purposes of section 1.4.1(iii) of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC, Member States shall use in their monitoring systems classification the values of the boundaries between classes that are set out in Annex I and II to this Decision.

2.   Member States shall complete all the necessary steps in the intercalibration exercise for the results included in Annex II to this Decision by 22 December 2016.
Decision 2008/915/EC is repealed.
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
WATER CATEGORY: RiversANNEX IGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: Alpine

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | River characterisation | Catchment (km2) | Altitude and geomorphology | Alkalinity | Flow regime

R-A1 | Pre-Alpine, small to medium, high altitude calcareous | 10-1 000 | 800-2 500  m (catchment), boulders/cobble | high (but not extremely high) alkalinity | 

R-A2 | Small to medium, high altitude, siliceous | 10-1 000 | 500-1 000  m (max. altitude of catchment 3 000  m, mean 1 500  m), boulders | Non-calcareous (granite, metamorphic). medium to low alkalinity | nival-glacial flow regimeCountries sharing the types that have been intercalibrated:
Type R-A1 | : | Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Slovenia

Type R-A2 | : | Austria, France, Italy, SpainALPINE RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebrate fauna

Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Type and country | National classification systems intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Type R-A1

Austria | Assessment of the biological quality elements – part benthic invertebrates [Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente – Teil Makrozoobenthos (Detaillierte MZB-Methode)] | 0,80 | 0,60

France | Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | 0,93 | 0,79

Germany | PERLODES – Bewertungsverfahren von Fließgewässern auf Basis des Makrozoobenthos | 0,80 | 0,60

Italy | MacrOper, based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index (STAR_ICMi) | 0,97 | 0,73

Slovenia | Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek z bentoškimi nevretenčarji v Sloveniji (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using benthic invertebrates in Slovenia) | 0,80 | 0,60

Type R-A2

Austria | Assessment of the biological quality elements – part benthic invertebrates [Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente – Teil Makrozoobenthos (Detaillierte MZB-Methode)] | 0,80 | 0,60

France (Alps) | Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | 0,93 | 0,71

France (Pyrenees) | Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | 0,94 | 0,81

Italy | MacrOper, based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index (STAR_ICMi) | 0,95 | 0,71

Spain | Iberian BMWP (IBMWP) | 0,83 | 0,53ALPINE RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: Phytobenthos

Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Type and country | National classification systems intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Type R-A1

Austria | Assessment of the biological quality elements – part phytobenthos [Leitfaden zur Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente, Teil A3 – Fließgewässer/Phytobenthos] | 0,88 | 0,56

France | IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | 0,94 | 0,78

Germany | Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Fließgewässern zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (Phylib), Modul Diatomeen | 0,735 | 0,54

Italy | ICMi (Intercalibration Common Metric) Index (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009, Phytobenthos Intercalibration Common Metric (pICM: Kelly et al., 2009) | 0,87 | 0,70

Slovenia | Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek s fitobentosom in makrofiti v Sloveniji; fitobentos (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos and macrophytes in Slovenia; Phytobenthos) | 0,80 | 0,60

Type R-A2

Austria | Assessment of the biological quality elements – part phytobenthos [Leitfaden zur Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente, Teil A3 – Fließgewässer/Phytobenthos] | 0,88 | 0,56

France | IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | 0,94 | 0,78

Spain | IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982) | 0,94 | 0,74

Italy | ICMi (Intercalibration Common Metric) Index (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009, Phytobenthos Intercalibration Common Metric (pICM: Kelly et al., 2009) | 0,85 | 0,64ALPINE RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: MacrophytesNOT APPLICABLEWATER CATEGORY: RiversGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: Central/Baltic

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | River characterisation | Catchment (km2) | Altitude & geomorphology | Alkalinity (meq/l)

R-C1 | Small lowland siliceous sand | 10-100 | lowland, dominated by sandy substrate (small particle size), 3-8 m width (bankfull size) | > 0,4

R-C2 | Small lowland siliceous – rock | 10-100 | lowland, rock material3-8 m width (bankfull size) | < 0,4

R-C3 | Small mid-altitude siliceous | 10-100 | mid-altitude, rock (granite) – gravel substrate, 2-10 m width (bankfull size) | < 0,4

R-C4 | Medium lowland mixed | 100-1 000 | lowland, sandy to gravel substrate, 8-25 m width (bankfull size) | > 0,4

R-C5 | Large lowland mixed | 1 000 -10 000 | lowland, barbel zone, variation in velocity, max. altitude in catchment: 800 m, > 25 m width (bankfull size) | > 0,4

R-C6 | Small, lowland, calcareous | 10-300 | lowland, gravel substrate (limestone), width 3-10 m (bankfull size) | > 2Countries sharing the types that have been intercalibrated:
Type R-C1 | : | Belgium (Flanders), Belgium (Wallonia), Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-C2 | : | Spain, France, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-C3 | : | Austria, Belgium (Wallonia), Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, France, Latvia, Luxembourg, United Kingdom

Type R-C4 | : | Belgium (Flanders), Belgium (Wallonia), Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-C5 | : | Belgium (Wallonia), Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Spain, Ireland. Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-C6 | : | Belgium (Wallonia), Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden, United KingdomCENTRAL-BALTIC RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebrate fauna

Ecological quality ratios of the national classification system intercalibrated

The following results apply to all types as described above.
Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Austria | Assessment of the biological quality elements – part benthic invertebrates | 0,80 | 0,60

Belgium (Flanders) | Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index Flanders (MMIF) | 0,90 | 0,70

Belgium (Wallonia) | Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN) (Norme AFNOR NF T 90 350, 1992) and Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 13 septembre 2012 relatif à l’identification, à la caractérisation et à la fixation des seuils d’état écologique applicables aux masses d’eau de surface et modifiant le Livre II du Code de l’Environnement, contenant le Code de l’Eau. Moniteur belge 12.10.2012 | 0,97 (types R-C3,, R-C5, R-C6)0,94 (type R-C1) | 0,74 (types R-C3,, R-C5, R-C6)0,75 (type R-C1)

Czech Republic | Czech system for ecological status assessment of rivers using benthic macroinvertebrates | 0,80 | 0,60

Denmark | Danish Stream Fauna Index (DSFI) | 1,00 | 0,71

Estonia | Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment – river macroinvertebrates | 0,90 | 0,70

Germany | PERLODES – Bewertungsverfahren von Fließgewässern auf Basis des Makrozoobenthos | 0,80 | 0,60

France | Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | 0,94 | 0,80

Ireland | Quality Rating System (Q-value) | 0,85 | 0,75

Italy | MacrOper, based on STAR_ICM index calculation | 0,96 | 0,72

Luxembourg | Classification luxembourgeoise DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN) 1992, AFNOR NF-T-90-350 et circulaire DCE 2007/22 MEDD/DE/MAGE/BEMA 07/no4 du 11 avril 2007 | 0,96 | 0,72

Netherlands | KRW-maatlat | 0,80 | 0,60

Poland | RIVECOmacrofor ecological status assessment of rivers using benthic macroinvertebrates(Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index, based on STAR_ICM) | 0,91(type RC1) | 0,72 (type RC1)

Spain | METI | 0,93 | 0,70

Sweden | DJ-index (Dahl & Johnson 2004) | 0,80 | 0,60

United Kingdom | River Invertebrate Classification Tool (RICT)- WHPT | 0,97 | 0,86CENTRAL-BALTIC RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes

Ecological quality ratios of the national classification system intercalibrated
Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Type | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Austria | AIM for Rivers (Austrian Index Macrophytes for rivers) | RC-3 | 0,875 | 0,625

Belgium (Flanders) | MAFWAT – Flemish macrophyte assessment system | R-C1 | 0,80 | 0,60

Belgium (Wallonia) | IBMR-WL – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers (Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 13 septembre 2012 relatif à l’identification, à la caractérisation et à la fixation des seuils d’état écologique applicables aux masses d’eau de surface et modifiant le Livre II du Code de l’Environnement, contenant le Code de l’Eau. Moniteur belge 12.10.2012) | R-C3 | 0,925 | 0,607

Denmark | DSPI – Danish Stream Plant Index | R-C1 | 0,70 | 0,50

R-C4 | 0,70 | 0,50

Germany | Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Fließgewässern zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (Phylib), Modul Makrophyten | R-C1 | 0,745 | 0,495

R-C3 | 0,80 | 0,55

R-C4 | 0,575 | 0,395

France | French standard NF T90-395 (2003-10-01). Qualité de l’eau – Détermination de l’indice biologique macrophytique en rivière (IBMR) | R-C3 | 0,93 | 0,79

R-C4 | 0,905 | 0,79

Ireland | MTR – IE – Mean Trophic Ranking | R-C4 | 0,74 | 0,62

Italy | IBMR – IT – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers | R-C1 | 0,90 | 0,80

R-C4 | 0,90 | 0,80

Luxembourg | IBMR – LU – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers | R-C3 | 0,89 | 0,79

R-C4 | 0,89 | 0,79

Poland | MIR – Macrophyte Index for Rivers | R-C1 | 0,90 | 0,65

R-C3 | 0,91 | 0,684

R-C4 | 0,90 | 0,65

United Kingdom | LEAFPACS – Ecological Classification of Rivers using Macrophytes | R-C1 | 0,80 | 0,60

R-C3 | 0,80 | 0,60

R-C4 | 0,80 | 0,60CENTRAL-BALTIC RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: Phytobenthos

Ecological quality ratios of the national classification system intercalibrated
Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Type | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Austria | Assessment of the biological quality elements – part Phytobenthos [Leitfaden zur Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente, Teil A3 -Fließgewässer/Phytobenthos] | All types, altitude < 500 m | 0,70 | 0,42

All types, altitude > 500 m | 0,71 | 0,43

Belgium (Flanders) | Proportions of Impact-Sensitive and Impact-Associated Diatoms (PISIAD) | All types | 0,80 | 0,60

Belgium (Wallonia) | IPS (Coste, in CEMAGREF, 1982; Lenoir & Coste, 1996 and Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 13 septembre 2012 relatif à l’identification, à la caractérisation et à la fixation des seuils d’état écologique applicables aux masses d’eau de surface et modifiant le Livre II du Code de l’Environnement, contenant le Code de l’Eau. Moniteur belge 12.10.2012) | All types | 0,98 | 0,73

Estonia | Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS) | All types | 0,85 | 0,70

France | IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | All types | 0,94 | 0,78

Germany | Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Fließgewässern zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (Phylib), Modul Diatomeen | R-C1 | 0,67 | 0,43

R-C3 | 0,67 | 0,43

R-C4 | 0,61 | 0,43

R-C5 | 0,73 | 0,55

Ireland | Revised form of Trophic Diatom Index (TDI) | All types | 0,93 | 0,78

Italy | ICMi (Intercalibration Common Metric) Index (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009, Phytobenthos Intercalibration Common Metric (pICM: Kelly et al., 2009) | All types | 0,84 | 0,65

Luxembourg | Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS) | All types | 0,90 | 0,70

Netherlands | KRW Maatlat | All types | 0,80 | 0,60

Poland | Indeks Okrzemkowy IO dla rzek (Diatom Index for rivers) | All types | 0,80 | 0,58

Spain | Diatom multimetric (MDIAT) | R-C2, R-C3, R-C4 | 0,93 | 0,70

Sweden | Swedish assessment methods, Swedish EPA regulations (NFS 2008:1) based on Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS) | All types | 0,89 | 0,74

United Kingdom | Diatom Assessment for River Ecological Status (DARLEQ2) | All types | 1,00 | 0,75WATER CATEGORY: RiversGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: Eastern Continental

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | River characterisation | Ecoregion | Catchment (km2) | Altitude (m) | Geology | Substrate

R-E1a | Carpathians: small to medium, mid-altitude | 10 | 10 – 1 000 | 500 – 800 | mixed | 

R-E1b | Carpathians: small to medium, mid-altitude | 10 | 10 – 1 000 | 200 – 500 | mixed | 

R-E2 | Plains: medium-sized, lowland | 11 and 12 | 100 – 1 000 | < 200 | mixed | sand and silt

R-E3 | Plains: large, lowland | 11 and 12 | > 1 000 | < 200 | mixed | sand, silt and gravel

R-E4 | Plains: medium-sized, mid-altitude | 11 and 12 | 100 – 1 000 | 200 – 500 | mixed | sand and gravel

R-EX4 | Large, mid-altitude | 10, 11 and 12 | > 1 000 | 200 – 500 | mixed | gravel and boulder

R-EX5 | Plains: small lowland | 11 and 12 | 10 – 100 | < 200 | mixed | sand and silt

R-EX6 | Plains: small, mid-altitude | 11 and 12 | 10 – 100 | 200 – 500 | mixed | gravel

R-EX7 | Balkan: small, calcareous, mid-altitude | 5 | 10-100 | 200-500 | calcareous | gravel

R-EX8 | Balkan: small to medium-sized, calcareous karst spring | 5 | 10-1 000 |  | calcareous | gravel, sand and siltCountries sharing the types that have been intercalibrated:
Type R-E1a | : | Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia

Type R-E1b | : | Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia

Type R-E2 | : | Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia

Type R-E3 | : | Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia

Type R-E4 | : | Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia

Type R-EX4 | : | Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia

Type R-EX5 | : | Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia

Type R-EX6 | : | Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia

Type R-EX7 | : | Slovenia

Type R-EX8 | : | Bulgaria, SloveniaEASTERN CONTINENTAL RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebrate fauna

Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Type | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Austria | Assessment of the biological quality elements – part benthic invertebrates | R-E4 | 0,80 | 0,60

Bulgaria | Irish biotic index | R-E1a, R-E1b | 0,86 | 0,67

Czech Republic | Czech system for ecological status assessment of rivers using benthic macroinvertebrates | R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E2, R-E3 | 0,80 | 0,60

Hungary | Hungarian Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index | R-E1b, R-E3, R-E4, R-EX5, R-EX6 | 0,80 | 0,60

Romania | Assessment method for ecological status of water bodies based on macroinvertebrates | R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E3, R-EX4 | 0,74 | 0,58

Slovenia | Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek z bentoškimi nevretenčarji v Sloveniji | R-E4, R-EX5, R-EX6 | 0,80 | 0,60

Slovakia | Slovak assessment of benthic invertebrates in rivers | R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E2, R-E3, R-E4, R-EX4 | 0,80 | 0,60EASTERN CONTINENTAL RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes

Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Type | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Austria | AIM for Rivers (Austrian Index Macrophytes for rivers) | R-E4 | 0,875 | 0,625

Bulgaria | Reference Index | R-E2, R-E3 | 0,570 | 0,370

Bulgaria | Reference Index | R-E4 | 0,510 | 0,270

Hungary | Reference Index | R-E2, R-E3 | 0,700 | 0,370

Slovenia | River Macrophyte Index | R-E2, R-E3, R-E4 | 0,800 | 0,600

Slovakia | Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers | R-E2, R-E3, R-E4 | 0,800 | 0,600EASTERN CONTINENTAL RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: Phytobenthos

Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Type | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Austria | Assessment of the biological quality elements – part phytobenthos | R-E4 | 0,70 | 0,42

Bulgaria | Ecological status assessment of rivers in Bulgaria based on IPS diatom index | R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E3 | 0,87 (national type R2, R4)0,85 (national type R7, R8) | 0,66 (national type R2, R4)0,64 (national type R7, R8)

Czech Republic | Assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos | R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E2, R-E3, R-EX4 | 0,80 | 0,60

Hungary | Ecological status assessment for rivers based on diatoms | R-E2, R-E3, R-EX5 | 0,80 | 0,60

Slovenia | Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek s fitobentosom in makrofiti v Sloveniji; fitobentos (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos and macrophytes in Slovenia; Phytobenthos) | R-E4, R-EX5, R-EX6, R-EX7, R-EX8 | 0,80 | 0,60

Slovakia | Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos | R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E2, R-E3, R-E4, R-EX4 | 0,90 | 0,70WATER CATEGORY: RiversGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: Mediterranean

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | River characterisation | Catchment (km2) | Geology | Flow regime

R-M1 | Small mediterranean streams | < 100 | Mixed (except silicious) | Highly seasonal

R-M2 | Medium mediterranean streams | 100-1 000 | Mixed (except silicious) | Highly seasonal

R-M4 | Mediterranean mountain streams |  | Non-silicious | Highly seasonal

R-M5 | Temporaty streams |  |  | TemporaryCountries sharing the types that have been intercalibrated:
Type R-M1 | : | France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain

Type R-M2 | : | France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain

Type R-M4 | : | Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Spain

Type R-M5 | : | Cyprus, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, SpainMEDITERRANEAN RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebrate faunaResults: Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Type and country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

R-M1

France | Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | 0,940 | 0,700

Italy | MacrOper (based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index ICMi) | 0,970 | 0,720

Portugal | Rivers Biological Quality Assessment Method-Benthic Invertebrates (IptIN, IptIS) | 0,870 (type 1)0,850 (type 3) | 0,678 (type 1)0,686 (type 3)

Slovenia | Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek z bentoškimi nevretenčarji v Sloveniji (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using benthic invertebrates in Slovenia) | 0,800 | 0,600

Spain | Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party (IBMWP) | 0,845 | 0,698

Spain | Iberian Mediterranean Multimetric Index—using quantitative data (IMMi-T) | 0,811 | 0,707

R-M2

France | Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | 0,940 | 0,700

Italy | MacrOper (based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index ICMi) | 0,940 | 0,700

Portugal | Rivers Biological Quality Assessment Method-Benthic Invertebrates (IptIN, IptIS) | 0,830 (type 2)0,880 (type 4) | 0,693 (type 2)0,676 (type 4)

Slovenia | Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek z bentoškimi nevretenčarji v Sloveniji (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using benthic invertebrates in Slovenia) | 0,800 | 0,600

Spain | Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party (IBMWP) | 0,845 | 0,698

Spain | Iberian Mediterranean Multimetric Index—using quantitative data (IMMi-T) | 0,811 | 0,707

R-M4

France | Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | 0,940 | 0,700

Cyprus | STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index (STAR_ICMi) | 0,972 | 0,729

Italy | MacrOper (based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index ICMi) | 0,940 | 0,700

Spain | Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party (IBMWP) | 0,840 | 0,700

Spain | Iberian Mediterranean Multimetric Index—using quantitative data (IMMi-T) | 0,850 | 0,694

R-M5

Cyprus | STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index (STAR_ICMi) | 0,982 | 0,737

Italy | MacrOper (based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index ICMi) | 0,970 | 0,730

Portugal | Rivers Biological Quality Assessment Method-Benthic Invertebrates (IptIN, IptIS) | 0,973 (type 5)0,961 (type 6) | 0,705 (type 5)0,708 (type 6)

Slovenia | Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek z bentoškimi nevretenčarji v Sloveniji (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using benthic invertebrates in Slovenia) | 0,800 | 0,600

Spain | Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party (IBMWP) | 0,830 | 0,630

Spain | Iberian Mediterranean Multimetric Index—using quantitative data (IMMi-T) | 0,830 | 0,620MEDITERRANEAN RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: MacrophytesResults: Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Type and country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

R-M1, 2, 4

Cyprus | IBMR – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers | 0,795 | 0,596

France | French standard NF T90-395 (2003-10-01) Qualité de l’eau – Détermination de l’indice biologique macrophytique en rivière (IBMR) | 0,930 | 0,745

Greece | IBMR – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers | 0,750 | 0,560

Italy | IBMR – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers | 0,900 | 0,800

Portugal | IBMR – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers | 0,920 | 0,690

Slovenia | RMI – River Macrophyte Index | 0,800 | 0,600

Spain | IBMR – Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers | 0,950 | 0,740MEDITERRANEAN RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: PhytobenthosResults: Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Type and country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

R-M1

France | IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | 0,940 | 0,780

Italy | ICMi (Intercalibration Common Metric) Index (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009) | 0,800 | 0,610

Portugal | IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982) | 0,970 (type 1)0,910 (type 3) | 0,730 (type 1)0,680 (type 3)

Slovenia | Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek s fitobentosom in makrofiti v Sloveniji; fitobentos (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos and macrophytes in Slovenia; Phytobenthos) | 0,800 | 0,600

Spain | IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982) | 0,937 | 0,727

R-M2

France | IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | 0,940 | 0,780

Italy | ICMi (Intercalibration Common Metric) Index (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009) | 0,800 | 0,610

Portugal | IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982) | 0,910 (type 2)0,970 (type 4) | 0,680 (type 2)0,730 (type 4)

Slovenia | Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek s fitobentosom in makrofiti v Sloveniji; fitobentos (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos and macrophytes in Slovenia; Phytobenthos) | 0,800 | 0,600

Spain | IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982) | 0,938 | 0,727

R-M4

Cyprus | IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982) | 0,910 | 0,683

France | IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009)AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | 0,940 | 0,780

Italy | ICMi (Intercalibration Common Metric) Index (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009) | 0,800 | 0,610

Spain | IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982) | 0,935 | 0,727

R-M5

Cyprus | IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982) | 0,958 | 0,718

Italy | ICMi (Intercalibration Common Metric) Index (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009) | 0,880 | 0,650

Portugal | IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982) | 0,940 | 0,700

Slovenia | Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek s fitobentosom in makrofiti v Sloveniji; fitobentos (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos and macrophytes in Slovenia; Phytobenthos) | 0,800 | 0,600

Spain | IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982) | 0,935 | 0,700WATER CATEGORY: RiversGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: Northern

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | River characterisation | Catchment area (of stretch) | Altitude & geomorphology | Alkalinity (meq/l) | Organic material (mg Pt/l)

R-N1 | Small lowland siliceous moderate alkalinity | 10-100 km2 | < 200 m or below the highest coastline | 0,2 – 1 | < 30(< 150 in Ireland)

R-N3 | Small/medium lowland organic low alkalinity | 10-1 000  km2 |  30

R-N4 | Medium lowland siliceous moderate alkalinity | 100-1 000  km2 | 0,2 – 1 | < 30

R-N5 | Small mid-altitude siliceous low alkalinity | 10-100 km2 | Between lowland and highland | < 0,2 | < 30Countries sharing the types that have been intercalibrated:
Type R-N1 | : | Finland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-N3 | : | Finland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-N4 | : | Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-N5 | : | Finland, Norway, Sweden, United KingdomNORTHERN RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebrate fauna (methods sensitive for organic enrichment and general degradation)Results: ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

The following results apply to all types as described above
Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Finland | Multimetric system, first version established | 0,80 | 0,60

Ireland | Quality Rating System (Q-value) | 0,85 | 0,75

Norway | ASPT | 0,99 | 0,87

Sweden | DJ-index (Dahl & Johnson 2004) | 0,80 | 0,60

United Kingdom | River Invertebrate Classification Tool (RICT)- WHPT | 0,97 | 0,86NORTHERN RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebrate fauna (methods sensitive for acidification)Results: ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

The following results apply to clear, low alkalinity river types
Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Norway | AcidIndex2 (Modified Raddum index2) (river acidification) | 0,675 | 0,515

United Kingdom – Scotland | WFD-AWICsp: WFD Acid Water Indicator Community species | 0,910 | 0,830

United Kingdom – England and Wales | WFD-AWICsp: WFD Acid Water Indicator Community species | 0,980 | 0,890Results: ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

The following results apply to humic, low alkalinity river types
Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Sweden | MISA: Multimetric Invertebrate Stream Acidification index | 0,550 | 0,400

United Kingdom | WFD-AWICsp: WFD Acid Water Indicator Community species | 0,930 | 0,830NORTHERN RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: PhytobenthosResults: Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated

The following results apply to all types as described above
Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Finland | Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS) | 0,91 | 0,80

Sweden | Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS) | 0,89 | 0,74

Ireland | Revised form of Trophic Diatom Index (TDI) | 0,93 | 0,78

United Kingdom | DARLEQ 2 | 1,00 | 0,75

Norway | Periphyton Index of Trophic Status (PIT) | 0,99 (Ca ≤ 1 mg/L)0,95 (Ca > 1 mg/L) | 0,83NORTHERN RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: MacrophytesINTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDWATER CATEGORY: RiversGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUPS: AllBIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT: Fish faunaOverview of regional groups that have been established for the river fish intercalibration:

Lowland-Midland group– Belgium (Flanders), Belgium (Wallonia), France, Germany, Netherlands, Lithuania, Luxembourg, UNITED KINGDOM (England and Wales), Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Denmark, Hungary

Nordic group– Finland, Ireland, Sweden, UNITED KINGDOM (Scotland and Northern Ireland), Norway

Alpine-type Mountains group– Austria, France, Germany, Slovenia

Mediterranean South Atlantic group– Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece

Danubian group– Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria

Results:Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated

Lowland-midland group

Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Belgium Flanders | Upstream and Lowland IBI | 0,850 | 0,650

Belgium Wallonia | IBIP (Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 13 septembre 2012 relatif à l’identification, à la caractérisation et à la fixation des seuils d’état écologique applicables aux masses d’eau de surface et modifiant le Livre II du Code de l’Environnement, contenant le Code de l’Eau. Moniteur belge 12.10.2012) | 0,958 | 0,792

France | Classification française DCE Indice Poissons Rivière (IPR). AFNOR NF-T-90-344. Arrêté du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | 1,131 | 0,835

Germany | FIBS – fischbasiertes Bewertungssystem für Fließgewässer zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland | 1,086 | 0,592

Luxembourg | Classification française DCE Indice Poissons Rivière (IPR). AFNOR NF-T-90-344. Arrêté du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface | 1,131 | 0,835

Netherlands | NLFISR | 0,800 | 0,600

Lithuania | LZI | 0,940 | 0,720

Nordic group

Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Finland | Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) – type L2 | 0,665 | 0,499

Finland | Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) – type L3 | 0,658 | 0,493

Finland | Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) – type M1 | 0,709 | 0,532

Finland | Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) – type M2 | 0,734 | 0,550

Finland | Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) – type M3 | 0,723 | 0,542

Ireland | FCS2 IRELAND | 0,845 | 0,540

Sweden | Swedish method VIX | 0,739 | 0,467

United Kingdom – Northern Ireland | IR_FCS2 | 0,845 | 0,540

United Kingdom –Scotland | FCS2 Scotland | 0,850 | 0,600

Mediterranean group

Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Portugal | F_IBIP | 0,850 | 0,675

Spain | IBIMED – type T2 | 0,816 | 0,705

Spain | IBIMED – type T3 | 0,929 | 0,733

Spain | IBIMED – type T4 | 0,864 | 0,758

Spain | IBIMED – type T5 | 0,866 | 0,650

Spain | IBIMED – type T6 | 0,916 | 0,764

Danubian group

Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Czech Republic | Czech multimetric method CZI | 0,780 | 0,585

Romania | EFI+ European Fish index (cyprinid_wading type) | 0,939 | 0,700

Romania | EFI+ European Fish index (salmonid type) | 0,911 | 0,755

Slovakia | Fish Index of SlovakiaFIS | 0,710 | 0,570

Alpine group

Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good | Good-Moderate

Austria | FIA | 0,875 | 0,625

France | FBI | 1,131 | 0,876

Germany | FIBS – fischbasiertes Bewertungssystem für Fließgewässer zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland | 1,086 | 0,592

Slovenia | SIFAIR | 0,800 | 0,600WATER CATEGORY: RiversGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUPS: All – Very Large Rivers

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | River characterisation | Catchment area (of stretch) | Alkalinity (meq/l)

R-L1 | Very large low alkalinity rivers | > 10 000  km2 | < 0,5

R-L2 | Very large medium to high alkalinity rivers | > 10 000  km2 | > 0,5Countries sharing the types that have been intercalibrated:
Type R-L1 | : | Finland, Norway, Sweden

Type R-L2 | : | Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, SwedenVERY LARGE RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: PhytobenthosResults: ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

The following results apply to low alkalinity very large rivers (type R-L1)
Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Finland | Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (Specific Pollution Sensitivity Index SPI) | 0,80 | 0,60

Sweden | Benthic algae in running water – diatom analysis | 0,89 | 0,74The following results apply to medium to high alkalinity very large rivers (type R-L2)
Country | National classification system intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Austria | Assessment of the Biological Quality Elements – part phytobenthos | 0,85 | 0,57

Czech Republic | Assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos | 0,80 | 0,60

Estonia | Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment – river phytobenthos | 0,83 | 0,64

Germany | Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Fließgewässern zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (Phylib), Modul Diatomeen | 0,725 | 0,545

Hungary | Ecological status assessment for rivers based on diatoms | 0,762 | 0,60

Netherlands | WFD-metrics for natural water types | 0,80 | 0,60

Slovakia | Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos | 0,90 | 0,70

Slovenia | Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek s fitobentosom in makrofiti v Sloveniji; fitobentos (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos and macrophytes in Slovenia; Phytobenthos) | 0,80 | 0,60WATER CATEGORY: RiversGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: All – Very Large RiversBIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENTS: Macrophytes, Phytoplankton, Fish, Benthic InvertebratesINTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDWATER CATEGORY: LakesGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: Alpine

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | Lake characterisation | Altitude (m above sea level) | Mean depth (m) | Alkalinity (meq/l) | Lake size (km2)

L-AL3 | Lowland or mid-altitude, deep, moderate to high alkalinity (alpine influence), large | 50 – 800 | > 15 | > 1 | > 0,5

L-AL4 | Mid-altitude, shallow, moderate to high alkalinity (alpine influence), large | 200 – 800 | 3 – 15 | > 1 | > 0,5Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Types L-AL3 | : | Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia

Types L-AL4 | : | Austria, France, Germany, ItalyALPINE LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Phytoplankton

Member State | National classification systems intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

Austria | Evaluation of the biological quality elements, Part B2 – phytoplankton | 0,80 | 0,60

Germany | PSI (Phyto-Seen-Index) – Bewertungsverfahren für Seen mittels Phytoplankton zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland | 0,80 | 0,60

Italy | Italian Phytoplankton Assessment Method (IPAM) | 0,80 | 0,60

Slovenia | Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja jezer s fitoplanktonom v Sloveniji (Ecological status assessment system for lakes using phytoplankton in Slovenia) | 0,80 | 0,60ALPINE LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes

Member State | National classification systems intercalibrated |  | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

Austria | AIM for Lakes (Austrian Index Macrophytes for lakes) | L-AL3+L-AL4 | 0,80 | 0,60

France | IBML (French Macrophyte Index for Lakes) | L-AL3+L-AL4 | 0,92 | 0,72

Germany | PHYLIB for Lakes (German Assessment system for Macrophytes & Phytobenthos for lakes for implementation of the WFD): Module Macrophytes | L-AL3+L-AL4 | 0,76 | 0,51

Germany | PHYLIB for Lakes (German Assessment system for Macrophytes & Phytobenthos for lakes for implementation of the WFD): Modules Macrophytes & Phytobenthos | LAL4 | 0,74 | 0,47

Italy | MacroIMMI (Macrophytic index for the evaluation of the ecological quality of the Italian lakes) | L-AL3+L-AL4 | 0,80 | 0,60

Slovenia | SMILE (Slovenian macrophyte-based index for lake ecosystems) | L-AL3 | 0,80 | 0,60ALPINE LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebrates

Member State | National classification systems intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

Slovenia | Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja jezer z bentoškimi nevretenčarji v Sloveniji (Ecological status assessment system for lakes using benthic invertebrates in Slovenia) | 0,80 | 0,60

Germany | AESHNA – Bewertungsverfahren für das eulitorale Makrozoobenthos in Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland | 0,80 | 0,60ALPINE LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Fish faunaResults:Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated
Member State | National classification systems intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

Austria | ALFI (Austrian lake fish index): A multimetric index to assess the ecological status of alpine lakes based on fish fauna. | 0,80 | 0,60

Germany | DELAFI_SITE – Deutsches probennahmestandort-spezifisches Bewertungsverfahren für Fische in Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie | 0,85 | 0,69

Italy | Lake Fish Index (LFI) | 0,82 | 0,64WATER CATEGORY: LakesGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: Central / Baltic

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | Lake characterisation | Altitude (m above sea level) | Mean depth (m) | Alkalinity (meq/l) | Residence time (years)

L-CB1 | Lowland, shallow, calcareous |  1 | 1 – 10

L-CB2 | Lowland, very shallow, calcareous | < 200 |  1 | 0,1 – 1Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Types L-CB1 | : | Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom

Types L-CB2 | : | Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, United KingdomCENTRAL / BALTIC LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: PhytoplanktonResults: Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated
 | National classification systems intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

Belgium (Flanders) | Flemish phytoplankton assessment method for lakes | 0,80 | 0,60

Germany | PSI (Phyto-See-Index) – Bewertungsverfahren für Seen mittels Phytoplankton zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland – German Phyto-Lake-Index (Phyto-See-Index) | 0,80 | 0,60

Denmark | Danish Phytoplankton Index | 0,80 | 0,60

Estonia | Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment – lake phytoplankton | 0,80 | 0,60

Ireland | IE Lake Phytoplankton Index | 0,80 | 0,60

Netherlands | WFD- metrics for natural watertypes | 0,80 | 0,60

Poland | Phytoplankton method for Polish Lakes (PMPL) | 0,80 | 0,60

United Kingdom | Phytoplankton Lakes Assessment Tool (PLUTO) | 0,80 | 0,60CENTRAL / BALTIC LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: MacrophytesResults: Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated
Member State | National classification systems intercalibrated | IC Type | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

Belgium (Flanders) | Flemish macrophyte assessment system | All types | 0,80 | 0,60

Denmark | Danish Lake Macrophytes Index | All types | 0,80 | 0,60

Estonia | Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment – lake macrophytes | LCB1 | 0,78 | 0,52

LCB2 | 0,76 | 0,50

Germany | Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (Phylib), Modul Makrophyten | All types | 0,80 | 0,60

Lithuania | Lithuanian macrophyte assessment method | All types | 0,75 | 0,50

Latvia | Latvian macrophyte assessment method | All types | 0,80 | 0,60

Netherlands | WFD-metrics for natural water types | All types | 0,80 | 0,60

Poland | Macrophyte based indication method for lakes – Ecological Status Macrophyte Index ESMI (multimetric) | All types | 0,68 | 0,41

United Kingdom | LEAFPACS lake macrophyte classification tool(*1) | All types | 0,80 | 0,66CENTRAL / BALTIC LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebratesResults: Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated
Member State | National classification systems intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate

Belgium (Flanders) | Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index Flanders (MMIF) | 0,90 | 0,70

Germany | AESHNA – Bewertungsverfahren für das eulitorale Makrozoobenthos in Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland | 0,80 | 0,60

Estonia | Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment – lake macroinvertebrates | 0,86 | 0,70

Lithuania | Lithuanian Lake Macroinvertebrate Index | 0,74 | 0,50

Netherlands | WFDi – Metric for Natural Watertypes | 0,80 | 0,60

United Kingdom | Chironomid Pupal Exuvial Technique (CPET) | 0,77 | 0,64CENTRAL / BALTIC LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP

Biological Quality Element: Fish faunaINTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDEASTERN / CONTINENTAL LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP

Biological Quality Element: PhytoplanktonINTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDEASTERN CONTINENTAL LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: MacrophytesINTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDEASTERN CONTINENTAL LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebratesINTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDEASTERN CONTINENTAL LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUPBiological Quality Element: Fish fauna

INTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDWATER CATEGORY: LakesGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: Mediterranean

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | Lake characterization | Altitude (m) | Annual mean precipitation (mm) and T (°C) | Mean depth (m) | Area (km2) | Catchment (km2) | Alkalinity (meq/l)

L-M5/7 | Reservoirs, deep, large,siliceous, “wet”areas |  800 and /or  15 | 0,5-50 | < 20 000 | < 1

L-M8 | Reservoirs, deep, large,calcareous |  15 | 0,5-50 |  1Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Types L-M5/7 | : | Greece, France, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain

Types L-M8 | : | Cyprus, France, Italy, Romania, SpainMEDITERRANEAN LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: PhytoplanktonResults: Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good | Good-moderate

LM 5/7

Spain | Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton (MASRP). | n.d.(*2) | 0,58

Portugal | Reservoirs Biological Quality Assessment Method – Phytoplankton (New Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton: NMASRP). | n.d. | 0,60

Italy | New Italian Method (NITMET) | n.d. | 0,60

L-M8

Spain | Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton (MASRP). | n.d. | 0,60

Cyprus | New Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton (NMASRP). | n.d. | 0,60

Italy | New Italian Method (NITMET) | n.d. | 0,60MEDITERRANEAN LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: MacrophytesINTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDMEDITERRANEAN LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebratesINTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDMEDITERRANEAN LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP

Biological Quality Element: Fish faunaINTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDWATER CATEGORY: LakesGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: NorthernNORTHERN LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Phytoplankton

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | Lake characterisation | Altitude (m above sea level) | Mean depth (m) | Alkalinity (meq/l) | Colour (mg Pt/l)

L-N1 | Lowland, shallow, moderate alkalinity, clear | < 200 | 3 – 15 | 0,2 – 1 | < 30

L-N2a | Lowland, shallow, low alkalinity, clear | < 200 | 3 – 15 | < 0,2 | < 30

L-N2b | Lowland, deep, low alkalinity, clear |  15 | < 0,2 | < 30

L-N3a | Lowland, shallow, low alkalinity, meso-humic | < 200 | 3 – 15 | < 0,2 | 30 – 90

L-N5 | Mid-altitude, shallow, low alkalinity, clear | 200-800 | 3 – 15 | < 0,2 | < 30

L-N6a | Mid-altitude, shallow, low alkalinity, meso-humic | 200-800 | 3 – 15 | < 0,2 | 30 – 90

L-N8a | Lowland, shallow, moderate alkalinity, meso-humic | < 200 | 3 – 15 | 0,2 – 1 | 30 – 90Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Types L-N1, L-N2a, L-N3a, LN-8a | : | Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.

Types LN-2b | : | Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom

Types LN-5, LN-6a | : | Norway, SwedenResults: Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good | Good-moderate

Finland | Finnish phytoplankton assessment method for lakes | 0,80 | 0,60

Ireland | IE Lake Phytoplankton Index | 0,80 | 0,60

Norway | Lake phytoplankton ecological status classification method | 0,80 | 0,60

Sweden | Ecological assessment methods for lakes. quality factor phytoplankton | 0,80 | 0,60

United Kingdom | Phytoplankton Lakes Assessment Tool (PLUTO) | 0,80 | 0,60NORTHERN LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | Lake characterisation | Alkalinity (meq/l) | Color (mg Pt/l)

L-N-M 101 | Low alkalinity, clear | 0,05 – 0,2 | < 30

L-N-M 102 | Low alkalinity, humic | 0,05 – 0,2 | > 30

L-N-M 201 | Moderate alkalinity, clear | 0,2 – 1,0 | < 30

L-N-M 202 | Moderate alkalinity, humic | 0,2 – 1,0 | > 30

L-N-M 301a | High alkalinity, clear, atlantic subtype | > 1,0 | < 30

L-N-M 302a | High alkalinity, humic, atlantic subtype | > 1,0 | > 30Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Types 101, 102, 201 and 202 | : | Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.

Type 301a | : | Ireland, United Kingdom.

Type 302a | : | Ireland, United KingdomResults: Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate

Finland | Finnish macrophyte classification system (Finnmac) | 0,8 (all types) | 0,6 (all types)

Ireland | Free Macrophyte Index | 0,9 (all types) | 0,68 (all types)

Norway | National macrophyte index (Trophic Index – TIc) | Type 101: 0,98Type 102: 0,96Type 201: 0,95Type 202: 0,99 | Type 101: 0,87Type 102: 0,87Type 201: 0,75Type 202: 0,77

Sweden | Trophic Macrophyte Index (TMI) | Type 101: 0,93Type 102: 0,93Type 201: 0,89Type 202: 0,91 | Type 101: 0,80Type 102: 0,83Type 201: 0,78Type 202: 0,78

United Kingdom | LEAFPACS lake macrophyte classification tool(*3) | 0,8 (all types) | 0,66 (all types)

United Kingdom | Free Macrophyte Index(*4) | 0,9 (all types) | 0,68 (all types)NORTHERN LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebrates

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | Lake characterisation | Ecoregion | Altitude(m absl) | Alkalinity (meq/l) | Colour (mg Pt/l)

Lake littoral acidification

L-N-BF1 | Lowland/mid-altitude, low alkalinity, clear | n.d. | < 800 | 0,05 – 0,2 | < 30

Lake profundal eutrophication

L-N-BF2 | Ecoregion 22, low alkalinity, clear and humic | 22 | Area > 1 km2, max depth > 6 m | < 0,2 | n.d.Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Types L-N-BF1 | : | Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Ireland, Finland

Types L-N-BF2 | : | Finland, SwedenResults: Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good | Good-moderate

Lake littoral acidification

Sweden | MILA: Multimetric Invertebrate Lake Acidification index | 0,85 | 0,60

United Kingdom | LAMM (Lake Acidification Macroinvertebrate Metric) | 0,86 | 0,70

Norway | MultiClear: Multimetric Invertebrate Index for Clear Lakes | 0,95 | 0,74

Lake profundal eutrophication

Sweden | BQI (Benthic Quality Index) | 0,84 | 0,67

Finland | BQI (Benthic Quality Index) | 0,75 | 0,63NORTHERN LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Fish fauna

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | Lake characterisation | Lake area km2 | Alkalinity (meq/l) | Colour (mg Pt/l)

L-N-F1 | Dimictic clear water lakes | < 40 | < 0,2 | < 30

L-N-F2 | Dimictic humic lakes | < 5 | < 0,2 | 30-90Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Types L-N-F1 | : | Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom

Types L-N-F2 | : | Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United KingdomResults: Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

Finland | EQR4 | 0,80 | 0,60

Ireland | FIL2 | 0,76 | 0,53

United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) | FIL2 | 0,76 | 0,53WATER CATEGORY: LakesGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: Cross-GIG Phytobenthos

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | Lake characterisation | Alkalinity (meq/l) | Ecoregions

HA | High alkalinity lakes | > 1 | Central-Baltic, Mediterranean

MA | Moderate alkalinity lakes | 0,2-1 | Central-Baltic, Northern

LA | Low alkalinity lakes | < 0,2 | NorthernCountries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Types HA | : | Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia, United Kingdom

Types MA | : | Belgium, France, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, United Kingdom

Types LA | : | Finland, Ireland, Sweden, United KingdomCROSS-GIG LAKES INTERCALIBRATION RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Sub-Biological Quality Element: PhytobenthosResults: Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

HA type

Belgium (Flanders) | Proportions of Impact-Sensitive and Impact-Associated Diatoms (PISIAD) | 0,80 | 0,60

Germany | Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (Phylib), Modul Phytobenthos | 0,80 | 0,55

Hungary | MIL- Multimetric Index for Lakes | 0,80 | 0,69

Ireland | Lake Trophic Diatom Index (IE) | 0,90 | 0,63

Poland | PL IOJ (Multimetryczny Indeks Okrzemkowy dla Jezior = Multimetric Diatom Index for Lakes) | 0,91 | 0,76

Sweden | IPS | 0,89 | 0,74

Slovenia | Trophic Index (TI) | 0,80 | 0,60

United Kingdom | DARLEQ 2 | 0,92 | 0,70

MA type

Belgium (Flanders) | Proportions of Impact-Sensitive and Impact-Associated Diatoms (PISIAD) | 0,80 | 0,60

Finland | IPS | 0,80 | 0,64

Ireland | Lake Trophic Diatom Index (IE) | 0,90 | 0,63

Sweden | IPS | 0,89 | 0,74

United Kingdom | DARLEQ 2 | 0,93 | 0,66

LA type

Ireland | Lake Trophic Diatom Index (IE) | 0,90 | 0,66

United Kingdom | DARLEQ 2 | 0,92 | 0,70WATER CATEGORY: Coastal and transitionalGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: Baltic Sea GIG

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | Surface salinityPsu | Bottom salinity | Exposure | Ice days | Other Characteristics

BT 1 | 0-8Oligohaline | 0 – 8 | Very sheltered | — | Polish Vistula lagoon and Lithuanian Curonian lagoon.

BC1 | 0,5 – 6Oligohaline | 1 – 6 | Exposed | 90 – 150 | Sites in the Quark and the Bothnian Sea, extending to the Archipelago Sea (for phytoplankton the latter is excluded and integrated in type BC9)Influence of humic substances

BC3 | 3 – 6Oligohaline | 3 – 6 | Sheltered | 90 – 150 | Finnish and Estonian coasts of Gulf of Finland

BC4 | 5 – 8Lower mesohaline | 5 – 8 | Sheltered | < 90 | Sites of Estonia and Latvia in the Gulf of Riga

BC5 | 6 – 8Lower mesohaline | 6 – 12 | Exposed | < 90 | Sites in the southeastern Baltic Sea along the coast of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland

BC6 | 8 – 12Mid mesohaline | 8 -12 | Sheltered | < 90 | Sites along the Western Baltic Sea at the southern Swedish coast and the southeastern Danish coast

BC7 | 6 – 8Mid mesohaline | 8 – 11 | Exposed | < 90 | Western Polish coast and eastern German coast

BC8 | 13 -18Upper mesohaline | 18 -23 | Sheltered | < 90 | Danish and German coasts in the Western Baltic Sea

BC9 | 3 – 6Lower mesohaline | 3 – 6 | Moderately exposed to exposed | 90 – 150 | Sites in the western Gulf of Finland, Archipelago Sea and Asko archipelago (only for phytoplankton)Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Coastal waters
Type BC1 | : | Finland, Sweden.

Type BC3 | : | Finland, Estonia

Type BC4 | : | Estonia, Latvia

Type BC5 | : | Lithuania, Latvia, Poland.

Type BC6 | : | Sweden, Denmark.

Type BC7 | : | Germany, Poland.

Type BC8 | : | Germany, Denmark.

Type BC9 | : | Finland, Sweden, Estonia (type only relevant for phytoplankton)

Transitional waters
Type BT1 | : | Lithuania, Poland.BALTIC SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebrate faunaResults: Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Coastal waters
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

BC1

Finland | BBI- Finnish Brackish water Benthic Index | 0,96 | 0,56

Sweden | BQI–Swedish multimetric biological quality index (soft sediment infauna) | 0,77 | 0,31

BC3

Estonia | ZKI – Estonian coastal water macrozoobenthos community index | 0,39 | 0,24

Finland | BBI – Finnish Brackish water Benthic Index | 0,94 | 0,56

BC6

Denmark | DKI ver2 – Danish Quality Index version 2 | 0,84 | 0,68

Sweden | BQI–Swedish multimetric biological quality index (soft sediment infauna) | 0,76 | 0,27

BC8

Denmark | DKI ver2 – Danish Quality Index version 2 | 0,86 | 0,72

Germany | MarBIT – Marine Biotic Index Tool | 0,8 | 0,6

Transitional waters:

INTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDBALTIC SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: PhytoplanktonResults: Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Coastal waters
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios of the national classification systems

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

BC7

Germany | German coastal phytoplankton method | 0,8 | 0,6

Poland | Polish coastal phytoplankton method | 0,8 | 0,6

BC8

Denmark | Danish coastal phytoplankton method | 0,8 | 0,6

Germany | German coastal phytoplankton method | 0,8 | 0,6Results for parameter indicative of biomass (Chlorophyll a):SEE ANNEX II
Transitional waters:

INTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDBALTIC SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macroalgae and Angiosperms

Coastal waters
Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

BC3

Estonia | EPI- Estonian coastal water phytobenthos Index (macroalgae and angiosperms) | 0,98 | 0,86

Finland | Fucus depth limit (macroalgae) | 0,92 | 0,79
Ecological quality ratios and parameter values for parameter indicative of abundance (Depth limit of Eelgrass Zostera marina): Ecological quality ratios and parameter values
Type and country | Ecological Quality Ratios for the national classification systems | Parameter values/rangesDepth limit (m)Eelgrass Zostera marina

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary | High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

BC8

Denmark and GermanyOpen coast | 0,90 | 0,74 | 8,5 | 7

Transitional waters:

INTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDWATER CATEGORY: Coastal and transitionalGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: North East Atlantic

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | Characterisation | Salinity (psu)Tidal Range(m)Depth (m) | Current Velocity (knots)Exposure | MixingResidence Time

Type for opportunistic blooming macroalgae, seagrasses, saltmarshes and benthic invertebrate fauna

NEA1/26 | Open oceanic or enclosed seas, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow | > 30Mesotidal 1 – 5< 30 | Medium 1 – 3Exposed or sheltered | Fully mixedDays (to weeks in the Wadden Sea)

Subtypes for intertidal macroalgae

NEA1/26 A2 | Open oceanic, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallowTemperate waters (mainly, > 13 °C) and high irradiance (mainly, PAR > 29 Mol/m2day) | > 30Mesotidal 1–5< 30 | Medium 1 – 3Exposed or sheltered | Fully mixed Days

NEA1/26 B21 | Open oceanic or enclosed seas, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallowCool waters (mainly, < 13 °C) and medium irradiance (mainly, PAR  30Mainly mesotidal 1–5< 30 | Medium 1 – 3Exposed or sheltered | Fully mixedDays

Subtypes for phytoplankton

NEA1/26a | Open oceanic, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow | > 30Mesotidal 1 – 5< 30 | Medium 1 – 3Exposed or sheltered | Fully mixedDays

NEA1/26b | Enclosed seas, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow | > 30Mesotidal 1 – 5< 30 | Medium 1 – 3Exposed or sheltered | Fully mixedDays

NEA1/26c | Enclosed seas, enclosed or sheltered, partly stratified | > 30Microtidal/Mesotidal < 1 – 5< 30 | Medium 1 – 3Exposed or sheltered | Partly stratifiedDays to weeks

NEA1/26d | Scandinavian coast, exposed or sheltered, shallow | > 30Microtidal < 1< 30 | Low < 1Exposed or moderately exposed | Partly stratifiedDays to weeks

NEA1/26e | Areas of upwelling, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow | > 30Mesotidal 1 – 5< 30 | Medium 1 – 3Exposed or sheltered | Fully mixedDays

Types for phytoplankton, macroalgae, seagrasses, saltmarshes, benthic invertebrate fauna and fish (transitional waters)

NEA3/4 | Polyhaline, Exposed or moderately exposed (Wadden Sea type) | Polyhaline 18 – 30Mesotidal 1 – 5< 30 | Medium 1 – 3Exposed or moderately exposed | Fully mixedDays

NEA7 | Deep fjordic and sea loch systems | > 30Mesotidal 1 -5> 30 | Low < 1Sheltered | Fully mixedDays

NEA8a | Skagerrak Inner Arc Type, polyhaline, microtidal, moderately exposed, shallow | Polyhaline 25 – 30Microtidal  30 | Low < 1Moderately exposed | Fully mixedDays to weeks

NEA8b | Skagerrak Inner Arc Type, polyhaline, microtidal, moderately sheltered, shallow | Polyhaline 10 – 30Microtidal < 1< 30 | Low < 1Sheltered to moderately exposed | Partly stratifiedDays to weeks

NEA9 | Fjord with a shallow sill at the mouth with a very deep maximum depth in the central basin with poor deepwater exchange | Polyhaline 25 – 30Microtidal  30 | Low < 1Sheltered | Partly stratifiedWeeks

NEA10 | Skagerrak Outer Arc Type, polyhaline, microtidal, exposed, deep | Polyhaline 25 – 30Microtidal  30 | Low < 1Exposed | Partly stratifiedDays

NEA11 | Transitional Waters | Oligohaline 0 – 35Micro to macrotidal< 30 | VariableSheltered or moderately exposed | Partly permanently stratifiedDays to weeksCountries sharing the types that have been intercalibrated:
Coastal waters
Type NEA1/26 opportunistic blooming macroalgae, seagrasses, saltmarshes | : | Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom

Type NEA1/26 A2 intertidal macroalgae | : | France, Spain, Portugal

Type NEA1/26 B21 intertidal macroalgae | : | France, Ireland, Norway, United Kingdom

Type NEA1/26a phytoplankton | : | Spain, France, Ireland, Norway, United Kingdom

Type NEA1/26b phytoplankton | : | Belgium, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom

Type NEA1/26c phytoplankton | : | Germany, Denmark

Type NEA1/26d phytoplankton | : | Denmark

Type NEA1/26e phytoplankton | : | Portugal, Spain

Type NEA3/4 | : | Germany, Netherlands

Type NEA7 | : | Norway, United Kingdom

Type NEA8a | : | Norway, Sweden

Type NEA8b | : | Denmark, Sweden

Type NEA9 | : | Norway, Sweden

Type NEA10 | : | Norway, Sweden

Transitional waters
Type NEA11 | : | Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, United KingdomNORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebrate faunaResults: Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated

The results are applicable to soft sediment habitats only (subtidal mud/sand habitats).
Coastal waters
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

Type NEA8b

Denmark | DKI | 0,84 | 0,68

Sweden | BQI | 0,71 | 0,54

Types NEA8a/9/10

Norway | NQI | 0,82 | 0,63

Sweden | BQI | 0,71 | 0,54Results for coastal waters, Types NEA 1/26 AND NEA7:SEE ANNEX II
Transitional waters:

INTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDNORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Phytoplankton

Coastal waters

Phytoplankton: parameter indicative of biomass parameter (Chlorophyll a)

Results: Ecological quality ratios and parameter values

Parameter values are expressed in μg/l as the 90 %ile value calculated over the defined growing season in a six year period. The results relate to geographic areas within the types as described in the technical report.
Member State | Ecological Quality Ratios | Values (μg/l, 90 %ile)

High-good | Good-moderate | High-good | Good-moderate

NEA1/26c |  |  |  | 

Denmark | 0,67 | 0,44 | 5 | 7,5

Germany | 0,67 | 0,44 | 5 | 7,5Results for coastal waters, Types NEA 1/26a, NEA 1/26b, NEA1/26e, NEA 3/4, NEA9, NEA10: SEE ANNEX II
Transitional waters:

INTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDNORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macroalgae and angiosperms

Coastal waters

Results: Macroalgae – parameter intertidal or subtidal macroalgae rocky bottom
Coastal waters
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

Type NEA1/26 A2 intertidal macroalgae

France | CCO – Cover, Characteristic species, Opportunistic species on intertidal rocky bottoms | 0,80 | 0,60

Portugal | PMarMAT – Marine Macroalgae Assessment Tool | 0,80 | 0,61

Spain | CFR – Quality of Rocky Bottoms | 0,81 | 0,60

Spain | RICQI – Rocky Intertidal Community Quality Index | 0,82 | 0,60

Spain | RSL – Reduced Species List | 0,75 | 0,48

Type NEA1/26 B21 intertidal macroalgae

Ireland | RSL – Rocky Shore Reduced Species List | 0,80 | 0,60

Norway | RSLA – Rocky Shore Reduced Species List | 0,80 | 0,60

United Kingdom | RSL – Rocky Shore Reduced Species List | 0,80 | 0,60

Type NEA7 intertidal macroalgae

Norway | RSLA – Rocky Shore Reduced Species List with Abundance | 0,80 | 0,60

United Kingdom | RSL – Rocky Shore Reduced Species List | 0,80 | 0,60

Type NEA8a/9/10 subtidal macroalgae

Norway | MSMDI – Multi Species Maximum Depth Index | 0,80 | 0,60

Sweden | MSMDI – Multi Species Maximum Depth Index | 0,80 | 0,60Results for Macroalgae – parameter intertidal blooming macroalgae Type NEA1/26: SEE ANNEX II
Transitional waters:

Results for Macroalgae – parameter intertidal blooming macroalgae – NEA11: SEE ANNEX II

Results: Angiosperms – subBQE indicative of seagrasses

Results: Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Coastal waters
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

Type NEA3/4

Germany | SG – Bewertungssystem für Makroalgen und Seegräser der Küsten- und Übergangsgewässer zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland | 0,80 | 0,60

Netherlands | Monitoring beds of SG per waterbody using arial photographs, ground truth and specifyting surface & density per species | 0,80 | 0,60Results for Angiosperms (subBQE indicative of seagrasses) Type 1/26: SEE ANNEX II
Transitional waters:

Results for Angiosperms (subBQE indicative of seagrasses) NEA11: SEE ANNEX II

NORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Fish (Transitional Waters)Results: Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

Belgium | EBI – Zeeschelde Estuarine Biotic Index | 0,85 | 0,615

France | ELFI – Estuarine and Lagoon Fish Index | 0,91 | 0,675

Germany | FAT – TW – Fischbasiertes Bewertungswerkzeug für Übergangsgewässer der norddeutschen Ästuare | 0,84 | 0,62

Ireland | TFCI – Transitional Fish Classification Index | 0,81 | 0,58

Netherlands | FAT – TW – WFD Fish index for transitional waters, type O2 | 0,80 | 0,60

Portugal | EFAI – Estuarine Fish Assessment Index | 0,865 | 0,70

Spain | AFI – AZTI’s Fish Index | 0,78 | 0,55

Spain | TFCI – Transitional Fish Classification Index | 0,90 | 0,65

United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) | TFCI – Transitional Fish Classification Index | 0,81 | 0,58WATER CATEGORY: Coastal and transitionalGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: Mediterranean SeaTypology with regional common intercalibration types has been defined for phytoplankton only (see below).

For benthic invertebrate fauna, macroalgae and seagrasses the intercalibration results apply to the entire Mediterranean Sea covered by the Member States.

MEDITERRANEAN GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebrate faunaResults: Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems
Coastal waters

The following results apply to soft sediments only
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

Methods including diversity parameter

Italy | M-AMBI | 0,81 | 0,61

Slovenia | M-AMBI | 0,83 | 0,62

Methods not including diversity parameter

Cyprus | Bentix | 0,75 | 0,58

France | AMBI | 0,83 | 0,58

Greece | Bentix | 0,75 | 0,58

Spain | BOPA | 0,95 | 0,54

Spain | MEDOCC | 0,73 | 0,47

Transitional waters:

INTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDMEDITERRANEAN SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Phytoplankton

Description of types for coastal waters that have been intercalibrated (applicable for phytoplankton only)
Type | Description | Density (kg/m3) | Annual mean salinity (psu)

Type I | Highly influenced by freshwater input | < 25 | < 34,5

Type IIA,IIA Adriatic | Moderately influenced by freshwater input (continent influence) | 25-27 | 34,5-37,5

Type IIIW | Continental coast, not influenced by freshwater input (Western Basin). | > 27 | > 37,5

Type IIIE | Not influenced by freshwater input (Eastern Basin) | > 27 | > 37,5

Type Island-W | Island coast (Western Basin) | All range | All rangeCountries sharing the types that have been intercalibrated:
Type I | : | France, Italy

Type IIA | : | France, Spain, Italy

Type IIA Adriatic | : | Italy, Slovenia

Type Island-W | : | France, Spain, Italy

Type IIIW | : | France, Spain, Italy

Type IIIE | : | Greece, Cyprus

Coastal waters

Results for parameter indicative of biomass (Chlorophyll a): SEE ANNEX II
Transitional waters:

INTERCALIBRATION NOT COMPLETEDMEDITERRANEAN SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macroalgae and Angiosperms

Coastal waters
Macroalgae: sub-BQE indicative of Macroalgae and Angiosperms

Results: Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

The following results apply to the upper infralittoral zone (3,5 – 0,2 m depth) in rocky coasts:
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

Cyprus | EEI-c – Ecological Evaluation Index | 0,76 | 0,48

France | CARLIT – Cartography of Littoral and upper-sublittoral rocky-shore communities | 0,75 | 0,60

Greece | EEI-c – Ecological Evaluation Index | 0,76 | 0,48

Italy | CARLIT – Cartography of Littoral and upper-sublittoral rocky-shore communities | 0,75 | 0,60

Slovenia | EEI-c – Ecological Evaluation Index | 0,76 | 0,48

Spain | CARLIT – Cartography of Littoral and upper-sublittoral rocky-shore communities | 0,75 | 0,60

Seagrasses: sub-BQE indicative of Macroalgae and Angiosperms

Results: Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

Cyprus | PREI – Posidonia oceanica Rapid Easy Index | 0,775 | 0,55

France | PREI – Posidonia oceanica Rapid Easy Index | 0,775 | 0,55

Italy | PREI – Posidonia oceanica Rapid Easy Index | 0,775 | 0,55

Spain | POMI – Posidonia oceanica Multivariate Index | 0,775 | 0,55

Spain | Valencian-CS | 0,775 | 0,55

Macroalgae and Angiosperms
Transitional waters:

Results: Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated
Member State | National classification methods intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

France | Exclame | 0,80 | 0,60

Greece | EEI-c – Ecological Evaluation Index | 0,70 | 0,40

Italy | MaQI – Macrophyte Quality Index | 0,80 | 0,60WATER CATEGORY: Coastal and transitionalGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: Black Sea

Description of common intercalibration types
Type | Description

CW-BL1 | Coastal watersMesohaline, microtidal (< 1 m), shallow (< 30 m), moderately exposed, mixed substratumCountries sharing the types that have been intercalibrated:

Bulgaria and Romania

BLACK SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Phytoplankton

Coastal waters

Results: Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Country | National classification systems intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Bulgaria | IBI | 0,80 | 0,63

Romania | IBI | 0,80 | 0,63

(*1)  Will be used in England, Wales and Scotland

(*2)  High-Good boundary is not defined for reservoirs (both LM5/7 and LM8 types are reservoirs)

(*3)  Will be used in England, Wales and Scotland

(*4)  Will be used also in the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)
WATER CATEGORY: Coastal and transitionalANNEX IIGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: Baltic Sea GIGBALTIC SEA GEOPGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: PhytoplanktonResults for parameter indicative of biomass (Chlorophyll a):Ecological quality ratios and parameter values

The following results refer to summer mean May/June – September
Coastal waters
Member State | Ecological Quality Ratios for the national classification systems | Parameter values / rangesChlorophyll-a (μg/l)

High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary | High-good boundary | Good-moderate boundary

BC1

Finland | 0,76 | 0,59 | 1,7 | 2,2

Sweden | 0,87 | 0,65 | 1,5 | 2,0

BC9

Estonia | 0,82 | 0,67 | 2,2 | 2,7

Finland | 0,79 | 0,65 | 1,9 | 2,3

Sweden | 0,80 | 0,67 | 1,5 | 1,8WATER CATEGORY: Coastal and transitionalGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: North East AtlanticNORTHEAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebrate faunaResults:Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated

The results are applicable to soft sediment habitats only (subtidal mud/sand habitats).
Coastal waters
Types NEA 1/26 and NEA7
Country | National classification systems intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Types NEA1/26 and NEA 7 (Indices responsive primarily to organic enrichment and toxic pollution pressures in soft sediment habitats)

Denmark | DKI | 0,67 | 0,53

France | M-AMBI | 0,77 | 0,53

Germany | M-AMBI | 0,85 | 0,70

Ireland | IQI | 0,75 | 0,64

Netherlands | BEQI2 | 0,78 | 0,58

Norway | NQI | 0,92 | 0,81

Portugal | P-BAT | 0,79 | 0,58

Spain | M-AMBI | 0,77 | 0,53

Spain | BO2A | 0,78 | 0,44

United Kingdom | IQI | 0,75 | 0,64

Types NEA1/26 (Index responsive to multiple pressures in multiple habitats)

Belgium | BEQI | 0,80 | 0,60NORTHEAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Phytoplankton

Coastal waters

Phytoplankton: parameter indicative of biomass parameter (Chlorophyll a)Results:Ecological quality ratios and parameter values

Parameter values are expressed in μg/l as the 90 %ile value calculated over the defined growing season in a six year period. The results relate to geographic areas within the types as described in the technical report.
Type | Ecological Quality Ratios | Values (μg/l, 90 %ile)

High-Good | Good-Moderate | High-Good | Good-Moderate

NEA 1/26a

France | 0,67 | 0,33 | 5 | 10

Ireland | 0,67 | 0,33 | 5 | 10

Norway | 0,67 | 0,33 | 2,5 | 5

Spain South | 0,67 | 0,33 | 5 | 10

Spain North East Cantabrian | 0,67 | 0,33 | 1,5 | 3

Spain North Central Cantabrian | 0,67 | 0,33 | 3 | 6

United Kingdom | 0,67 | 0,33 | 5 | 10

NEA1/26b

Belgium | 0,67 | 0,44 | 10 | 15

France | 0,67 | 0,44 | 10 | 15

Netherlands | 0,67 | 0,44 | 10 | 15

United Kingdom | 0,67 | 0,44 | 10 | 15

NEA3/4

Germany | 0,66 | 0,44 | 7-10 | 11-15

Netherlands | 0,66 | 0,44 | 10-14 | 15-21

NEA1/26e

Portugal | 0,67 | 0,44 | 6 – 8 | 9 – 12

Spain | 0,67 | 0,44 | 6 – 8 | 9 – 12

NEA9

Norway | 0,67 | 0,33 | 2,5 | 5

Sweden | 0,67 | 0,33 | 2,5 | 5

NEA10

Norway | 0,67 | 0,33 | 3 | 6

Sweden | 0,67 | 0,33 | 3 | 6NORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS

Biological Quality Element: Macroalgae and AngiospermsMacroalgae: parameter intertidal blooming macroalgae soft bottom, indicative of abundance

Results:Ecological quality ratios of national parameter intercalibrated
Coastal waters
Country | National classification systems intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Type NEA1/26

Germany | Bewertungssystem für opportunistische Makroalgen auf eulitoralen Weichböden der Küstengewässer | 0,80 | 0,60

Ireland | OGA Tool – Opportunistic Green Macroalgal Abundance | 0,80 | 0,60

United Kingdom | Opportunistic Macroalgae Blooming Tool OMBT | 0,80 | 0,60

Transitional waters
Country | National classification systems intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Type NEA11

Ireland | OGA Tool – Opportunistic Green Macroalgal Abundance | 0,80 | 0,60

Portugal | BMI – Blooming Macroalgal Index (Assessment of blooming macroalgae) | 0,80 | 0,60

United Kingdom | Opportunistic Macroalgae Blooming Tool OMBT | 0,80 | 0,60Results:Angiosperms – sub-BQE indicative of Macroalgae and Angiosperms
Coastal waters:

Results:Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Country | National classification systems intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Type NEA1/26

France | SBQ – Seagrass beds quality in coastal and transitional water bodies | 0,80 | 0,60

Germany | SG – Bewertungssystem für Makroalgen und Seegräser der Küsten- und Übergangsgewässer zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland | 0,80 | 0,60

Ireland | Intertidal Seagrass Abundance and Species Composition | 0,80 | 0,63

Transitional waters:

Results:Ecological quality ratios of the national classification systems intercalibrated
Type and country | National parameter intercalibrated | Ecological Quality Ratios

High-Good boundary | Good-Moderate boundary

Type NEA11

France | SBQ – Seagrass beds quality in coastal and transitional water bodies | 0,80 | 0,60

Germany | SG – Bewertungssystem für Makroalgen und Seegräser der Küsten- und Übergangsgewässer zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmen-richtlinie in Deutschland | 0,80 | 0,60

Ireland | Intertidal Seagrass Abundance and Species Composition | 0,83 | 0,70

Netherlands | Monitoring beds of SG per waterbody using arial photographs, ground truth and specifying surface & density per species | 0,80 | 0,60

Portugal | SQI – Seagrass quality index for intertidal TW | 0,80 | 0,60WATER CATEGORY: Coastal and transitionalGEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP: Mediterranean

Biological Quality Element: PhytoplanktonPhytoplankton: parameter indicative of biomass: (Chlorophyll –a)

Coastal waters

Results:Ecological quality ratios and parameter values

Parameter values are expressed in μg/l of Chlorophylla, for the 90th percentile calculated over the year in at least a five year period. The results relate to geographic areas within the types as described in the technical report.
Type | Ecological Quality Ratios | Values (μg/l, 90 %ile)

High-Good | Good-Moderate | High-Good | Good-Moderate

Type II-A

France | 0,80 | 0,53 | 2,38 | 3,58

Spain | 0,80 | 0,53 | 2,38 | 3,58

Italy (Tyrrhenian) | 0,76 | 0,59 | 1,06 | 2,19

Type II-A Adriatic

Italy | 0,75 | 0,58 | 1,58 | 3,81

Slovenia | 0,75 | 0,58 | 1,58 | 3,81

Type Island – W

France | 0,80 | 0,50 | 0,75 | 1,20

Spain | 0,80 | 0,50 | 0,75 | 1,20

Type III-W

France | 0,80 | 0,50 | 1,13 | 1,80

Spain | 0,80 | 0,50 | 1,13 | 1,80

Type III-E

Cyprus | 0,80 | 0,20 | 0,10 | 0,40

Greece | 0,80 | 0,20 | 0,10 | 0,40
			

Pending: 32013D0426

                                January 16, 2026                            

7.8.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 211/5

(1)
African swine fever is a highly contagious and fatal virus infection of domestic pigs and wild boar, with the potential for rapid spread, notably through products obtained from infected animals and contaminated inanimated objects.

(2)
Since the presence of African swine fever was confirmed in Georgia in 2007, Russia has been reporting numerous outbreaks of that disease in pigs and wild boar throughout the European part of its territory. Following the report of an outbreak of African swine fever in the Leningrad region of Russia, bordering Estonia and Finland, Commission Decision 2011/78/EU of 3 February 2011 on certain measures to prevent the trasmission of the African swine fever virus from Russia to the Union(2)was adopted, laying down provisions to prevent the introduction of that disease into the Union.

(3)
In accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 2004/68/EC of 26 April 2004 laying down animal health rules for the importation into and transit through the Community of certain live ungulate animals, amending Directives 90/426/EEC and 92/65/EEC and repealing Directive 72/462/EEC(3)and Article 3 of Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption(4), imports of pigs and pig meat products from third countries or parts of the territory of third countries where the presence of African swine fever is confirmed is not authorised.

(4)
The measures laid down in Decision 2011/78/EU ensure that vehicles which have transported pigs and which enter the Union from infected areas are appropriately cleansed and disinfected. Those measures take into account the risk of spread of the disease considering transmission paths and virus survival in the environment.

(5)
In June 2013, Belarus reported the confirmation of an outbreak of African swine fever in backyard pigs in the region of Grodno, close to the border with Lithuania and Poland. Considering the vicinity of that region with the Union, there is a high risk of introduction of African swine fever into the Union territory. The measures laid down in Decision 2011/78/EU should therefore also apply with regard to vehicles which enter the Union from Belarus.

(6)
In particular, it is appropriate to ensure that all vehicles which have transported live animals and feed and which enter the Union from infected areas are appropriately cleansed and disinfected, and that such cleansing and disinfection is properly documented.

(7)
The transporter should ensure that for each vehicle used for the transport of animals or feed a register containing information on cleansing and disinfection is retained for a minimum period of three years.

(8)
In the interest of clarity and simplification of Union legislation, Decision 2011/78/EU should be repealed and replaced by this Decision.

(9)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

(a)
subject the livestock vehicle to proper cleansing and disinfection at a place designated by the competent authority, as close as possible to the point of entry into the Member State concerned and issue the certificate referred to in paragraph 2;

(b)
where there is no suitable facility for the cleansing and disinfection in the vicinity of the point of entry or there is a risk that residual animal products escape from the uncleaned livestock vehicle, refuse the entry into the Union of the livestock vehicle not satisfactorily cleansed and disinfected.

Belarus

Russia

—
the most recent unloading of animals and feed took place at:Country, region, placeDate(dd.mm.yy)Time(hh:mm)
Country, region, place
Date(dd.mm.yy)
Time(hh:mm)

Country, region, place
Date(dd.mm.yy)
Time(hh:mm)

Country, region, place
Date(dd.mm.yy)
Time(hh:mm)

—
following unloading, the livestock vehicle was subject to cleansing and disinfection. The cleansing and disinfection included the livestock or loading compartment, [the truck body] (delete if not applicable), the loading ramp, the equipment having been in contact with animals, the wheels and the driver’s cabin and protective clothes/boots used during unloading.The cleansing and disinfection took place:Country, region, placeDate(dd.mm.yy)Time(hh:mm)
Country, region, place
Date(dd.mm.yy)
Time(hh:mm)

Country, region, place
Date(dd.mm.yy)
Time(hh:mm)

Country, region, place
Date(dd.mm.yy)
Time(hh:mm)

—
the disinfectant has been used at the concentrations recommended by the manufacturer (to indicate the substance and its concentration):…

—
the next loading of animals will take place at:Country, region, placeDate(dd.mm.yy)Time(hh:mm)DatePlaceSignature of the operator/driverName of operator/driver of the livestock vehicle and its business address (in block letters)
Country, region, place
Date(dd.mm.yy)
Time(hh:mm)

Date
Place
Signature of the operator/driver

Name of operator/driver of the livestock vehicle and its business address (in block letters)

Country, region, place
Date(dd.mm.yy)
Time(hh:mm)

Date
Place
Signature of the operator/driver

Name of operator/driver of the livestock vehicle and its business address (in block letters)

Country, region, place
Date(dd.mm.yy)
Time(hh:mm)

Date
Place
Signature of the operator/driver

Name of operator/driver of the livestock vehicle and its business address (in block letters)

1.
the livestock vehicle(s) with the registration plate(s) … today and by visual control found the livestock or loading compartment, [the truck body](1), the loading ramp, the equipment having been in contact with animals, the wheels and the driver’s cabin and protective clothes/boots used during unloading satisfactorily cleansed.(insert number(s) of registration plate(s))

2.
the information presented in the form of a declaration as set out in Annex II to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/426/EU or in another equivalent form covering the items set out in Annex II to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/426/EU.DateTimePlaceCompetent authoritySignature of the official(*1)Stamp:Name in block letters:…
Date
Time
Place
Competent authority
Signature of the official(*1)

Stamp:
Name in block letters:…

Date
Time
Place
Competent authority
Signature of the official(*1)

Stamp:
Name in block letters:…

Date
Time
Place
Competent authority
Signature of the official(*1)

Stamp:
Name in block letters:…

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries(1), and in particular Article 22(6) thereof,

(1) African swine fever is a highly contagious and fatal virus infection of domestic pigs and wild boar, with the potential for rapid spread, notably through products obtained from infected animals and contaminated inanimated objects.

(2) Since the presence of African swine fever was confirmed in Georgia in 2007, Russia has been reporting numerous outbreaks of that disease in pigs and wild boar throughout the European part of its territory. Following the report of an outbreak of African swine fever in the Leningrad region of Russia, bordering Estonia and Finland, Commission Decision 2011/78/EU of 3 February 2011 on certain measures to prevent the trasmission of the African swine fever virus from Russia to the Union(2)was adopted, laying down provisions to prevent the introduction of that disease into the Union.

(3) In accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 2004/68/EC of 26 April 2004 laying down animal health rules for the importation into and transit through the Community of certain live ungulate animals, amending Directives 90/426/EEC and 92/65/EEC and repealing Directive 72/462/EEC(3)and Article 3 of Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption(4), imports of pigs and pig meat products from third countries or parts of the territory of third countries where the presence of African swine fever is confirmed is not authorised.

(4) The measures laid down in Decision 2011/78/EU ensure that vehicles which have transported pigs and which enter the Union from infected areas are appropriately cleansed and disinfected. Those measures take into account the risk of spread of the disease considering transmission paths and virus survival in the environment.

(5) In June 2013, Belarus reported the confirmation of an outbreak of African swine fever in backyard pigs in the region of Grodno, close to the border with Lithuania and Poland. Considering the vicinity of that region with the Union, there is a high risk of introduction of African swine fever into the Union territory. The measures laid down in Decision 2011/78/EU should therefore also apply with regard to vehicles which enter the Union from Belarus.

(6) In particular, it is appropriate to ensure that all vehicles which have transported live animals and feed and which enter the Union from infected areas are appropriately cleansed and disinfected, and that such cleansing and disinfection is properly documented.

(7) The transporter should ensure that for each vehicle used for the transport of animals or feed a register containing information on cleansing and disinfection is retained for a minimum period of three years.

(8) In the interest of clarity and simplification of Union legislation, Decision 2011/78/EU should be repealed and replaced by this Decision.

(9) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1

For the purposes of this Decision, ‘livestock vehicle’ means any vehicle which has been used for the transport of live animals or for the transport of feed to animal holdings.
Article 2

1.   Member States shall ensure that the operator or driver of a livestock vehicle on arrival from the third countries or from the parts of the territory of third countries listed in Annex I provides to the competent authority of the Member State at the point of entry in the Union information showing that the livestock or loading compartment, where applicable the truck body, the loading ramp, the equipment having been in contact with animals, the wheels and the driver’s cabin and protective clothes/boots used during unloading have been cleansed and disinfected after the last unloading of animals or feed.

2.   The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be included in a declaration completed in accordance with the model set out in Annex II or in any other equivalent format which includes at least the information set out in that model.

3.   The original of the declaration referred to in paragraph 2 shall be kept by the competent authority for a period of three years.
Article 3

1.   The competent authority of the Member State of the point of entry into the Union shall check livestock vehicles entering the Union from the third countries or from the parts of the territory of third countries listed in Annex I, in order to determine whether they have been satisfactorily cleansed and disinfected.

2.   Where the checks referred to in paragraph 1 show that cleansing and disinfection have been satisfactorily carried out or where the competent authorities have in addition to the measures provided for in paragraph 1 ordered, organised and carried out additional disinfection of previously cleansed livestock vehicles used for the transport of animals, the competent authority shall attest that fact by issuing a certificate in accordance with the model set out in Annex III.

3.   Where the checks referred to in paragraph 1 show that cleansing and disinfection of the livestock vehicle have not been satisfactorily carried out, the competent authority shall take one of the following measures:

(a)

subject the livestock vehicle to proper cleansing and disinfection at a place designated by the competent authority, as close as possible to the point of entry into the Member State concerned and issue the certificate referred to in paragraph 2;

(b)

where there is no suitable facility for the cleansing and disinfection in the vicinity of the point of entry or there is a risk that residual animal products escape from the uncleaned livestock vehicle, refuse the entry into the Union of the livestock vehicle not satisfactorily cleansed and disinfected.

4.   The original of the certificate referred to in paragraph 2 shall be kept by the operator or driver of the livestock vehicle for a period of three years. A copy of that certificate shall be kept by the competent authority for a period of three years.
Article 4

Decision 2011/78/EU is repealed.
Article 5

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries(1), and in particular Article 22(6) thereof,

(1) African swine fever is a highly contagious and fatal virus infection of domestic pigs and wild boar, with the potential for rapid spread, notably through products obtained from infected animals and contaminated inanimated objects.

(2) Since the presence of African swine fever was confirmed in Georgia in 2007, Russia has been reporting numerous outbreaks of that disease in pigs and wild boar throughout the European part of its territory. Following the report of an outbreak of African swine fever in the Leningrad region of Russia, bordering Estonia and Finland, Commission Decision 2011/78/EU of 3 February 2011 on certain measures to prevent the trasmission of the African swine fever virus from Russia to the Union(2)was adopted, laying down provisions to prevent the introduction of that disease into the Union.

(3) In accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 2004/68/EC of 26 April 2004 laying down animal health rules for the importation into and transit through the Community of certain live ungulate animals, amending Directives 90/426/EEC and 92/65/EEC and repealing Directive 72/462/EEC(3)and Article 3 of Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption(4), imports of pigs and pig meat products from third countries or parts of the territory of third countries where the presence of African swine fever is confirmed is not authorised.

(4) The measures laid down in Decision 2011/78/EU ensure that vehicles which have transported pigs and which enter the Union from infected areas are appropriately cleansed and disinfected. Those measures take into account the risk of spread of the disease considering transmission paths and virus survival in the environment.

(5) In June 2013, Belarus reported the confirmation of an outbreak of African swine fever in backyard pigs in the region of Grodno, close to the border with Lithuania and Poland. Considering the vicinity of that region with the Union, there is a high risk of introduction of African swine fever into the Union territory. The measures laid down in Decision 2011/78/EU should therefore also apply with regard to vehicles which enter the Union from Belarus.

(6) In particular, it is appropriate to ensure that all vehicles which have transported live animals and feed and which enter the Union from infected areas are appropriately cleansed and disinfected, and that such cleansing and disinfection is properly documented.

(7) The transporter should ensure that for each vehicle used for the transport of animals or feed a register containing information on cleansing and disinfection is retained for a minimum period of three years.

(8) In the interest of clarity and simplification of Union legislation, Decision 2011/78/EU should be repealed and replaced by this Decision.

(9) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
For the purposes of this Decision, ‘livestock vehicle’ means any vehicle which has been used for the transport of live animals or for the transport of feed to animal holdings.
1.   Member States shall ensure that the operator or driver of a livestock vehicle on arrival from the third countries or from the parts of the territory of third countries listed in Annex I provides to the competent authority of the Member State at the point of entry in the Union information showing that the livestock or loading compartment, where applicable the truck body, the loading ramp, the equipment having been in contact with animals, the wheels and the driver’s cabin and protective clothes/boots used during unloading have been cleansed and disinfected after the last unloading of animals or feed.

2.   The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be included in a declaration completed in accordance with the model set out in Annex II or in any other equivalent format which includes at least the information set out in that model.

3.   The original of the declaration referred to in paragraph 2 shall be kept by the competent authority for a period of three years.
1.   The competent authority of the Member State of the point of entry into the Union shall check livestock vehicles entering the Union from the third countries or from the parts of the territory of third countries listed in Annex I, in order to determine whether they have been satisfactorily cleansed and disinfected.

2.   Where the checks referred to in paragraph 1 show that cleansing and disinfection have been satisfactorily carried out or where the competent authorities have in addition to the measures provided for in paragraph 1 ordered, organised and carried out additional disinfection of previously cleansed livestock vehicles used for the transport of animals, the competent authority shall attest that fact by issuing a certificate in accordance with the model set out in Annex III.

3.   Where the checks referred to in paragraph 1 show that cleansing and disinfection of the livestock vehicle have not been satisfactorily carried out, the competent authority shall take one of the following measures:

(a)

subject the livestock vehicle to proper cleansing and disinfection at a place designated by the competent authority, as close as possible to the point of entry into the Member State concerned and issue the certificate referred to in paragraph 2;

(b)

where there is no suitable facility for the cleansing and disinfection in the vicinity of the point of entry or there is a risk that residual animal products escape from the uncleaned livestock vehicle, refuse the entry into the Union of the livestock vehicle not satisfactorily cleansed and disinfected.

4.   The original of the certificate referred to in paragraph 2 shall be kept by the operator or driver of the livestock vehicle for a period of three years. A copy of that certificate shall be kept by the competent authority for a period of three years.
Decision 2011/78/EU is repealed.
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
LIST OF THIRD COUNTRIES AND PARTS OF THE TERRITORY OF THIRD COUNTRIES WHERE THE PRESENCE OF AFRICAN SWINE FEVER VIRUS IS CONFIRMEDANNEX I

 | Belarus

 | Russia
MODEL DECLARATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE OPERATOR/DRIVER OF THE LIVESTOCK VEHICLE ENTERING THE UNION FROM THIRD COUNTRIES OR PARTS OF THE TERRITORY OF THIRD COUNTRIES WHERE THE PRESENCE OF AFRICAN SWINE FEVER IS CONFIRMEDANNEX III, the operator/driver of the livestock vehicle … declare that:

(insert number of registration plate)

…
— | the most recent unloading of animals and feed took place at:Country, region, placeDate(dd.mm.yy)Time(hh:mm) | Country, region, place | Date(dd.mm.yy) | Time(hh:mm) |  |  |  | 

Country, region, place | Date(dd.mm.yy) | Time(hh:mm)

 |  | 
— | following unloading, the livestock vehicle was subject to cleansing and disinfection. The cleansing and disinfection included the livestock or loading compartment, [the truck body] (delete if not applicable), the loading ramp, the equipment having been in contact with animals, the wheels and the driver’s cabin and protective clothes/boots used during unloading.The cleansing and disinfection took place:Country, region, placeDate(dd.mm.yy)Time(hh:mm) | Country, region, place | Date(dd.mm.yy) | Time(hh:mm) |  |  |  | 

Country, region, place | Date(dd.mm.yy) | Time(hh:mm)

 |  | 
— | the disinfectant has been used at the concentrations recommended by the manufacturer (to indicate the substance and its concentration):…

— | the next loading of animals will take place at:Country, region, placeDate(dd.mm.yy)Time(hh:mm)DatePlaceSignature of the operator/driverName of operator/driver of the livestock vehicle and its business address (in block letters) | Country, region, place | Date(dd.mm.yy) | Time(hh:mm) |  |  |  |  | Date | Place | Signature of the operator/driver |  |  |  | Name of operator/driver of the livestock vehicle and its business address (in block letters)

Country, region, place | Date(dd.mm.yy) | Time(hh:mm)

 |  | 
Date | Place | Signature of the operator/driver

 |  | 

Name of operator/driver of the livestock vehicle and its business address (in block letters)
CLEANSING AND DISINFECTION CERTIFICATE FOR LIVESTOCK VEHICLES ENTERING THE UNION FROM THIRD COUNTRIES OR PARTS OF THE TERRITORY OF THIRD COUNTRIES WHERE THE PRESENCE OF AFRICAN SWINE FEVER IS CONFIRMEDANNEX IIII, the undersigned official certify that I have checked:
1. | the livestock vehicle(s) with the registration plate(s) … today and by visual control found the livestock or loading compartment, [the truck body](1), the loading ramp, the equipment having been in contact with animals, the wheels and the driver’s cabin and protective clothes/boots used during unloading satisfactorily cleansed.(insert number(s) of registration plate(s))

2. | the information presented in the form of a declaration as set out in Annex II to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/426/EU or in another equivalent form covering the items set out in Annex II to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/426/EU.DateTimePlaceCompetent authoritySignature of the official(*1)Stamp:Name in block letters:… | Date | Time | Place | Competent authority | Signature of the official(*1) |  |  |  |  |  | Stamp: | Name in block letters:…

Date | Time | Place | Competent authority | Signature of the official(*1)

 |  |  |  | 

Stamp: | Name in block letters:…

(1)  Delete if not applicable.

(*1)  The colour of the stamp and the signature must be different from that of the printing.

Pending: 32013D0413

                                January 16, 2026                            

1.8.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 205/13

(1)
In accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC in conjunction with point 12 of Part A of Annex III thereto, Member States shall ban the introduction into the Union of potatoes, other than potatoes intended for planting, originating in Lebanon. Pursuant to Article 15(1) of that Directive derogations from that ban may, however, be provided for if there is no risk of spreading harmful organisms.

(2)
In accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC in conjunction with point 25.2 of Section I of Part A of Annex IV thereto, Member States shall ban the introduction into the Union of potatoes unless they originate in countries known to be free fromClavibacter michiganensis(Smith) Davis et al. ssp.sepedonicus(Spieckermann and Kotthoff) Davis et al. hereinafter ‘the harmful organism concerned’, or applying provisions recognised as equivalent to the Union provisions for combatting that organism. Lebanon fulfils neither of those conditions. Pursuant to Article 15(1) of that Directive derogations from that ban may, however, be provided for if there is no risk of spreading harmful organisms.

(3)
Information supplied by Lebanon and collected in the country during a mission carried out in March 2006 by the Food and Veterinary Office, and subsequent information provided by Lebanon, has shown that potatoes, other than potatoes intended for planting, originating from the regions of Akkar and Bekaa are grown under adequate phytosanitary conditions.

(4)
Therefore, the introduction into the Union of potatoes, other than potatoes intended for planting, originating in the regions of Akkar and Bekaa in Lebanon should be permitted provided they satisfy conditions ensuring that the harmful organism concerned is not present on potatoes when they are introduced into the Union territory. Those conditions should concern the production in areas free from the harmful organism concerned, conduct of surveys of those areas, production from certified seed potatoes, handling, storage, packaging and preparation requirements.

(5)
The potatoes should be introduced into the Union through designated points of entry, to ensure effective controls and reduction of any phytosanitary risk.

(6)
Inspection requirements should be set out to ensure control of the phytosanitary risk. It should be laid down that sampling and testing is to be carried out in accordance with the existing test scheme established by Council Directive 93/85/EEC of 4 October 1993 on the control of potato ring rot(2).

(7)
The potatoes should only be introduced and moved within the Union if they are appropriately labelled to indicate the Lebanese origin and other relevant information, with the aim of preventing the potatoes from being planted and to ensure identification and traceability of the potatoes.

(8)
Member States should, after every import season, provide the Commission and the other Member States with information on the imports made, in order that the application of this Decision can be assessed.

(9)
The derogation should be for a limited period.

(10)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,

(a)
a statement ‘In accordance with EU requirements laid down in Commission Implementing Decision 2013/413/EU’;

(b)
the number of the lot;

(c)
the name of the pest free area within the meaning of point (1) of the Annex.

(a)
an indication that they originate in Lebanon;

(b)
the name of the pest free area;

(c)
the name and the identification number of the producer;

(d)
the number of the lot.

(a)
quantity of the consignment(s) concerned;

(b)
date of intended introduction;

(c)
name and address of importer.

(a)
visual inspections of the fields during the growing season;

(b)
visual examination of the harvested potatoes for symptoms of the harmful organism concerned on cut tubers;

(c)
laboratory testing on symptomatic and asymptomatic potatoes.

(a)
they are grown from seed potatoes certified in and imported from the Union into Lebanon;

(b)
they are grown from seed potatoes imported into Lebanon from a third country or parts thereof, for which the entry into the Union of seed potatoes is not prohibited pursuant to Annex III to Directive 2000/29/EC, and certified in that third country.

(a)
it is only used for handling potatoes satisfying points (1) to (5);

(b)
where it has been used for purposes other than those referred to in point (a), it has been cleaned and disinfected in an appropriate manner before being used for the purposes referred to in point (a).

(a)
they are only used for storing potatoes satisfying points (1) to (6);

(b)
where they have been used for other purposes than those referred to in point (a), it is subjected to appropriate hygiene measures before being used for the purposes referred to in point (a).

(a)
they are free from soil, leaves and other plant debris;

(b)
they are presented for introduction into the Union as lots, each lot being made up of potatoes produced by a single producer and harvested in one single area as specified in point (1); and

(c)
they are in bags, packages or other containers, each of which is labelled in accordance with Article 6.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community(1), and in particular the first indent of Article 15(1) thereof,

(1) In accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC in conjunction with point 12 of Part A of Annex III thereto, Member States shall ban the introduction into the Union of potatoes, other than potatoes intended for planting, originating in Lebanon. Pursuant to Article 15(1) of that Directive derogations from that ban may, however, be provided for if there is no risk of spreading harmful organisms.

(2) In accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC in conjunction with point 25.2 of Section I of Part A of Annex IV thereto, Member States shall ban the introduction into the Union of potatoes unless they originate in countries known to be free fromClavibacter michiganensis(Smith) Davis et al. ssp.sepedonicus(Spieckermann and Kotthoff) Davis et al. hereinafter ‘the harmful organism concerned’, or applying provisions recognised as equivalent to the Union provisions for combatting that organism. Lebanon fulfils neither of those conditions. Pursuant to Article 15(1) of that Directive derogations from that ban may, however, be provided for if there is no risk of spreading harmful organisms.

(3) Information supplied by Lebanon and collected in the country during a mission carried out in March 2006 by the Food and Veterinary Office, and subsequent information provided by Lebanon, has shown that potatoes, other than potatoes intended for planting, originating from the regions of Akkar and Bekaa are grown under adequate phytosanitary conditions.

(4) Therefore, the introduction into the Union of potatoes, other than potatoes intended for planting, originating in the regions of Akkar and Bekaa in Lebanon should be permitted provided they satisfy conditions ensuring that the harmful organism concerned is not present on potatoes when they are introduced into the Union territory. Those conditions should concern the production in areas free from the harmful organism concerned, conduct of surveys of those areas, production from certified seed potatoes, handling, storage, packaging and preparation requirements.

(5) The potatoes should be introduced into the Union through designated points of entry, to ensure effective controls and reduction of any phytosanitary risk.

(6) Inspection requirements should be set out to ensure control of the phytosanitary risk. It should be laid down that sampling and testing is to be carried out in accordance with the existing test scheme established by Council Directive 93/85/EEC of 4 October 1993 on the control of potato ring rot(2).

(7) The potatoes should only be introduced and moved within the Union if they are appropriately labelled to indicate the Lebanese origin and other relevant information, with the aim of preventing the potatoes from being planted and to ensure identification and traceability of the potatoes.

(8) Member States should, after every import season, provide the Commission and the other Member States with information on the imports made, in order that the application of this Decision can be assessed.

(9) The derogation should be for a limited period.

(10) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Authorisation to provide for derogation

Article 1

By way of derogation from Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC in conjunction with point 12 of Part A of Annex III to that Directive, and from Article 5(1) of that Directive in conjunction with point 25.2 of Section I of Part A of Annex IV to that Directive, Member States may authorise the introduction into their territory of potatoes, as set out in point 12 of Part A of Annex III to that Directive, (hereinafter: ‘potatoes’) originating in the regions of Akkar or Bekaa of Lebanon, which satisfy the conditions set out in the Annex to this Decision.
Phytosanitary certificate

Article 2

The phytosanitary certificate, as set out in Article 13a(3) of Directive 2000/29/EC, shall be issued in Lebanon. It shall include under ‘Additional declaration’ the following elements:

(a)

a statement ‘In accordance with EU requirements laid down in Commission Implementing Decision 2013/413/EU’;

(b)

the number of the lot;

(c)

the name of the pest free area within the meaning of point (1) of the Annex.
Points of entry

Article 3

1.   Potatoes covered by an authorisation under Article 1 may only be introduced into the Union through a point of entry, designated for such an introduction by the Member State in which the point of entry is situated.

2.   The points of entry, and the name and address of the responsible official body referred to in Directive 2000/29/EC in charge of each point of entry, shall be notified by the Member State to the other Member States, the Commission and Lebanon thereof.
Inspections by Member States

Article 4

1.   Samples for official examination in respect ofClavibacter michiganensis(Smith) Davis et al. ssp.sepedonicus(Spieckermann and Kotthoff) Davis et al., hereinafter ‘the harmful organism concerned’, shall be taken from each lot in a consignment. Each sample shall consist of at least 200 tubers. Where a lot exceeds 25 tonnes, a sample shall be taken for each 25 tonnes and, in addition, for the remaining part of the lot.

2.   The responsible official bodies shall carry out a visual examination of the samples for symptoms of the harmful organism concerned on cut tubers.

During that examination, all lots of the consignment concerned shall remain under official control and shall not be moved or used.

3.   Where symptoms of the harmful organism concerned are detected during the examination referred to in paragraph 2, tests, determining whether the harmful organism concerned is present, shall be carried out in accordance with point 1.1 and points 4 to 10 of Annex I to Directive 93/85/EEC.

While those tests are carried out, all lots of the consignment concerned, and all other consignments which contain a lot originating in the same pest free area and are under the control of the responsible official body concerned, shall remain under official control, and shall not be moved or used.

4.   Where the presence of the harmful organism concerned is confirmed in a sample in accordance with paragraph 3, there shall be retention and appropriate conservation of any remaining potato extract and the lot concerned shall not be introduced into the Union.

All remaining lots referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3 shall be tested in accordance with point 1.1 and points 4 to 10 of Annex I to Directive 93/85/EEC.

5.   As regards lots for which no symptoms of the harmful organism concerned are detected in the samples during the examination referred to in paragraph 2, tests for latent infection shall be carried out on all of the lots in accordance with point 1.2 and points 3 to 10 of Annex I to Directive 93/85/EEC.

During that testing that lot shall remain under official control and shall not be moved or used.

Where the presence of the harmful organism concerned is confirmed in a sample as referred to in the first subparagraph, there shall be retention and appropriate conservation of any remaining potato extract and the lot concerned shall not be introduced into the Union.
Notification of suspect or confirmed findings

Article 5

1.   Member States shall immediately notify the Commission and Lebanon of the cases where the presence of the harmful organism concerned is suspected as a result of the rapid screening test, as referred to in point 1.1 of Annex I to Directive 93/85/EEC, or the screening test as referred to in point 1.2 of Annex I to that Directive.

2.   Member States shall immediately notify the Commission and Lebanon of the cases where the presence of the harmful organism concerned is confirmed in accordance with points 1.1 and 1.2 of Annex I to Directive 93/85/EEC.
Labelling

Article 6

1.   The potatoes shall only be introduced into and moved within the Union with a label, in one of the official languages of the Union, including the following elements:

(a)

an indication that they originate in Lebanon;

(b)

the name of the pest free area;

(c)

the name and the identification number of the producer;

(d)

the number of the lot.

2.   The label referred to in paragraph 1 shall be issued under the control of the Lebanese plant protection organisation.
Disposal of waste

Article 7

The waste resulting from packaging or processing of the potatoes in the Union shall be disposed of in such a manner to ensure that the harmful organism concerned cannot establish and spread.
Notification obligations of importers

Article 8

1.   The importer shall, sufficiently in advance, notify the responsible official body of the point of entry in the Member State concerned of its intention to introduce a consignment.

2.   The notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall include the following elements:

(a)

quantity of the consignment(s) concerned;

(b)

date of intended introduction;

(c)

name and address of importer.
Reporting on imports

Article 9

The Member State of importation shall provide the Commission and the other Member States, by 31 January of each year, with information on the amounts, indicating lots, consignments and tonnes, imported pursuant to this Decision between 1 January of the preceding year and 31 December of the preceding year.
Review

Article 10

The Commission shall review this Decision by 31 October 2014.
Expiry date

Article 11

This Decision shall expire on 31 October 2015.
Addressees

Article 12

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community(1), and in particular the first indent of Article 15(1) thereof,

(1) In accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC in conjunction with point 12 of Part A of Annex III thereto, Member States shall ban the introduction into the Union of potatoes, other than potatoes intended for planting, originating in Lebanon. Pursuant to Article 15(1) of that Directive derogations from that ban may, however, be provided for if there is no risk of spreading harmful organisms.

(2) In accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC in conjunction with point 25.2 of Section I of Part A of Annex IV thereto, Member States shall ban the introduction into the Union of potatoes unless they originate in countries known to be free fromClavibacter michiganensis(Smith) Davis et al. ssp.sepedonicus(Spieckermann and Kotthoff) Davis et al. hereinafter ‘the harmful organism concerned’, or applying provisions recognised as equivalent to the Union provisions for combatting that organism. Lebanon fulfils neither of those conditions. Pursuant to Article 15(1) of that Directive derogations from that ban may, however, be provided for if there is no risk of spreading harmful organisms.

(3) Information supplied by Lebanon and collected in the country during a mission carried out in March 2006 by the Food and Veterinary Office, and subsequent information provided by Lebanon, has shown that potatoes, other than potatoes intended for planting, originating from the regions of Akkar and Bekaa are grown under adequate phytosanitary conditions.

(4) Therefore, the introduction into the Union of potatoes, other than potatoes intended for planting, originating in the regions of Akkar and Bekaa in Lebanon should be permitted provided they satisfy conditions ensuring that the harmful organism concerned is not present on potatoes when they are introduced into the Union territory. Those conditions should concern the production in areas free from the harmful organism concerned, conduct of surveys of those areas, production from certified seed potatoes, handling, storage, packaging and preparation requirements.

(5) The potatoes should be introduced into the Union through designated points of entry, to ensure effective controls and reduction of any phytosanitary risk.

(6) Inspection requirements should be set out to ensure control of the phytosanitary risk. It should be laid down that sampling and testing is to be carried out in accordance with the existing test scheme established by Council Directive 93/85/EEC of 4 October 1993 on the control of potato ring rot(2).

(7) The potatoes should only be introduced and moved within the Union if they are appropriately labelled to indicate the Lebanese origin and other relevant information, with the aim of preventing the potatoes from being planted and to ensure identification and traceability of the potatoes.

(8) Member States should, after every import season, provide the Commission and the other Member States with information on the imports made, in order that the application of this Decision can be assessed.

(9) The derogation should be for a limited period.

(10) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Authorisation to provide for derogationBy way of derogation from Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC in conjunction with point 12 of Part A of Annex III to that Directive, and from Article 5(1) of that Directive in conjunction with point 25.2 of Section I of Part A of Annex IV to that Directive, Member States may authorise the introduction into their territory of potatoes, as set out in point 12 of Part A of Annex III to that Directive, (hereinafter: ‘potatoes’) originating in the regions of Akkar or Bekaa of Lebanon, which satisfy the conditions set out in the Annex to this Decision.
Phytosanitary certificateThe phytosanitary certificate, as set out in Article 13a(3) of Directive 2000/29/EC, shall be issued in Lebanon. It shall include under ‘Additional declaration’ the following elements:

(a)

a statement ‘In accordance with EU requirements laid down in Commission Implementing Decision 2013/413/EU’;

(b)

the number of the lot;

(c)

the name of the pest free area within the meaning of point (1) of the Annex.
Points of entry1.   Potatoes covered by an authorisation under Article 1 may only be introduced into the Union through a point of entry, designated for such an introduction by the Member State in which the point of entry is situated.

2.   The points of entry, and the name and address of the responsible official body referred to in Directive 2000/29/EC in charge of each point of entry, shall be notified by the Member State to the other Member States, the Commission and Lebanon thereof.
Inspections by Member States1.   Samples for official examination in respect ofClavibacter michiganensis(Smith) Davis et al. ssp.sepedonicus(Spieckermann and Kotthoff) Davis et al., hereinafter ‘the harmful organism concerned’, shall be taken from each lot in a consignment. Each sample shall consist of at least 200 tubers. Where a lot exceeds 25 tonnes, a sample shall be taken for each 25 tonnes and, in addition, for the remaining part of the lot.

2.   The responsible official bodies shall carry out a visual examination of the samples for symptoms of the harmful organism concerned on cut tubers.

During that examination, all lots of the consignment concerned shall remain under official control and shall not be moved or used.

3.   Where symptoms of the harmful organism concerned are detected during the examination referred to in paragraph 2, tests, determining whether the harmful organism concerned is present, shall be carried out in accordance with point 1.1 and points 4 to 10 of Annex I to Directive 93/85/EEC.

While those tests are carried out, all lots of the consignment concerned, and all other consignments which contain a lot originating in the same pest free area and are under the control of the responsible official body concerned, shall remain under official control, and shall not be moved or used.

4.   Where the presence of the harmful organism concerned is confirmed in a sample in accordance with paragraph 3, there shall be retention and appropriate conservation of any remaining potato extract and the lot concerned shall not be introduced into the Union.

All remaining lots referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3 shall be tested in accordance with point 1.1 and points 4 to 10 of Annex I to Directive 93/85/EEC.

5.   As regards lots for which no symptoms of the harmful organism concerned are detected in the samples during the examination referred to in paragraph 2, tests for latent infection shall be carried out on all of the lots in accordance with point 1.2 and points 3 to 10 of Annex I to Directive 93/85/EEC.

During that testing that lot shall remain under official control and shall not be moved or used.

Where the presence of the harmful organism concerned is confirmed in a sample as referred to in the first subparagraph, there shall be retention and appropriate conservation of any remaining potato extract and the lot concerned shall not be introduced into the Union.
Notification of suspect or confirmed findings1.   Member States shall immediately notify the Commission and Lebanon of the cases where the presence of the harmful organism concerned is suspected as a result of the rapid screening test, as referred to in point 1.1 of Annex I to Directive 93/85/EEC, or the screening test as referred to in point 1.2 of Annex I to that Directive.

2.   Member States shall immediately notify the Commission and Lebanon of the cases where the presence of the harmful organism concerned is confirmed in accordance with points 1.1 and 1.2 of Annex I to Directive 93/85/EEC.
Labelling1.   The potatoes shall only be introduced into and moved within the Union with a label, in one of the official languages of the Union, including the following elements:

(a)

an indication that they originate in Lebanon;

(b)

the name of the pest free area;

(c)

the name and the identification number of the producer;

(d)

the number of the lot.

2.   The label referred to in paragraph 1 shall be issued under the control of the Lebanese plant protection organisation.
Disposal of wasteThe waste resulting from packaging or processing of the potatoes in the Union shall be disposed of in such a manner to ensure that the harmful organism concerned cannot establish and spread.
Notification obligations of importers1.   The importer shall, sufficiently in advance, notify the responsible official body of the point of entry in the Member State concerned of its intention to introduce a consignment.

2.   The notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall include the following elements:

(a)

quantity of the consignment(s) concerned;

(b)

date of intended introduction;

(c)

name and address of importer.
Reporting on importsThe Member State of importation shall provide the Commission and the other Member States, by 31 January of each year, with information on the amounts, indicating lots, consignments and tonnes, imported pursuant to this Decision between 1 January of the preceding year and 31 December of the preceding year.
ReviewThe Commission shall review this Decision by 31 October 2014.
Expiry dateThis Decision shall expire on 31 October 2015.
AddresseesThis Decision is addressed to the Member States.
REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTS, AS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1ANNEXThe derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply in respect of potatoes fulfilling the requirements set out in points (1) to (9).

(1)   Areas of production

The potatoes are produced in the regions of Akkar or Bekaa in areas that have been officially declared by the Lebanese plant protection organisation, in accordance with the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures No 4 on requirements for the establishment of pest free areas(1), to be free from the harmful organism concerned (‘pest free areas’) and communicated by Lebanon to the Commission annually.

(2)   Surveys of pest free areas

The pest free areas are subject to systematic and representative annual surveys for the detection of the harmful organism concerned, carried out by the Lebanese authorities, throughout the five years before and during production.

The surveys take place on potato fields located in the pest free areas, and on potatoes harvested in those areas.

The surveys consist of the following elements:
(a) | visual inspections of the fields during the growing season;

(b) | visual examination of the harvested potatoes for symptoms of the harmful organism concerned on cut tubers;

(c) | laboratory testing on symptomatic and asymptomatic potatoes.The surveys do not result in any finding of the harmful organism concerned or of any other evidence which could indicate that the area is not a pest free area within the meaning of point (1). The results of the surveys are made available to the Commission upon request.

(3)   Producers

The potatoes are grown by producers registered by the Lebanese plant protection organisation.

(4)   Production from certified seed potatoes

The potatoes fulfil one of the following requirements:
(a) | they are grown from seed potatoes certified in and imported from the Union into Lebanon;

(b) | they are grown from seed potatoes imported into Lebanon from a third country or parts thereof, for which the entry into the Union of seed potatoes is not prohibited pursuant to Annex III to Directive 2000/29/EC, and certified in that third country.(5)   Fields of production

The potatoes are grown in fields where no potatoes, other than those referred to in point (4), have been grown during the previous five years.

(6)   Handling

The potatoes are handled using machinery which fulfils one of the following conditions:
(a) | it is only used for handling potatoes satisfying points (1) to (5);

(b) | where it has been used for purposes other than those referred to in point (a), it has been cleaned and disinfected in an appropriate manner before being used for the purposes referred to in point (a).(7)   Storage

The potatoes are stored in storage facilities which fulfil one of the following conditions:
(a) | they are only used for storing potatoes satisfying points (1) to (6);

(b) | where they have been used for other purposes than those referred to in point (a), it is subjected to appropriate hygiene measures before being used for the purposes referred to in point (a).(8)   Packaging

The packaging material used for the potatoes is either new or cleaned and disinfected.

(9)   Preparation of potatoes and lots for introduction into the Union

The potatoes satisfy the following conditions concerning their preparation:
(a) | they are free from soil, leaves and other plant debris;

(b) | they are presented for introduction into the Union as lots, each lot being made up of potatoes produced by a single producer and harvested in one single area as specified in point (1); and

(c) | they are in bags, packages or other containers, each of which is labelled in accordance with Article 6.

(1)  ISPM 4. 1995. Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. Rome, IPPC, FAO.

Pending: 32013D0391

                                January 16, 2026                            

23.7.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 198/40

(1)
On 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted the EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, Chapter III of which contains a list of measures to combat such proliferation which need to be taken both within the Union and in third countries.

(2)
The Union is actively implementing this strategy and is giving effect to the measures listed in Chapter III thereof, in particular by releasing financial resources to support specific projects conducted by multilateral institutions, providing States in need with technical assistance and expertise with regard to a wide range of non-proliferation measures, and fostering the role of the United Nations Security Council.

(3)
On 28 April 2004, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1540 (2004) (‘UNSCR 1540 (2004)’), which was the first international instrument to deal in an integrated and comprehensive manner with weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and related materials. UNSCR 1540 (2004) established binding obligations for all States which aimed to prevent and deter non-State actors from obtaining access to such weapons and weapon-related material. It also called upon States to present the Committee of the Security Council established by UNSCR 1540 (2004) (‘the 1540 Committee’) with a report on steps which they have taken or intend to take to implement UNSCR 1540 (2004).

(4)
On 27 April 2006, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1673 (2006) and decided that the 1540 Committee should intensify its efforts to promote the full implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004) through programmes of work, outreach, assistance, dialogue and cooperation. It also invited the 1540 Committee to explore with States and international, regional and sub-regional organisations the possibility of sharing experience and lessons learned, and the availability of programmes which might facilitate the implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004).

(5)
On 20 April 2011, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1977 (2011) and decided to extend the mandate of the 1540 Committee for a period of 10 years until 25 April 2021. It also decided that the 1540 Committee was to continue to intensify its efforts to promote the full implementation by all States of UNSCR 1540 (2004), in particular on areas such as: (a) accountability, (b) physical protection, (c) border controls and law enforcement efforts and (d) national export and trans-shipment controls including controls on providing funds and services such as financing to such exports and trans-shipments.

(6)
The implementation of Council Joint Action 2006/419/CFSP of 12 June 2006 in support of the implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) and in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction(1)and Council Joint Action 2008/368/CFSP of 14 May 2008 in support of the implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) and in the framework of the implementation of the EU strategy against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction(2)contributed to diminishing significantly the number of non-reporting States and the number of States which did not submit additional information required by the 1540 Committee following their submission of incomplete reports.

(7)
The Office for Disarmament Affairs within the United Nations Secretariat, which is responsible for providing the 1540 Committee and its experts with substantive and logistical support, should be entrusted with the technical implementation of the projects to be carried out under this Decision.

(8)
This Decision should be implemented in accordance with the Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement concluded by the European Commission with the United Nations concerning the management of financial contributions by the Union to programmes or projects administered by the United Nations,

—
enhancing the relevant national and regional efforts and capabilities primarily through capacity-building and assistance facilitation;

—
contributing to the practical implementation of specific recommendations of the 2009 Comprehensive Review of the status of implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004), in particular in the areas of technical assistance, international cooperation and raising public awareness;

—
initiating, developing and implementing National Action Plans upon States’ request.

—
To support country-specific implementation activities, including the development of national action plans and of a sustained national and sub-regional implementation process;

—
To enhance international cooperation including the role of the 1540 Committee in the implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004).

—
organisation by UNODA of events to bring together those offering and seeking assistance and meetings of current or prospective partners (States, international and regional organisations);

—
UNODA-organised meetings to support efforts to enhance the cooperation of the 1540 Committee with international non-proliferation mechanisms and other international and regional organisations;

—
organisation or sponsorship by UNODA of a workshop of representatives of civil society, academia and industry;

—
sponsorship by UNODA of participation of national officials in training courses and other capacity-building activities;

—
sponsorship of an electronic journal on UNSCR 1540 (2004) implementation issues.

—
UN Security Council and its 1540 Committee;

—
Participating governments from respective sub-regions;

—
Governments and organisations offering assistance;

—
United Nations, relevant international, regional and sub-regional organisations;

—
Non-governmental organisations and civil society entities.

—
Member States, government officials;

—
1540 Committee and other UN entities;

—
International, regional and sub-regional organisations;

—
Governments and organisations providing and receiving technical assistance under UNSCR 1540 (2004);

—
Civil society, academia and relevant industries.

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 26(2) and 31(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

(1) On 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted the EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, Chapter III of which contains a list of measures to combat such proliferation which need to be taken both within the Union and in third countries.

(2) The Union is actively implementing this strategy and is giving effect to the measures listed in Chapter III thereof, in particular by releasing financial resources to support specific projects conducted by multilateral institutions, providing States in need with technical assistance and expertise with regard to a wide range of non-proliferation measures, and fostering the role of the United Nations Security Council.

(3) On 28 April 2004, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1540 (2004) (‘UNSCR 1540 (2004)’), which was the first international instrument to deal in an integrated and comprehensive manner with weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and related materials. UNSCR 1540 (2004) established binding obligations for all States which aimed to prevent and deter non-State actors from obtaining access to such weapons and weapon-related material. It also called upon States to present the Committee of the Security Council established by UNSCR 1540 (2004) (‘the 1540 Committee’) with a report on steps which they have taken or intend to take to implement UNSCR 1540 (2004).

(4) On 27 April 2006, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1673 (2006) and decided that the 1540 Committee should intensify its efforts to promote the full implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004) through programmes of work, outreach, assistance, dialogue and cooperation. It also invited the 1540 Committee to explore with States and international, regional and sub-regional organisations the possibility of sharing experience and lessons learned, and the availability of programmes which might facilitate the implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004).

(5) On 20 April 2011, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1977 (2011) and decided to extend the mandate of the 1540 Committee for a period of 10 years until 25 April 2021. It also decided that the 1540 Committee was to continue to intensify its efforts to promote the full implementation by all States of UNSCR 1540 (2004), in particular on areas such as: (a) accountability, (b) physical protection, (c) border controls and law enforcement efforts and (d) national export and trans-shipment controls including controls on providing funds and services such as financing to such exports and trans-shipments.

(6) The implementation of Council Joint Action 2006/419/CFSP of 12 June 2006 in support of the implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) and in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction(1)and Council Joint Action 2008/368/CFSP of 14 May 2008 in support of the implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) and in the framework of the implementation of the EU strategy against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction(2)contributed to diminishing significantly the number of non-reporting States and the number of States which did not submit additional information required by the 1540 Committee following their submission of incomplete reports.

(7) The Office for Disarmament Affairs within the United Nations Secretariat, which is responsible for providing the 1540 Committee and its experts with substantive and logistical support, should be entrusted with the technical implementation of the projects to be carried out under this Decision.

(8) This Decision should be implemented in accordance with the Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement concluded by the European Commission with the United Nations concerning the management of financial contributions by the Union to programmes or projects administered by the United Nations,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1

1.   In accordance with the EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which sets the objective of fostering the role of the UN Security Council and of enhancing its expertise in meeting the challenges of proliferation, the Union shall further support the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) (‘UNSCR 1540 (2004)’) and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1977 (2011).

2.   The projects in support of UNSCR 1540 (2004), corresponding to measures of the EU strategy, shall consist of sub-regional workshops, country visits, meetings, events, training and public relations efforts.

3.   The aims of the projects shall consist of:

—

enhancing the relevant national and regional efforts and capabilities primarily through capacity-building and assistance facilitation;

—

contributing to the practical implementation of specific recommendations of the 2009 Comprehensive Review of the status of implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004), in particular in the areas of technical assistance, international cooperation and raising public awareness;

—

initiating, developing and implementing National Action Plans upon States’ request.

4.   A detailed description of the projects is set out in the Annex.
Article 2

1.   The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter ‘the High Representative’) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.

2.   The technical implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be carried out by the UN Secretariat (Office for Disarmament Affairs) (‘UN Secretariat (ODA)’). It shall perform this task under the responsibility and the control of the High Representative.

3.   For this purpose, the High Representative shall enter into the necessary arrangements with the UN Secretariat (ODA).
Article 3

1.   The financial reference amount for the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 750 000 to be funded from the general budget of the European Union.

2.   The expenditure financed by the amount stipulated in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the European Union.

3.   The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 2. For this purpose, the Commission shall conclude a financing agreement with the UN Secretariat (ODA). That financing agreement shall stipulate that the UN Secretariat (ODA) is to ensure visibility of the Union contribution, appropriate to its size.

4.   The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the financing agreement.
Article 4

The High Representative shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports prepared by the UN Secretariat (ODA). Those reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council. The Commission shall provide information on the financial aspects of the projects referred to in Article 1(2).
Article 5

1.   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

2.   This Decision shall expire 24 months after the conclusion of the financing agreement referred to in Article 3(3), or three months after the date of its adoption if no financing agreement has been concluded within that period.
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 26(2) and 31(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

(1) On 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted the EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, Chapter III of which contains a list of measures to combat such proliferation which need to be taken both within the Union and in third countries.

(2) The Union is actively implementing this strategy and is giving effect to the measures listed in Chapter III thereof, in particular by releasing financial resources to support specific projects conducted by multilateral institutions, providing States in need with technical assistance and expertise with regard to a wide range of non-proliferation measures, and fostering the role of the United Nations Security Council.

(3) On 28 April 2004, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1540 (2004) (‘UNSCR 1540 (2004)’), which was the first international instrument to deal in an integrated and comprehensive manner with weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and related materials. UNSCR 1540 (2004) established binding obligations for all States which aimed to prevent and deter non-State actors from obtaining access to such weapons and weapon-related material. It also called upon States to present the Committee of the Security Council established by UNSCR 1540 (2004) (‘the 1540 Committee’) with a report on steps which they have taken or intend to take to implement UNSCR 1540 (2004).

(4) On 27 April 2006, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1673 (2006) and decided that the 1540 Committee should intensify its efforts to promote the full implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004) through programmes of work, outreach, assistance, dialogue and cooperation. It also invited the 1540 Committee to explore with States and international, regional and sub-regional organisations the possibility of sharing experience and lessons learned, and the availability of programmes which might facilitate the implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004).

(5) On 20 April 2011, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1977 (2011) and decided to extend the mandate of the 1540 Committee for a period of 10 years until 25 April 2021. It also decided that the 1540 Committee was to continue to intensify its efforts to promote the full implementation by all States of UNSCR 1540 (2004), in particular on areas such as: (a) accountability, (b) physical protection, (c) border controls and law enforcement efforts and (d) national export and trans-shipment controls including controls on providing funds and services such as financing to such exports and trans-shipments.

(6) The implementation of Council Joint Action 2006/419/CFSP of 12 June 2006 in support of the implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) and in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction(1)and Council Joint Action 2008/368/CFSP of 14 May 2008 in support of the implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) and in the framework of the implementation of the EU strategy against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction(2)contributed to diminishing significantly the number of non-reporting States and the number of States which did not submit additional information required by the 1540 Committee following their submission of incomplete reports.

(7) The Office for Disarmament Affairs within the United Nations Secretariat, which is responsible for providing the 1540 Committee and its experts with substantive and logistical support, should be entrusted with the technical implementation of the projects to be carried out under this Decision.

(8) This Decision should be implemented in accordance with the Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement concluded by the European Commission with the United Nations concerning the management of financial contributions by the Union to programmes or projects administered by the United Nations,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
1.   In accordance with the EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which sets the objective of fostering the role of the UN Security Council and of enhancing its expertise in meeting the challenges of proliferation, the Union shall further support the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) (‘UNSCR 1540 (2004)’) and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1977 (2011).

2.   The projects in support of UNSCR 1540 (2004), corresponding to measures of the EU strategy, shall consist of sub-regional workshops, country visits, meetings, events, training and public relations efforts.

3.   The aims of the projects shall consist of:

—

enhancing the relevant national and regional efforts and capabilities primarily through capacity-building and assistance facilitation;

—

contributing to the practical implementation of specific recommendations of the 2009 Comprehensive Review of the status of implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004), in particular in the areas of technical assistance, international cooperation and raising public awareness;

—

initiating, developing and implementing National Action Plans upon States’ request.

4.   A detailed description of the projects is set out in the Annex.
1.   The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter ‘the High Representative’) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.

2.   The technical implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be carried out by the UN Secretariat (Office for Disarmament Affairs) (‘UN Secretariat (ODA)’). It shall perform this task under the responsibility and the control of the High Representative.

3.   For this purpose, the High Representative shall enter into the necessary arrangements with the UN Secretariat (ODA).
1.   The financial reference amount for the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 750 000 to be funded from the general budget of the European Union.

2.   The expenditure financed by the amount stipulated in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the European Union.

3.   The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 2. For this purpose, the Commission shall conclude a financing agreement with the UN Secretariat (ODA). That financing agreement shall stipulate that the UN Secretariat (ODA) is to ensure visibility of the Union contribution, appropriate to its size.

4.   The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the financing agreement.
The High Representative shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports prepared by the UN Secretariat (ODA). Those reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council. The Commission shall provide information on the financial aspects of the projects referred to in Article 1(2).
1.   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

2.   This Decision shall expire 24 months after the conclusion of the financing agreement referred to in Article 3(3), or three months after the date of its adoption if no financing agreement has been concluded within that period.
1.   OBJECTIVESANNEXThe overall objectives of this Decision are to promote the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 1540 (2004) (‘UNSCR 1540 (2004)’) and 1977 (2011) (‘UNSCR 1977 (2011)’) within the framework of the implementation of the EU strategy against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction through specific measures with the following specific aims: to enhance the relevant national and regional efforts and capabilities primarily through capacity-building and assistance facilitation; to contribute to the practical implementation of specific recommendations of the 2009 Comprehensive Review of the status of implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004), in particular in the areas of technical assistance, international cooperation and raising public awareness.

2.   DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES

2.1.   Strengthening of capacities for national implementation and sub-regional coordination

2.1.1.   Objective of the measure
— | To support country-specific implementation activities, including the development of national action plans and of a sustained national and sub-regional implementation process;

— | To enhance international cooperation including the role of the 1540 Committee in the implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004).2.1.2.   Description of the measure

Facilitation by UNODA, in cooperation, as appropriate, with other international, regional and sub-regional organisations and entities, of practical steps to implement key requirements of UNSCR 1540 (2004) at national level, in particular through support of country visits or country-specific activities to be conducted by the 1540 Committee, with the consent of the States concerned. It is envisaged to support five country visits (each lasting 4 days). Depending on a specific country and decisions of the 1540 Committee, a country visit or country-specific activities will contribute to the national implementation process through: (a) contributions to awareness-raising by means of tailored dialogues with different actors involved in the national implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004); (b) examination of national measures and mechanisms used to implement that resolution and identification of specific challenges faced by the national authorities as well as possible options to remedy them; and (c) facilitation of the preparation of voluntary national action plans and other measures decided by the visited country.

Organisation by UNODA, in cooperation, as appropriate, with other international, regional and sub-regional organisations and entities, meetings in specific sub-regions based upon the outcome of the previous capacity-building workshops in the specific sub-regions. It is envisaged to conduct three follow-up meetings in the selected sub-regions (Africa, the Gulf and the Middle East, South East Europe and Latin America). Each meeting will be tailored to meet the actual requirements of the sub-region focusing on areas that are likely to achieve practical results. Meetings will be conducted in conjunction with in-country technical discussions to explore specific measures to sustain progress in the implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004). The in-country discussions will be organised in response to invitations by interested Member States.

The UN ODA will develop UNSCR 1540 (2004) activities in cooperation with other international organisations and agencies, including the OSCE, IAEA, OPCW, WHO, FAO and OIE, to ensure effective synergies and avoid duplication.

As appropriate, synergies will be sought with the activities of the regional Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) ‘Centres of Excellence’, which are currently being set up under the Instrument for Stability as well as with other EU-sponsored programmes in this field.

2.1.3.   Results of the measure

Improved implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004) through additional steps to be undertaken by States towards its full implementation; development of effective and realistic national action plans or road maps for the implementation of the key requirements of that resolution; enhanced regional coordinated approaches to the implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004); and the establishment of effective partnerships between participating States and assistance providers.

2.2.   Increased capacity-building to establish and maintain physical protection and accounting of sensitive dual-use materials

2.2.1.   Objective of the measure

To promote capacity-building on national and regional levels to advance full implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004) by focusing on one of the resolution’s key areas, namely, the physical protection and accounting of ‘related materials’. UNSCR 1540 (2004) contains specific provisions (operational paragraph 3, subparagraphs a) and b)) obliging all States to establish appropriate controls over materials, equipment and technology which could be used for the design, development, production or use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery. To this end, States are required to: (a) develop and maintain appropriate effective measures to account for and secure such items in production, use, storage or transport; and (b) develop and maintain appropriate effective physical protection measures.

2.2.2.   Description of the measure

Organisation by UNODA of two sub-regional workshops (Central America, South East Asia and Latin America) focusing on the physical protection and accounting of ‘related materials’. Through experience-sharing on national policies and practice related to accounting, security and protection of relevant biological, chemical and nuclear materials, the measure will promote integrated national approaches based on good practices and lessons learned.

The importance of cooperation and interaction with international organisations such as the IAEA, OPCW, WHO, FAO, OIE and the OSCE will also be emphasized, as appropriate. Each workshop will be organised in conjunction with rounds of relevant technical discussions with participating countries taking into full consideration national specificities. The in-country discussions will be organised in response to invitations by interested Member States in relevant sub-regions.

As appropriate, synergies will be sought with the activities of the regional CBRN ‘Centres of Excellence’, which are currently being set up under the Instrument for Stability as well as with other EU-sponsored programmes in this field.

2.2.3.   Results of the measure

Improved national efforts and enhanced capacities to implement appropriate checks over materials, equipment and technology which could be used for the design, development, production or use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery; identification of effective and efficient practices for accounting, securing and protecting ‘related materials’; increased security of relevant materials at national and regional levels; increased regional and international partnerships in relevant areas; and contribution to efforts to increase global CBRN security.

2.3.   Support for practical implementation of recommendations of the 2009 Comprehensive Review of the status of implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004) 2.3.1.   Objective of the measure

To support the practical implementation of the 2009 Comprehensive Review recommendations;

To enhance international cooperation and raise public awareness of the importance of the implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004).

2.3.2.   Description of the measure

UNSCR 1977 (2011) and the Final Document of the 2009 Comprehensive Review envisage a number of specific activities in implementation of key requirements of UNSCR 1540 (2004). The measure includes specific projects to support such activities including through sponsoring meetings/events, training and public relations efforts. Subject, as appropriate, to the 1540 Committee’s decisions and recommendations, the projects would include:
— | organisation by UNODA of events to bring together those offering and seeking assistance and meetings of current or prospective partners (States, international and regional organisations);

— | UNODA-organised meetings to support efforts to enhance the cooperation of the 1540 Committee with international non-proliferation mechanisms and other international and regional organisations;

— | organisation or sponsorship by UNODA of a workshop of representatives of civil society, academia and industry;

— | sponsorship by UNODA of participation of national officials in training courses and other capacity-building activities;

— | sponsorship of an electronic journal on UNSCR 1540 (2004) implementation issues.As appropriate, synergies will be sought with the activities of the regional CBRN ‘Centres of Excellence’, which are currently being set up under the Instrument for Stability as well as with other EU-sponsored programmes in this field.

2.3.3.   Results of the measure

Implementation of specific measures agreed at the 2009 Comprehensive Review; more diverse means for facilitating technical assistance; provision of UNSCR 1540 (2004)-focussed training to national officials; greater involvement of representatives of civil society, academia and industry in international, regional and national UNSCR 1540 (2004) implementation efforts; enhanced public awareness of importance of full implementation of UNSCR 1540 (2004).

3.   PARTNERS IN THE MEASURES
— | UN Security Council and its 1540 Committee;

— | Participating governments from respective sub-regions;

— | Governments and organisations offering assistance;

— | United Nations, relevant international, regional and sub-regional organisations;

— | Non-governmental organisations and civil society entities.4.   BENEFICIARIES OF THE MEASURES
— | Member States, government officials;

— | 1540 Committee and other UN entities;

— | International, regional and sub-regional organisations;

— | Governments and organisations providing and receiving technical assistance under UNSCR 1540 (2004);

— | Civil society, academia and relevant industries.5.   VENUE

UNODA will select potential venues for the meetings, workshops and other events. The criteria used for choosing the venues will include the willingness and commitment of a relevant State in a particular region to host the event. Specific locations of country visits or country-specific activities will depend on invitations from interested Member States and, as appropriate, on decisions of the 1540 Committee.

6.   DURATION

The total estimated duration of the project is 24 months.

Pending: 32013D0341

                                January 16, 2026                            

29.6.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 179/98

(1)
The supplier Valeo Equipments Electriques Moteur (the ‘Applicant’) submitted an application for the approval of the Valeo Efficient Generation (EG) Alternator as an innovative technology on 18 December 2012. The completeness of the application was assessed in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 of 25 July 2011 establishing a procedure for the approval and certification of innovative technologies for reducing CO2emissions from passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council(2). The application was found to be complete and the period for the Commission’s assessment of the application started on the day following the date of official receipt, i.e. 19 December 2012.

(2)
The application has been assessed in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 and the Technical Guidelines for the preparation of applications for the approval of innovative technologies pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 (the Technical Guidelines)(3).

(3)
The application refers to the Valeo EG Alternator, which is an alternator with an efficiency of at least 77 per cent as determined in accordance with the VDA approach described in point 5.1.2 in Annex I to the Technical Guidelines. The Applicant’s alternator is equipped with synchronous rectification using metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors thereby ensuring a high level of efficiency.

(4)
The Commission finds that the information provided in the application demonstrates that the conditions and criteria referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and in Articles 2 and 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 have been met.

(5)
The Applicant has demonstrated that a high efficiency alternator of the kind described in this application will only be available on the EU market as from 2013 and that consequently the market penetration in 2009 of this type of alternators was below the 3 per cent threshold specified in Article 2(2)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. This claim is also supported by the accompanying verification report. On that basis, the Commission finds that the high efficiency alternator provided by the Applicant should be considered meeting the eligibility criterion set out in Article 2(2)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(6)
In order to determine the CO2savings that the innovative technology will deliver when fitted to a vehicle, it is necessary to define the baseline vehicle against which the efficiency of the vehicle equipped with the innovative technology should be compared as provided for in Articles 5 and 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to consider an alternator with 67 % efficiency as an appropriate baseline technology in the case the innovative technology is fitted on a new vehicle type. Where the Valeo EG Alternator is fitted to an existing vehicle type, the baseline technology should be the alternator of the most recent version of that type placed on the market.

(7)
The Applicant has provided a comprehensive methodology for testing the CO2reductions. It includes formulae that are consistent with the formulae described in the Technical Guidelines for the simplified approach with regard to efficient alternators. The Commission considers that the testing methodology will provide testing results that are verifiable, repeatable and comparable and that it is capable of demonstrating in a realistic manner the CO2emissions benefits of the innovative technology with strong statistical significance in accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(8)
Against that background the Commission finds that the Applicant has demonstrated satisfactorily that the emission reduction achieved by the innovative technology is at least 1 g CO2/km.

(9)
The Commission notes that the savings of the innovative technology may be partially demonstrated on the standard test cycle, and the final total savings to be certified should therefore be determined in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(10)
The Commission finds that the verification report has been prepared by UTAC which is an independent and certified body and that the report supports the findings set out in the application.

(11)
Against that background, the Commission finds that no objections should be raised as regards the approval of the innovative technology in question.

(12)
Any manufacturer wishing to benefit from a reduction of its average specific CO2emissions for the purpose of meeting its specific emissions target by means of the CO2savings from the use of the innovative technology approved by this Decision, should in accordance with Article 11(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, refer to this Decision in its application for an EC type-approval certificate for the vehicles concerned,

(a)
the testing procedure to be followed for determining the efficiency of the alternator;

(b)
the setting of the test bench;

(c)
the formulae for calculating the standard deviation;

(d)
the determination of the CO2savings for the certification by type approval authorities.

—
ηΑis the efficiency of the alternator;

—
(η @1 800 rpm @0,5·IN) is the efficiency of the alternator at a speed of 1 800 rpm and at a load of 50 %;

—
(η @3 000 rpm @0,5·IN) is the efficiency of the alternator at a speed of 3 000 rpm and at a load of 50 %;

—
(η @6 000 rpm @0,5·IN) is the efficiency of the alternator at a speed of 6 000 rpm and at a load of 50 %;

—
(η @10 000 rpm @0,5·IN) is the efficiency of the alternator at a speed of 10 000 rpm and at a load of 50 %;

—
IN= Current (A)

Formula (2)
:

ηΑ
=
Efficiency of the alternator;

V
=
Voltage (V);

I
=
Current (A);

T
=
Torque (Nm);

ω
=
Rotational speed of the alternator (rad. s–1)

—
At a speed of 1 800 rpm;

—
At a speed of 3 000 rpm;

—
At a speed of 6 000 rpm;

—
At a speed of 10 000 rpm.

Formula (3)
:

:
standard deviation of arithmetic mean;

xi
:
measurement value;

:
arithmetic mean;

n
:
number of measurements

Formula (4)
:

Formula (5)
:

ΔCO2
=
error in CO2savings (g CO2/km);

PRW
=
750 W;

PTA
=
350 W;

ηΑ–EI
=
Efficiency of the high efficient alternator;

ΔηΑ
=
Standard deviation of the efficiency of the alternator (result of equation in Formula (4);

VPe
=
Willans’ factors (l/kWh);

CF
=
Conversion factors (g CO2/l);

v
=
mean driving speed of the NEDC (km/h)

Formula (6)
:

ΔΡm–RW
=
Saved mechanical power under real world conditions (W);

PRW
=
Electric power under real world conditions, which is 750 W;

ηΑ
=
Efficiency of the baseline alternator;

ηΑ–EI
=
Efficiency of the high efficient alternator

Formula (7)
:

ΔΡm–TA
=
Saved mechanical power under type approval conditions (W);

PTA
=
Electric power under type approval conditions, which is 350 W;

ηΑ
=
Efficiency of the baseline alternator;

ηΑ–EI
=
Efficiency of the high efficient alternator

Formula (8)
:

ΔΡm
=
Accountable share of saved mechanical power (W);

ΔΡm–RW
=
Saved mechanical power under real world conditions (W);

ΔΡm–TA
=
Saved mechanical power under type approval conditions (W);

Formula (9)
:

CCO2
=
CO2savings (g CO2/km);

ΔΡm
=
Accountable share of saved mechanical power as per formula (8) (W);

VPe
=
Willans’ factors (l/kWh);

CF
=
Conversion factors (g CO2/l)

v
=
mean driving speed of the NEDC (km/h)

Type of engine
Consumption of effective power VPe[l/kWh]

Petrol (VPe-P)
0,264

Petro Turbo
0,28

Diesel (VPe-D)
0,22

Type of fuel
Conversion factor (l/100 km) → (g CO2/km)[100 g/l]

Petrol
23,3 (= 2 330  g CO2/l)

Petro Turbo
23,3 (= 2 330  g CO2/l)

Diesel
26,4 (= 2 640  g CO2/l)

Formula (10)
:

MT
=
minimum threshold (g CO2/km);

CCO2
=
total CO2saving, (g CO2/km);

=
error in the CO2savings (g CO2/km)

(a)
if the eco-innovation is fitted to a new vehicle type which will be submitted to a new type approval, the baseline vehicle is to be the same as the new vehicle type in all respects except with regard to the alternator which is to be an alternator with an efficiency of 67 %, or

(b)
if the eco-innovation is fitted to an existing vehicle version for which the type approval will be extended following the replacement of the existing alternator by the eco-innovation, the base vehicle is to be the same as the eco-innovation vehicle in all respects except with regard to the alternator which is to be the alternator of the existing vehicle version.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO2emissions from light-duty vehicles(1), and in particular Article 12(4) thereof,

(1) The supplier Valeo Equipments Electriques Moteur (the ‘Applicant’) submitted an application for the approval of the Valeo Efficient Generation (EG) Alternator as an innovative technology on 18 December 2012. The completeness of the application was assessed in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 of 25 July 2011 establishing a procedure for the approval and certification of innovative technologies for reducing CO2emissions from passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council(2). The application was found to be complete and the period for the Commission’s assessment of the application started on the day following the date of official receipt, i.e. 19 December 2012.

(2) The application has been assessed in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 and the Technical Guidelines for the preparation of applications for the approval of innovative technologies pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 (the Technical Guidelines)(3).

(3) The application refers to the Valeo EG Alternator, which is an alternator with an efficiency of at least 77 per cent as determined in accordance with the VDA approach described in point 5.1.2 in Annex I to the Technical Guidelines. The Applicant’s alternator is equipped with synchronous rectification using metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors thereby ensuring a high level of efficiency.

(4) The Commission finds that the information provided in the application demonstrates that the conditions and criteria referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and in Articles 2 and 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 have been met.

(5) The Applicant has demonstrated that a high efficiency alternator of the kind described in this application will only be available on the EU market as from 2013 and that consequently the market penetration in 2009 of this type of alternators was below the 3 per cent threshold specified in Article 2(2)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. This claim is also supported by the accompanying verification report. On that basis, the Commission finds that the high efficiency alternator provided by the Applicant should be considered meeting the eligibility criterion set out in Article 2(2)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(6) In order to determine the CO2savings that the innovative technology will deliver when fitted to a vehicle, it is necessary to define the baseline vehicle against which the efficiency of the vehicle equipped with the innovative technology should be compared as provided for in Articles 5 and 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to consider an alternator with 67 % efficiency as an appropriate baseline technology in the case the innovative technology is fitted on a new vehicle type. Where the Valeo EG Alternator is fitted to an existing vehicle type, the baseline technology should be the alternator of the most recent version of that type placed on the market.

(7) The Applicant has provided a comprehensive methodology for testing the CO2reductions. It includes formulae that are consistent with the formulae described in the Technical Guidelines for the simplified approach with regard to efficient alternators. The Commission considers that the testing methodology will provide testing results that are verifiable, repeatable and comparable and that it is capable of demonstrating in a realistic manner the CO2emissions benefits of the innovative technology with strong statistical significance in accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(8) Against that background the Commission finds that the Applicant has demonstrated satisfactorily that the emission reduction achieved by the innovative technology is at least 1 g CO2/km.

(9) The Commission notes that the savings of the innovative technology may be partially demonstrated on the standard test cycle, and the final total savings to be certified should therefore be determined in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(10) The Commission finds that the verification report has been prepared by UTAC which is an independent and certified body and that the report supports the findings set out in the application.

(11) Against that background, the Commission finds that no objections should be raised as regards the approval of the innovative technology in question.

(12) Any manufacturer wishing to benefit from a reduction of its average specific CO2emissions for the purpose of meeting its specific emissions target by means of the CO2savings from the use of the innovative technology approved by this Decision, should in accordance with Article 11(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, refer to this Decision in its application for an EC type-approval certificate for the vehicles concerned,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1

1.   The Valeo Efficient Generation Alternator having an efficiency of at least 77 per cent and intended for use in M1 vehicles is approved as an innovative technology within the meaning of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009.

2.   The CO2emissions reduction from the use of the alternator referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined using the methodology set out in the Annex.

3.   In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, the CO2emission reduction determined in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, may only be certified and entered into the certificate of conformity and relevant type approval documentation specified in Annexes I, VIII and IX to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(4)where the reductions are on or above the threshold specified in Article 9(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.
Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO2emissions from light-duty vehicles(1), and in particular Article 12(4) thereof,

(1) The supplier Valeo Equipments Electriques Moteur (the ‘Applicant’) submitted an application for the approval of the Valeo Efficient Generation (EG) Alternator as an innovative technology on 18 December 2012. The completeness of the application was assessed in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 of 25 July 2011 establishing a procedure for the approval and certification of innovative technologies for reducing CO2emissions from passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council(2). The application was found to be complete and the period for the Commission’s assessment of the application started on the day following the date of official receipt, i.e. 19 December 2012.

(2) The application has been assessed in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 and the Technical Guidelines for the preparation of applications for the approval of innovative technologies pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 (the Technical Guidelines)(3).

(3) The application refers to the Valeo EG Alternator, which is an alternator with an efficiency of at least 77 per cent as determined in accordance with the VDA approach described in point 5.1.2 in Annex I to the Technical Guidelines. The Applicant’s alternator is equipped with synchronous rectification using metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors thereby ensuring a high level of efficiency.

(4) The Commission finds that the information provided in the application demonstrates that the conditions and criteria referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and in Articles 2 and 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 have been met.

(5) The Applicant has demonstrated that a high efficiency alternator of the kind described in this application will only be available on the EU market as from 2013 and that consequently the market penetration in 2009 of this type of alternators was below the 3 per cent threshold specified in Article 2(2)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. This claim is also supported by the accompanying verification report. On that basis, the Commission finds that the high efficiency alternator provided by the Applicant should be considered meeting the eligibility criterion set out in Article 2(2)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(6) In order to determine the CO2savings that the innovative technology will deliver when fitted to a vehicle, it is necessary to define the baseline vehicle against which the efficiency of the vehicle equipped with the innovative technology should be compared as provided for in Articles 5 and 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to consider an alternator with 67 % efficiency as an appropriate baseline technology in the case the innovative technology is fitted on a new vehicle type. Where the Valeo EG Alternator is fitted to an existing vehicle type, the baseline technology should be the alternator of the most recent version of that type placed on the market.

(7) The Applicant has provided a comprehensive methodology for testing the CO2reductions. It includes formulae that are consistent with the formulae described in the Technical Guidelines for the simplified approach with regard to efficient alternators. The Commission considers that the testing methodology will provide testing results that are verifiable, repeatable and comparable and that it is capable of demonstrating in a realistic manner the CO2emissions benefits of the innovative technology with strong statistical significance in accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(8) Against that background the Commission finds that the Applicant has demonstrated satisfactorily that the emission reduction achieved by the innovative technology is at least 1 g CO2/km.

(9) The Commission notes that the savings of the innovative technology may be partially demonstrated on the standard test cycle, and the final total savings to be certified should therefore be determined in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(10) The Commission finds that the verification report has been prepared by UTAC which is an independent and certified body and that the report supports the findings set out in the application.

(11) Against that background, the Commission finds that no objections should be raised as regards the approval of the innovative technology in question.

(12) Any manufacturer wishing to benefit from a reduction of its average specific CO2emissions for the purpose of meeting its specific emissions target by means of the CO2savings from the use of the innovative technology approved by this Decision, should in accordance with Article 11(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, refer to this Decision in its application for an EC type-approval certificate for the vehicles concerned,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
1.   The Valeo Efficient Generation Alternator having an efficiency of at least 77 per cent and intended for use in M1 vehicles is approved as an innovative technology within the meaning of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009.

2.   The CO2emissions reduction from the use of the alternator referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined using the methodology set out in the Annex.

3.   In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, the CO2emission reduction determined in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, may only be certified and entered into the certificate of conformity and relevant type approval documentation specified in Annexes I, VIII and IX to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(4)where the reductions are on or above the threshold specified in Article 9(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.
This Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.
Methodology for determining the reduction in CO2 emissions due to the use of the Valeo Efficient Generation Alternator in an M1 vehicleANNEX1.   Introduction

In order to determine the CO2reductions that can be attributed to the use of the Valeo EG Alternator in an M1 vehicle, it is necessary to establish the following:
(a) | the testing procedure to be followed for determining the efficiency of the alternator;

(b) | the setting of the test bench;

(c) | the formulae for calculating the standard deviation;

(d) | the determination of the CO2savings for the certification by type approval authorities.2.   Testing procedure

The efficiency of the alternator must be determined by doing measurements at different speeds: 1 800, 3 000, 6 000, 10 000 revolutions per minute. At each speed the alternator is charged at 50 % of the maximum load. For calculating the efficiency, a time distribution is to be 25 %, 40 %, 25 %, 10 % for respectively 1 800, 3 000, 6 000, 10 000 revolutions per minute (see the VDA approach as described in point 5.1.2 in Annex I to the Technical Guidelines).

This leads to the following formula (1):
With:
— | ηΑis the efficiency of the alternator;

— | (η @1 800 rpm @0,5·IN) is the efficiency of the alternator at a speed of 1 800 rpm and at a load of 50 %;

— | (η @3 000 rpm @0,5·IN) is the efficiency of the alternator at a speed of 3 000 rpm and at a load of 50 %;

— | (η @6 000 rpm @0,5·IN) is the efficiency of the alternator at a speed of 6 000 rpm and at a load of 50 %;

— | (η @10 000 rpm @0,5·IN) is the efficiency of the alternator at a speed of 10 000 rpm and at a load of 50 %;

— | IN= Current (A)The set-up of the test bench and the testing procedure is to fulfil the precision requirements specified in ISO 8854:2012(1).

3.   Test bench

The test bench is to be a ‘direct drive’ alternator test bench. The alternator is to be directly linked to the torque meter and to the shaft of the drive train. The alternator is to be loaded with a battery and an electronic load. See the test bench configuration in figure 1.
Figure 1
The test bench configuration

TM = Torquemeter

ALT. = Alternator

BATT. = Battery

V,I = Volt, current

T = Torque

ω = Rotational speed

In figure 1 an overview of the test bench configuration is given. The alternator transfers the mechanical power of the brushless motor into electrical power. The brushless motor generates an amount of power which is defined by the torque (Nm) and by the rotational speed (rad.s–1). The torque and the speed are to be measured by the torque meter.

The alternator produces power to overcome the load which is connected to the alternator. This amount of power is equal to the alternator voltage (V) times the alternator current (I).

The efficiency of the alternator is to be defined as the electric power (output of the alternator) divided by the mechanical power (output of the torquemeter).
Formula (2) | : | Where:
ηΑ | = | Efficiency of the alternator;

V | = | Voltage (V);

I | = | Current (A);

T | = | Torque (Nm);

ω | = | Rotational speed of the alternator (rad. s–1)4.   Measuring the torque and calculating the efficiency of the alternator

The tests are to be carried out in accordance with the ISO 8854:2012.

The load is to be installed at 50 % of the current which is guaranteed by the alternator at 25 °C and a rotor speed of 6 000 rpm, e.g. if the alternator is a 180 A class alternator (at 25 °C and 6 000 rpm), the load is installed at 90 A.

For each speed the voltage and the output current of the alternator are to be kept constant, the voltage at 14,3 V and the current for a 180 A-alternator at 90 A, i.e. for each speed the torque is to be measured by means of the test bench (see figure 1) and the efficiency is to be calculated by means of formula (2).

This test is to provide the efficiencies of the alternator at 4 different speeds in revolutions per minute (rpm):
— | At a speed of 1 800 rpm;

— | At a speed of 3 000 rpm;

— | At a speed of 6 000 rpm;

— | At a speed of 10 000 rpm.The average efficiency of the alternator is to be calculated by means of formula (1).

5.   Standard deviation of the arithmetic mean value of the efficiency of the alternator

Statistical errors in the outcomes of the testing methodology caused by the measurements are to be quantified. The format of the error value is to be a standard deviation being equivalent to a two-sided confidence interval of 84 % (see formula (3)).
Formula (3) | : | Where:
 | : | standard deviation of arithmetic mean;

xi | : | measurement value;

 | : | arithmetic mean;

n | : | number of measurementsAll measurements are to be performed consecutively at least five (5) times. For each speed the standard deviation is calculated.

The standard deviation of the efficiency value of the alternator (ΔηΑ) is calculated by the following formula:
Formula (4) | : | Where the values 0,25, 0,40, 0,25, and 0,1 are the same weighting values as in formula (2) and S1 800, S3 000, S6 000, and S10 000are the standard deviations calculated with formula (3).

6.   Error in the CO2 savings due to the standard deviation (propagation law)

The standard deviation of the efficiency value of the alternator (ΔηΑ), leads to an error in the CO2savings. This error is to be calculated by means of the following formula(2):
Formula (5) | : | Where:
ΔCO2 | = | error in CO2savings (g CO2/km);

PRW | = | 750 W;

PTA | = | 350 W;

ηΑ–EI | = | Efficiency of the high efficient alternator;

ΔηΑ | = | Standard deviation of the efficiency of the alternator (result of equation in Formula (4);

VPe | = | Willans’ factors (l/kWh);

CF | = | Conversion factors (g CO2/l);

v | = | mean driving speed of the NEDC (km/h)7.   Calculation of the accountable share of the mechanical power saving

The high efficient alternator leads to the saved mechanical power which is to be calculated in two steps. In the first step the saved mechanical power is to be calculated under ‘real world’ conditions. The second step is to calculate the saved mechanical power under type approval conditions. Subtracting these 2 mechanical power savings is to result in the accountable share of the saved mechanical power.

The saved mechanical power under ‘real world’ conditions is to be calculated with formula (6).
Formula (6) | : | Where:
ΔΡm–RW | = | Saved mechanical power under real world conditions (W);

PRW | = | Electric power under real world conditions, which is 750 W;

ηΑ | = | Efficiency of the baseline alternator;

ηΑ–EI | = | Efficiency of the high efficient alternatorThe saved mechanical power under type-approval conditions is to be calculated with formula (7).
Formula (7) | : | Where:
ΔΡm–TA | = | Saved mechanical power under type approval conditions (W);

PTA | = | Electric power under type approval conditions, which is 350 W;

ηΑ | = | Efficiency of the baseline alternator;

ηΑ–EI | = | Efficiency of the high efficient alternatorThe accountable share of saved mechanical power is calculated with formula (8).
Formula (8) | : | Where:
ΔΡm | = | Accountable share of saved mechanical power (W);

ΔΡm–RW | = | Saved mechanical power under real world conditions (W);

ΔΡm–TA | = | Saved mechanical power under type approval conditions (W);8.   Formula to calculate the CO2 savings

The CO2savings are to be calculated with the following formula:
Formula (9) | : | Where:
CCO2 | = | CO2savings (g CO2/km);

ΔΡm | = | Accountable share of saved mechanical power as per formula (8) (W);

VPe | = | Willans’ factors (l/kWh);

CF | = | Conversion factors (g CO2/l)

v | = | mean driving speed of the NEDC (km/h)For the Willans’ factors the data in table 1 is to be used:
Table 1
Willans’ factors
Type of engine | Consumption of effective power VPe[l/kWh]

Petrol (VPe-P) | 0,264

Petro Turbo | 0,28

Diesel (VPe-D) | 0,22For the conversion factors the data in table 2 is to be used:
Table 2
Conversion factors
Type of fuel | Conversion factor (l/100 km) → (g CO2/km)[100 g/l]

Petrol | 23,3 (= 2 330  g CO2/l)

Petro Turbo | 23,3 (= 2 330  g CO2/l)

Diesel | 26,4 (= 2 640  g CO2/l)The mean driving speed of the NEDC is: v = 33,58 km/h

9.   Statistical Significance

It has to be demonstrated for each type, variant and version of a vehicle fitted with the Valeo EG Alternator that the error in the CO2savings calculated with Formula 5 is not greater than the difference between the total CO2savings and the minimum savings threshold specified in Article 9(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 (see Formula (7)).
Formula (10) | : | Where:
MT | = | minimum threshold (g CO2/km);

CCO2 | = | total CO2saving, (g CO2/km);

 | = | error in the CO2savings (g CO2/km)10.   The high efficient alternator to be implemented in vehicles

For determining the CO2savings to be certified due to the use of the Valeo EG Alternator by the type approval authority in accordance with Article 12 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, the manufacturer of the M1 vehicle in which the alternator is fitted has to designate in accordance with Article 5 of that Regulation, an eco-innovation vehicle fitted with the Valeo (EG) Alternator and either of the following baseline vehicles:
(a) | if the eco-innovation is fitted to a new vehicle type which will be submitted to a new type approval, the baseline vehicle is to be the same as the new vehicle type in all respects except with regard to the alternator which is to be an alternator with an efficiency of 67 %, or

(b) | if the eco-innovation is fitted to an existing vehicle version for which the type approval will be extended following the replacement of the existing alternator by the eco-innovation, the base vehicle is to be the same as the eco-innovation vehicle in all respects except with regard to the alternator which is to be the alternator of the existing vehicle version.The type approval authority is to certify the CO2savings based on measurements of the base vehicle and eco-innovation vehicle in accordance with Article 8(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 using the test methodology set out in this Annex. Where the CO2emission savings are below the threshold specified in Article 9(1), the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 shall apply.

11.   Eco-innovation code to be entered into type approval documentation

For the purposes of determining the general eco-innovation code to be used in the relevant type approval documents in accordance with Annexes I, VIII and IX to Directive 2007/46/EC, the individual code to be used for the innovative technology approved through this Decision shall be ‘2’.

E.g. the code of the eco-innovation in the case of eco-innovation savings certified by the German type approval authority shall be ‘e1 2’.
(1)  ISO 8854. Road vehicles — Alternators with regulators — Test methods and general requirements. Reference number ISO 8854:2012(E).

(2)  This formula (5) can be derived from the error propagation law which is explained in the Technical Guidelines (par. 4.2.1).

Name of the company	TARIC additional code
Jiangsu Aide Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd	B798
Alternative Energy (AE) Solar Co. Ltd	B799
Anhui Chaoqun Power Co. Ltd	B800
Anji DaSol Solar Energy Science & Technology Co. Ltd	B802
Anhui Schutten Solar Energy Co. LtdQuanjiao Jingkun Trade Co. Ltd	B801
Anhui Titan PV Co. Ltd	B803
Xi'an SunOasis (Prime) Company LimitedTBEA SOLAR CO. LTDXINJIANG SANG'O SOLAR EQUIPMENT	B804
CSI Solar Power (China) Inc.Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc.Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc.CSI Cells Co. Ltd	B805
Changzhou NESL Solartech Co. Ltd	B806
Changzhou Shangyou Lianyi Electronic Co. Ltd	B807
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. LtdTrina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co. LtdChangzhou Youze Technology Co. LtdTrina Solar Energy (Shanghai) Co. LtdYancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd	B791
CHINALAND SOLAR ENERGY CO. LTD	B808
ChangZhou EGing Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd	B811
CIXI CITY RIXING ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.ANHUI RINENG ZHONGTIAN SEMICONDUCTOR DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.HUOSHAN KEBO ENERGY & TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.	B812
CNPV Dongying Solar Power Co. Ltd	B813
CSG PVtech Co. Ltd	B814
China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co. LtdCEEG Nanjing Renewable Energy Co. LtdCEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science Technology Co. LtdChina Sunergy (Yangzhou) Co. LtdChina Sunergy (Shanghai) Co. Ltd	B809
Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd	B810
Delsolar (Wujiang) Ltd	B792
Dongfang Electric (Yixing) MAGI Solar Power Technology Co. Ltd	B816
EOPLLY New Energy Technology Co. LtdSHANGHAI EBEST SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CO. LTDJIANGSU EOPLLY IMPORT & EXPORT CO. LTD	B817
Era Solar Co. Ltd	B818
ET Solar Industry LimitedET Energy Co. Ltd	B819
GD Solar Co. Ltd	B820
Greenway Solar-Tech (Shanghai) Co. LtdGreenway Solar-Tech (Huaian) Co. Ltd	B821
Konca Solar Cell Co. LtdSuzhou GCL Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdJiangsu GCL Silicon Material Technology Development Co. LtdJiangsu Zhongneng Polysilicon Technology Development Co. LtdGCL-Poly (Suzhou) Energy LimitedGCL-Poly Solar Power System Integration (Taicang) Co. LtdGCL SOLAR POWER (SUZHOU) LIMITEDGCL Solar System (Suzhou) Limited	B850
Guodian Jintech Solar Energy Co. Ltd	B822
Hangzhou Bluesun New Material Technology Co. Ltd	B824
Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co. LtdZhejiang Jinbest Energy Science and Technology Co. Ltd	B825
Hanwha SolarOne (Qidong) Co. Ltd	B826
Hengdian Group DMEGC Magnetics Co. Ltd	B827
HENGJI PV-TECH ENERGY CO. LTD	B828
Himin Clean Energy Holdings Co. Ltd	B829
Jetion Solar (China) Co. LtdJunfeng Solar (Jiangsu) Co. LtdJetion Solar (Jiangyin) Co. Ltd	B830
Jiangsu Green Power PV Co. Ltd	B831
Jiangsu Hosun Solar Power Co. Ltd	B832
Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd	B833
Jiangsu Runda PV Co. Ltd	B834
Jiangsu Sainty Photovoltaic Systems Co. LtdJiangsu Sainty Machinery Imp. And Exp. Corp. Ltd	B835
Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd	B836
Jiangsu Shunfeng Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdChangzhou Shunfeng Photovoltaic Materials Co. LtdJiangsu Shunfeng Photovoltaic Electronic Power Co. Ltd	B837
Jiangsu Sinski PV Co. Ltd	B838
Jiangsu Sunlink PV Technology Co. Ltd	B839
Jiangsu Zhongchao Solar Technology Co. Ltd	B840
Jiangxi Risun Solar Energy Co. Ltd	B841
Jiangxi LDK Solar Hi-Tech Co. LtdLDK Solar Hi-Tech (Nanchang) Co. LtdLDK Solar Hi-Tech (Suzhou) Co. Ltd	B793
Jiangyin Hareon Power Co. LtdHareon Solar Technology Co. LtdTaicang Hareon Solar Co. LtdHefei Hareon Solar Technology Co. LtdJiangyin Xinhui Solar Energy Co. LtdAltusvia Energy (Taicang) Co. Ltd	B842
Jiangyin Shine Science and Technology Co. Ltd	B843
JingAo Solar Co.LtdShanghai JA Solar Technology Co. LtdJA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. LtdHefei JA Solar Technology Co. LtdShanghai JA Solar PV Technology Co. Ltd	B794
Jinko Solar Co. LtdJinko Solar Import and Export Co. LtdZHEJIANG JINKO SOLAR CO. LTDZHEJIANG JINKO SOLAR TRADING CO. LTD	B845
Jinzhou Yangguang Energy Co. LtdJinzhou Huachang Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdJinzhou Jinmao Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdJinzhou Rixin Silicon Materials Co. LtdJinzhou Youhua Silicon Materials Co. Ltd	B795
Juli New Energy Co. Ltd	B846
Jumao Photonic (Xiamen) Co. Ltd	B847
King-PV Technology Co. Ltd	B848
Kinve Solar Power Co. Ltd (Maanshan)	B849
Lightway Green New Energy Co. LtdLightway Green New Energy (Zhuozhou) Co. Ltd	B851
MOTECH (SUZHOU) RENEWABLE ENERGY CO. LTD	B852
Nanjing Daqo New Energy Co. Ltd	B853
NICE SUN PV CO. LTDLEVO SOLAR TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD	B854
Ningbo Huashun Solar Energy Technology Co. Ltd	B856
Ningbo Jinshi Solar Electrical Science & Technology Co. Ltd	B857
Ningbo Komaes Solar Technology Co. Ltd	B858
Ningbo Osda Solar Co. Ltd	B859
Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd	B860
Ningbo South New Energy Technology Co. Ltd	B861
Ningbo Sunbe Electric Ind Co. Ltd	B862
Ningbo Ulica Solar Science & Technology Co. Ltd	B863
Perfectenergy (Shanghai) Co. Ltd	B864
Perlight Solar Co. Ltd	B865
Phono Solar Technology Co. LtdSumec Hardware & Tools Co. Ltd	B866
RISEN ENERGY CO. LTD	B868
SHANDONG LINUO PHOTOVOLTAIC HI-TECH CO. LTD	B869
SHANGHAI ALEX SOLAR ENERGY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CO. LTDSHANGHAI ALEX NEW ENERGY CO. LTD	B870
Shanghai BYD Co. LtdBYD(Shangluo)Industrial Co.Ltd	B871
Shanghai Chaori Solar Energy Science & Technology Co. LtdShanghai Chaori International Trading Co. Ltd	B872
Propsolar (Zhejiang) New Energy Technology Co. LtdShanghai Propsolar New Energy Co. Ltd	B873
SHANGHAI SHANGHONG ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD	B874
SHANGHAI SOLAR ENERGY S&T CO. LTDShanghai Shenzhou New Energy Development Co. LtdLianyungang Shenzhou New Energy Co. Ltd	B875
Shanghai ST-Solar Co. LtdJiangsu ST-Solar Co. Ltd	B876
Shenzhen Sacred Industry Co. Ltd	B878
Shenzhen Topray Solar Co. LtdShanxi Topray Solar Co. LtdLeshan Topray Cell Co. Ltd	B880
Sopray Energy Co. LtdShanghai Sopray New Energy Co. Ltd	B881
SUN EARTH SOLAR POWER CO. LTDNINGBO SUN EARTH SOLAR POWER CO. LTDNingbo Sun Earth Solar Energy Co. Ltd	B882
SUZHOU SHENGLONG PV-TECH CO. LTD	B883
TDG Holding Co. Ltd	B884
Tianwei New Energy Holdings Co. LtdTianwei New Energy(Chengdu) PV Module Co. LtdTianwei New Energy (Yangzhou) Co. Ltd	B885
Wenzhou Jingri Electrical and Mechanical Co. Ltd	B886
Shanghai Topsolar Green Energy Co. Ltd	B877
Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co. Ltd	B879
Wuhu Zhongfu PV Co. Ltd	B889
Wuxi Saijing Solar Co. Ltd	B890
Wuxi Shangpin Solar Energy Science and Technology Co. Ltd	B891
Wuxi Solar Innova PV Co. Ltd	B892
Wuxi Suntech Power Co. LtdSuntech Power Co. LtdWuxi Sunshine Power Co. LtdLuoyang Suntech Power Co. LtdZhenjiang Rietech New Energy Science Technology Co. LtdZhenjiang Ren De New Energy Science Technology Co. Ltd	B796
Wuxi Taichang Electronic Co. LtdWuxi Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Co. LtdWuxi Taichen Machinery & Equipment Co. Ltd	B893
Xi'an Huanghe Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdState-run Huanghe Machine-Building Factory Import and Export CorporationShanghai Huanghe Fengjia Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd	B896
Xi'an LONGi Silicon Materials Corp.Wuxi LONGi Silicon Materials Co. Ltd	B897
Years Solar Co. Ltd	B898
Yingli Energy (China) Co. LtdBaoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdHainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdHengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdTianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdLixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdBaoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. LtdBeijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co. LtdYingli Energy (Beijing) Co. Ltd	B797
Yuhuan BLD Solar Technology Co. LtdZhejiang BLD Solar Technology Co. Ltd	B899
Yuhuan Sinosola Science & Technology Co. Ltd	B900
Zhangjiagang City SEG PV Co. Ltd	B902
Zhejiang Fengsheng Electrical Co. Ltd	B903
Zhejiang Global Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd	B904
Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology Co. Ltd	B905
Zhejiang Jiutai New Energy Co. LtdZhejiang Topoint Photovoltaic Co. Ltd	B906
Zhejiang Kingdom Solar Energy Technic Co. Ltd	B907
Zhejiang Koly Energy Co. Ltd	B908
Zhejiang Mega Solar Energy Co. LtdZhejiang Fortune Photovoltaic Co. Ltd	B910
Zhejiang Shuqimeng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd	B911
Zhejiang Shinew Photoelectronic Technology Co. Ltd	B912
Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Limited Liability CompanyZhejiang Yauchong Light Energy Science & Technology Co. Ltd	B914
Zhejiang Sunrupu New Energy Co. Ltd	B915
Zhejiang Tianming Solar Technology Co. Ltd	B916
Zhejiang Trunsun Solar Co. LtdZhejiang Beyondsun PV Co. Ltd	B917
Zhejiang Wanxiang Solar Co. LtdWANXIANG IMPORT & EXPORT CO LTD	B918
Zhejiang Xiongtai Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd	B919
ZHEJIANG YUANZHONG SOLAR CO. LTD	B920
RENESOLA ZHEJIANG LTDRENESOLA JIANGSU LTD	B921
Zhongli Talesun Solar Co. Ltd	B922
ZNSHINE PV-TECH CO. LTD	B923

Type	River characterisation	Catchment (km2)	Altitude and geomorphology	Alkalinity	Flow regime
R-A1	Pre-Alpine, small to medium, high altitude calcareous	10-1 000	800-2 500 m (catchment), boulders/cobble	high (but not extremely high) alkalinity
R-A2	Small to medium, high altitude, siliceous	10-1 000	500-1 000 m (max. altitude of catchment 3 000 m, mean 1 500 m), boulders	Non-calcareous (granite, metamorphic). medium to low alkalinity	nival-glacial flow regime

Type R-A1	:	Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Slovenia
Type R-A2	:	Austria, France, Italy, Spain

Type and country	National classification systems intercalibrated	Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary	Good-Moderate boundary
Type R-A1
Austria	Assessment of the biological quality elements – part benthic invertebrates [Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente – Teil Makrozoobenthos (Detaillierte MZB-Methode)]	0,80	0,60
France	Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface	0,93	0,79
Germany	PERLODES – Bewertungsverfahren von Fließgewässern auf Basis des Makrozoobenthos	0,80	0,60
Italy	MacrOper, based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index (STAR_ICMi)	0,97	0,73
Slovenia	Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja rek z bentoškimi nevretenčarji v Sloveniji (Ecological status assessment system for rivers using benthic invertebrates in Slovenia)	0,80	0,60
Type R-A2
Austria	Assessment of the biological quality elements – part benthic invertebrates [Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente – Teil Makrozoobenthos (Detaillierte MZB-Methode)]	0,80	0,60
France (Alps)	Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface	0,93	0,71
France (Pyrenees)	Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface	0,94	0,81
Italy	MacrOper, based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index (STAR_ICMi)	0,95	0,71
Spain	Iberian BMWP (IBMWP)	0,83	0,53

Type R-C1	:	Belgium (Flanders), Belgium (Wallonia), Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom
Type R-C2	:	Spain, France, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom
Type R-C3	:	Austria, Belgium (Wallonia), Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, France, Latvia, Luxembourg, United Kingdom
Type R-C4	:	Belgium (Flanders), Belgium (Wallonia), Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom
Type R-C5	:	Belgium (Wallonia), Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Spain, Ireland. Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom
Type R-C6	:	Belgium (Wallonia), Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden, United Kingdom

Country	National classification system intercalibrated	Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary	Good-Moderate boundary
Austria	Assessment of the biological quality elements – part benthic invertebrates	0,80	0,60
Belgium (Flanders)	Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index Flanders (MMIF)	0,90	0,70
Belgium (Wallonia)	Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN) (Norme AFNOR NF T 90 350, 1992) and Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 13 septembre 2012 relatif à l’identification, à la caractérisation et à la fixation des seuils d’état écologique applicables aux masses d’eau de surface et modifiant le Livre II du Code de l’Environnement, contenant le Code de l’Eau. Moniteur belge 12.10.2012	0,97 (types R-C3,, R-C5, R-C6)0,94 (type R-C1)	0,74 (types R-C3,, R-C5, R-C6)0,75 (type R-C1)
Czech Republic	Czech system for ecological status assessment of rivers using benthic macroinvertebrates	0,80	0,60
Denmark	Danish Stream Fauna Index (DSFI)	1,00	0,71
Estonia	Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment – river macroinvertebrates	0,90	0,70
Germany	PERLODES – Bewertungsverfahren von Fließgewässern auf Basis des Makrozoobenthos	0,80	0,60
France	Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface	0,94	0,80
Ireland	Quality Rating System (Q-value)	0,85	0,75
Italy	MacrOper, based on STAR_ICM index calculation	0,96	0,72
Luxembourg	Classification luxembourgeoise DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN) 1992, AFNOR NF-T-90-350 et circulaire DCE 2007/22 MEDD/DE/MAGE/BEMA 07/no4 du 11 avril 2007	0,96	0,72
Netherlands	KRW-maatlat	0,80	0,60
Poland	RIVECOmacrofor ecological status assessment of rivers using benthic macroinvertebrates(Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index, based on STAR_ICM)	0,91(type RC1)	0,72 (type RC1)
Spain	METI	0,93	0,70
Sweden	DJ-index (Dahl & Johnson 2004)	0,80	0,60
United Kingdom	River Invertebrate Classification Tool (RICT)- WHPT	0,97	0,86

Type	River characterisation	Ecoregion	Catchment (km2)	Altitude (m)	Geology	Substrate
R-E1a	Carpathians: small to medium, mid-altitude	10	10 – 1 000	500 – 800	mixed
R-E1b	Carpathians: small to medium, mid-altitude	10	10 – 1 000	200 – 500	mixed
R-E2	Plains: medium-sized, lowland	11 and 12	100 – 1 000	< 200	mixed	sand and silt
R-E3	Plains: large, lowland	11 and 12	> 1 000	< 200	mixed	sand, silt and gravel
R-E4	Plains: medium-sized, mid-altitude	11 and 12	100 – 1 000	200 – 500	mixed	sand and gravel
R-EX4	Large, mid-altitude	10, 11 and 12	> 1 000	200 – 500	mixed	gravel and boulder
R-EX5	Plains: small lowland	11 and 12	10 – 100	< 200	mixed	sand and silt
R-EX6	Plains: small, mid-altitude	11 and 12	10 – 100	200 – 500	mixed	gravel
R-EX7	Balkan: small, calcareous, mid-altitude	5	10-100	200-500	calcareous	gravel
R-EX8	Balkan: small to medium-sized, calcareous karst spring	5	10-1 000		calcareous	gravel, sand and silt

Type R-E1a	:	Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia
Type R-E1b	:	Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia
Type R-E2	:	Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia
Type R-E3	:	Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia
Type R-E4	:	Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia
Type R-EX4	:	Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia
Type R-EX5	:	Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia
Type R-EX6	:	Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia
Type R-EX7	:	Slovenia
Type R-EX8	:	Bulgaria, Slovenia

Type R-M1	:	France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain
Type R-M2	:	France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain
Type R-M4	:	Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Spain
Type R-M5	:	Cyprus, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain

Type	River characterisation	Catchment area (of stretch)	Altitude & geomorphology	Alkalinity (meq/l)	Organic material (mg Pt/l)
R-N1	Small lowland siliceous moderate alkalinity	10-100 km2	< 200 m or below the highest coastline	0,2 – 1	< 30(< 150 in Ireland)
R-N3	Small/medium lowland organic low alkalinity	10-1 000 km2	< 0,2	> 30
R-N4	Medium lowland siliceous moderate alkalinity	100-1 000 km2	0,2 – 1	< 30
R-N5	Small mid-altitude siliceous low alkalinity	10-100 km2	Between lowland and highland	< 0,2	< 30

Type R-N1	:	Finland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom
Type R-N3	:	Finland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom
Type R-N4	:	Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom
Type R-N5	:	Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type R-L1	:	Finland, Norway, Sweden
Type R-L2	:	Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden

Type	Lake characterisation	Altitude (m above sea level)	Mean depth (m)	Alkalinity (meq/l)	Lake size (km2)
L-AL3	Lowland or mid-altitude, deep, moderate to high alkalinity (alpine influence), large	50 – 800	> 15	> 1	> 0,5
L-AL4	Mid-altitude, shallow, moderate to high alkalinity (alpine influence), large	200 – 800	3 – 15	> 1	> 0,5

Types L-AL3	:	Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia
Types L-AL4	:	Austria, France, Germany, Italy

Member State	National classification systems intercalibrated	Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary	Good-moderate boundary
Austria	Evaluation of the biological quality elements, Part B2 – phytoplankton	0,80	0,60
Germany	PSI (Phyto-Seen-Index) – Bewertungsverfahren für Seen mittels Phytoplankton zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland	0,80	0,60
Italy	Italian Phytoplankton Assessment Method (IPAM)	0,80	0,60
Slovenia	Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja jezer s fitoplanktonom v Sloveniji (Ecological status assessment system for lakes using phytoplankton in Slovenia)	0,80	0,60

Types L-CB1	:	Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom
Types L-CB2	:	Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom

Member State	National classification systems intercalibrated	IC Type	Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary	Good-moderate boundary
Belgium (Flanders)	Flemish macrophyte assessment system	All types	0,80	0,60
Denmark	Danish Lake Macrophytes Index	All types	0,80	0,60
Estonia	Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment – lake macrophytes	LCB1	0,78	0,52
LCB2	0,76	0,50
Germany	Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (Phylib), Modul Makrophyten	All types	0,80	0,60
Lithuania	Lithuanian macrophyte assessment method	All types	0,75	0,50
Latvia	Latvian macrophyte assessment method	All types	0,80	0,60
Netherlands	WFD-metrics for natural water types	All types	0,80	0,60
Poland	Macrophyte based indication method for lakes – Ecological Status Macrophyte Index ESMI (multimetric)	All types	0,68	0,41
United Kingdom	LEAFPACS lake macrophyte classification tool(*1)	All types	0,80	0,66

Type	Lake characterization	Altitude (m)	Annual mean precipitation (mm) and T (°C)	Mean depth (m)	Area (km2)	Catchment (km2)	Alkalinity (meq/l)
L-M5/7	Reservoirs, deep, large,siliceous, “wet”areas	< 1 000	> 800 and /or < 15	> 15	0,5-50	< 20 000	< 1
L-M8	Reservoirs, deep, large,calcareous	< 1 000	—	> 15	0,5-50	< 20 000	> 1

Types L-M5/7	:	Greece, France, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain
Types L-M8	:	Cyprus, France, Italy, Romania, Spain

Member State	National classification methods intercalibrated	Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good	Good-moderate
LM 5/7
Spain	Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton (MASRP).	n.d.(*2)	0,58
Portugal	Reservoirs Biological Quality Assessment Method – Phytoplankton (New Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton: NMASRP).	n.d.	0,60
Italy	New Italian Method (NITMET)	n.d.	0,60
L-M8
Spain	Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton (MASRP).	n.d.	0,60
Cyprus	New Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton (NMASRP).	n.d.	0,60
Italy	New Italian Method (NITMET)	n.d.	0,60

Types L-N1, L-N2a, L-N3a, LN-8a	:	Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.
Types LN-2b	:	Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom
Types LN-5, LN-6a	:	Norway, Sweden

Types 101, 102, 201 and 202	:	Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.
Type 301a	:	Ireland, United Kingdom.
Type 302a	:	Ireland, United Kingdom

Types L-N-BF1	:	Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Ireland, Finland
Types L-N-BF2	:	Finland, Sweden

Type	Lake characterisation	Lake area km2	Alkalinity (meq/l)	Colour (mg Pt/l)
L-N-F1	Dimictic clear water lakes	< 40	< 0,2	< 30
L-N-F2	Dimictic humic lakes	< 5	< 0,2	30-90

Types L-N-F1	:	Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom
Types L-N-F2	:	Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom

Types HA	:	Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia, United Kingdom
Types MA	:	Belgium, France, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, United Kingdom
Types LA	:	Finland, Ireland, Sweden, United Kingdom

Type	Surface salinityPsu	Bottom salinity	Exposure	Ice days	Other Characteristics
BT 1	0-8Oligohaline	0 – 8	Very sheltered	—	Polish Vistula lagoon and Lithuanian Curonian lagoon.
BC1	0,5 – 6Oligohaline	1 – 6	Exposed	90 – 150	Sites in the Quark and the Bothnian Sea, extending to the Archipelago Sea (for phytoplankton the latter is excluded and integrated in type BC9)Influence of humic substances
BC3	3 – 6Oligohaline	3 – 6	Sheltered	90 – 150	Finnish and Estonian coasts of Gulf of Finland
BC4	5 – 8Lower mesohaline	5 – 8	Sheltered	< 90	Sites of Estonia and Latvia in the Gulf of Riga
BC5	6 – 8Lower mesohaline	6 – 12	Exposed	< 90	Sites in the southeastern Baltic Sea along the coast of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland
BC6	8 – 12Mid mesohaline	8 -12	Sheltered	< 90	Sites along the Western Baltic Sea at the southern Swedish coast and the southeastern Danish coast
BC7	6 – 8Mid mesohaline	8 – 11	Exposed	< 90	Western Polish coast and eastern German coast
BC8	13 -18Upper mesohaline	18 -23	Sheltered	< 90	Danish and German coasts in the Western Baltic Sea
BC9	3 – 6Lower mesohaline	3 – 6	Moderately exposed to exposed	90 – 150	Sites in the western Gulf of Finland, Archipelago Sea and Asko archipelago (only for phytoplankton)

Type BC1	:	Finland, Sweden.
Type BC3	:	Finland, Estonia
Type BC4	:	Estonia, Latvia
Type BC5	:	Lithuania, Latvia, Poland.
Type BC6	:	Sweden, Denmark.
Type BC7	:	Germany, Poland.
Type BC8	:	Germany, Denmark.
Type BC9	:	Finland, Sweden, Estonia (type only relevant for phytoplankton)

Member State	National classification methods intercalibrated	Ecological Quality Ratios of the national classification systems
High-good boundary	Good-moderate boundary
BC7
Germany	German coastal phytoplankton method	0,8	0,6
Poland	Polish coastal phytoplankton method	0,8	0,6
BC8
Denmark	Danish coastal phytoplankton method	0,8	0,6
Germany	German coastal phytoplankton method	0,8	0,6

Type and country	Ecological Quality Ratios for the national classification systems	Parameter values/rangesDepth limit (m)Eelgrass Zostera marina
High-Good boundary	Good-Moderate boundary	High-Good boundary	Good-Moderate boundary
BC8
Denmark and GermanyOpen coast	0,90	0,74	8,5	7