COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

Commission Notice on recommendations on the 2020 updated reports for Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC)

(2023/C 165/01)

1.   INTRODUCTION

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC) (1) is a holistic legislation. Its objective is to protect the marine environment in Europe, while enabling the sustainable use of marine resources and services. It requires Member States to assess the quality of the marine environment; determine good environmental status; set appropriate environmental targets; draw up adequate monitoring programmes; and implement measures to achieve the Directive’s key goal of securing a ‘good environmental status’ of all EU marine waters by 2020. As pointed out in the Directive's implementation report (2), this goal was not achieved in all EU waters across all the descriptors (3) in the Directive by the given deadline.

Commission Decision 2017/848 lays down criteria and methodological standards for determining good environmental status of marine waters for each MSFD descriptor.

Under the Directive, Member States are asked to report the various steps of their marine strategies to the European Commission, to assess the state of their seas, determine good environmental status and set targets. Member States must also set up and implement monitoring programmes and take measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status. In particular, according to Articles 11 (1) and 17(4) of the Directive, Member States were expected to notify their updated monitoring programmes to the Commission by 15 July 2020. Through the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy (4), Member States agreed to transmit such monitoring programmes in the form of e-reports with relevant structured information via WISE-Marine platform.

However, the majority of Member States did not submit reports by the deadline. Despite the Commission's reminders about their reporting obligations, reports were still missing from four Member States by January 2022. These late submissions resulted in delays in the assessment of the monitoring programmes, which the Commission is required to perform under Article 12 of the Directive.

This report is based on the monitoring programmes submitted by the January 2022 cut-off date by 18 of the 22 Member States with a marine border (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden). The analysis and Commission assessment for countries that submitted reports after January 2022 (Greece, Portugal, Bulgaria) and for countries that have not yet sent their reports (Malta (5)) will follow once all national reports have been received. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission reserves its right to pursue cases of non-compliance through the legal means at its disposal.

Based on the technical and scientific analysis (6) of the national reports provided by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) – published simultaneously to this report – the Commission has drawn a number of EU-wide recommendations. They focus on Article 11 and on the descriptors included under Annex I of the Directive, together with the criteria identified in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 (7).

While carrying out its assessment, the Commission considered the following four main elements listed below.

1.	What is actually monitored, at what frequency and where.

2.	Whether the data collected is sufficient and useful to properly assess the state of the sea, the effects of the measures taken and the attainment of good environmental status.

3.	Regional coherence of the monitoring programmes.

4.	Policy coherence with other EU reporting obligations – in particular, waste and water framework directives; common fisheries policy; single use plastics; habitats and bird directives.

The JRC's analysis provides detailed information on what each Member State reported and highlights national shortcomings. Where possible, it makes a comparison with the 2014 monitoring programmes, in particular on the fulfilment of Member States’ 2014 commitments.

The aim of the analysis is to lay out all necessary elements and guide each Member State to take appropriate follow-up actions in line with Article 12 of the Directive. This will enhance compliance when reporting monitoring programmes across the EU.

Comprehensive and coherent monitoring data are necessary to understand the impacts of human pressures on the marine environment, as well as to assess how effective various measures are in reducing these pressures thereby contributing to healthy seas and coasts, and, more broadly, to the implementation of the European Green Deal. In this respect, the recently adopted Zero Pollution Monitoring and Outlook Report (8), in addition to underlining slow progress in the marine environment notably in relation to the prevention of excess nutrients and plastic litter in the seas, clearly identified the lack of sufficient and reliable data as an obstacle to follow-up on the implementation of some of the targets set.

2.   OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1.   General observations and recommendations

The assessment showed that only a small proportion of Member States reported new monitoring programmes (9). In fact, one third of the monitoring programmes remained the same as in the 2014 reporting cycle. In the majority of cases, Member States mainly reported modifications or updates of their 2014 monitoring programmes. The pattern was the same for each descriptor.

Based on the above, the Commission has drawn the general observations and recommendations listed below.

—	Some Member States have not reported monitoring programmes for some descriptors (10). The Commission invites the Member States concerned to update and report the missing data without delay.

—

The data reported for the various elements and parameters lack consistency across Member States, making any comparison or assessment of monitoring methods and programmes very difficult. Moreover, some Member States reported several features, elements or parameters that are not strictly related to the reported descriptor. The Commission underlines that consistent reporting per descriptor across Member States is key for the analytical process (11).

—

The criteria (12) to be reported were not covered consistently; only eight criteria (all primary) (13) out of 42 (both primary and secondary) are reported by all Member States. More generally, the coverage for primary criteria seems to be higher than that for secondary criteria (14). However, this depends on the descriptor being monitored. The Commission reminds Member States that in principle all criteria should be covered in the monitoring programmes.

—	Some Member States (e.g. Denmark, Spain, Sweden) reported (sub) regions (e.g. Northeast Atlantic, Baltic) in a combined way, preventing a regional analysis from being carried out. The Commission urges Member State to avoid such an approach in future reporting rounds.

—

Links to monitoring data are provided but the number and accessibility of links varies significantly among Member States. For instance, the original data (and metadata) are hard or impossible to access for some Member States as the links provided under ‘Data Access’ are not connected to a specific dataset or need additional steps to find, access and reuse the data. Such links are necessary for transparency, accessibility and for enabling joint efforts. The Commission invites Member States to verify the access and the quality of the links provided to access the monitoring data. Experience shows that processes such as EMODNET for the compilation of harmonized, comparable, datasets across the EU can support a data-based large-scale overview; it might therefore be advisable to further consider the development of such processes.

—

The considerable discrepancy and type of information reported by the Member States for some descriptors indicate that personnel of national competent authorities need to be familiar with the reporting guidelines and the use of the recommended formats of the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy (15). The Commission has already presented capacity-building possibilities for MSFD reporting to Member States’ administrations through its technical assistance and information exchange (TAIEX) instrument, such as ‘peer to peer’ projects. The Commission invites Member States to consider this option in the future.

2.2.   Links with Article 8 of the Directive (Assessments of state), Article 9 (Determining good environmental status), Article 10 (Environmental targets) and Article 13 (Measures)

The analysis showed that most monitoring programmes submitted by Member States were designed to cater for pressures at sea and at source (16). They were therefore less suitable to measure the impacts of those pressures. Moreover, the analysis highlighted gaps in Member States’ monitoring programmes. Most gaps seem to be linked to the lack of agreed approaches or methodological standards at EU or regional level to assess the different criteria or descriptors.

On the coverage of criteria for good environmental status (17), the analysis shows that the monitoring programmes are often incomplete, with wide variations between Member States for each of the descriptors. That said, monitoring programmes are more complete when the MSFD criteria coincide with requirements under other EU legislation. This is the case for commercial fisheries (descriptor 3) under the common fisheries policy or for eutrophication (descriptor 5) under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). This confirms the lack of sufficiently concrete and coordinated good environmental status determination, already highlighted in the Commission assessment of Member States reports on Articles 8-10 (18). In fact, less than 50 % of Member States have set quantitative threshold values for good environmental status and less than 25 % of Member States have established adequate means to determine a good environmental status for descriptors on biological diversity, non-indigenous species, contaminants, and marine litter.

For all descriptors, a significant number of Member States have indicated that monitoring is not yet adequate to cover their own environmental targets. The latest Commission assessment of Member States targets (19) had already shown that there are still many gaps in the setting of common targets because they are defined in a rather general way. For instance, only 30 % of Member States set measurable targets for eutrophication and less that 20 % do so for all the other descriptors. This means that they cannot all be linked to specific monitoring activities. Therefore, the monitoring programmes cannot address all the targets.

In addition, the monitoring programmes do not provide sufficient data to assess the progress due to measures, despite the recommendation made by the Commission in 2017 (20) and 2018 (21). Many Member States have declared that monitoring is not yet adequate to cover the progress of measures and to gauge their effectiveness. To monitor effectiveness, measures must be specific to the descriptor under review and cannot be generic or broadly related to human activity impacts, as is often the case now.

To conclude, from the information reported, it is difficult to accurately assess the links with other MSFD reporting obligations (namely Articles 8, 9, 10 and 13). It seems there are still gaps in understanding (i) which elements/parameters should be monitored to assess good environmental status; (ii) the conceptual approaches to set targets; and (iii) what should be reported for monitoring related to measures.

The Commission would therefore like to underline that consistent and coherent monitoring will only be possible when targets are specific enough and clearly linked to a particular good environmental status criterion. Only then, will it support the implementation of Article 10 and measure progress towards the targets.

2.3.   Spatial/temporal scope and monitoring frequency

Monitoring efforts mainly focus on coastal waters, suggesting the need for improved monitoring in other underrepresented areas, namely beyond Member States’ territorial waters, which are also covered by the scope of the legislation. The Commission recognises the challenges and costs that monitoring out at sea entails. This is why targeted support has been provided through projects financed by EU funds such as the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) and its predecessor the European Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF), regional funding (INTERREG), and Horizon 2020. The Commission recently published a document on funding opportunities to support the environment under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework and NextGenerationEU (22).The Horizon Europe Mission Restore our Ocean and Waters by 2030 will put in place a digital environmental monitoring system. This system, including the Digital Twin Ocean, the Mission projects and other actions could further assist Member States in improving their marine monitoring capacity.

In short, taking a risk-based approach to monitoring, joining efforts through improved coordination, and making better use of the above mentioned EU funds and opportunities can enhance the territorial scope of Member States’ monitoring programmes.

Regarding monitoring frequency, the information provided (23) is too broad to reveal any pattern (for example by referring to the whole monitoring programme), notably given the high number of monitoring programmes and the numerous elements and parameters. However, such information is essential for coordination at regional level. Moreover, several elements are subject to numerous monitoring frequencies, indicating that Member States have reported monitoring programmes already required under other legal obligations, such as the Water Framework Directive or the Regional Sea Conventions. The assessment also shows that frequency was not properly coordinated within Member States or across regions. The Commission therefore urges Member States to harmonise and clarify their reporting, for example by giving monitoring frequency ranges, and including details such as links to a particular descriptor criterion, spatial scope, etc.

Moreover, the spatial delineation of the monitoring programmes is not clear and details on the sampling stations are missing. The spatial coverage should indicate the extent of the area covered by the monitoring programme (as a percentage or layer), either within the area of jurisdiction or within the area of species spatial distribution. For instance, for highly mobile species, this field should either correspond to the monitored area against the spatial distribution of the species or it should be omitted to avoid unnecessary burden.

Finally, it is important to highlight that temporal and spatial inconsistencies are among the most common gaps; the data reported does not provide enough details to understand where and at what frequency monitoring takes place.

2.4.   Regional coordination

Although several regionally agreed monitoring methods exist (24) and are used by some Member States, in many cases Member States indicated that they use national or ‘other’ monitoring methods (25). This means that substantial differences persist in the number of elements considered and in the parameters monitored by Member States within the same region. In particular, regional cooperation on monitoring still requires a great deal of regional harmonisation, for example for descriptors such as food webs (descriptor 4) and hydrographical changes (descriptor 7).

The Commission participates actively in the work of the Regional Seas Conventions; it represents the EU as a contracting party (Barcelona Convention, OSPAR and HELCOM) or as an observer (Bucharest Convention). It also supports projects and activities via dedicated EU-funds to increase regional coordination of Member States’ monitoring programmes. This was the case for the EMFF and will continue to be the case for its successor, EMFAF (26).

2.5.   Coherence with other policies

The monitoring programmes should have provided information on which other EU policies and international agreements (including Regional Sea Conventions) they contribute to and vice versa. Member States have indicated several policies and frameworks relevant for the monitoring of the different MSFD descriptors, although not in a consistent way (27).

For instance, if we consider references to EU legislation in Decision 2017/848/EU, for the descriptor on non-indigenous species (descriptor 2), the Invasive Alien Species Regulation (28) is reported by only five Member States in the Baltic (29), four in the Atlantic (30) and only two Member States in the Mediterranean (31). This is surprising given the links between the two pieces of legislation. The Data Collection Framework Multi-Annual Plan of the Common Fisheries Policy (32), which is the main monitoring programme for commercial fisheries species, is reported by all Member States under the commercial fisheries and shellfish descriptor (descriptor 3), either on its own or in combination with other programmes. For eutrophication (descriptor 5) and contaminants (descriptor 8), reporting is mostly linked to the Water Framework Directive (33) and to the Foodstuffs Regulation (34) for contaminants in seafood (descriptor 9). For the biodiversity descriptor (descriptor 1), the majority of the Member States referred to the established monitoring programmes from the Habitats and Birds Directives and the Common Fisheries Policy. While this is encouraging, efforts are still needed to align monitoring between the above-mentioned directives and the MSFD. Furthermore, while many Member States refer to the underwater noise monitoring established under Regional Sea Conventions (namely OSPAR and HELCOM) as relevant for descriptor 11 on energy and underwater noise of the Directive, few Member States have indicated the links with those programmes with any level of detail.

2.6.   Progress compared to the 2014 monitoring reports

The 2020 reporting followed a simpler approach compared to the previous exercise. Member States were asked to link their 2014 monitoring programmes to the new reporting format to take into account Decision 2017/848/EU. However, not all complied with this request (35). Many entries from the 2014 reporting were missing or reported differently in 2020. This is expected to be resolved in the coming reporting cycles, thanks to the simpler approach (reducing from three to two the levels of reporting) introduced as from the 2020 reporting exercise.

3.   CONCLUDING REMARKS

When developed properly, monitoring programmes can not only inform public authorities on the state of the marine environment, but can also help Member States and economic operators to better understand the link between their activities and the impacts they have. For example, monitoring programmes should be able to provide information on the positive impact of fisheries management measures on those species and habitats that benefit from the measures. Similarly, information on land-based activities, such as agriculture, can lead to remedial measures that eventually reduce eutrophication caused by these activities. Furthermore, solid monitoring mechanisms improve the understanding of the impacts of projects with high economic or social relevance, such as the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas installations or the massive deployment of offshore renewable energies. Monitoring therefore contributes to a better mitigation of environmental risks and reassures the public, facilitating the acceptance of public investment decisions.

The latest compilation of elements, features and parameters monitored across the EU for all MSFD descriptors has identified monitoring gaps. From the information reported, it is difficult to assess the links with other MSFD reporting obligations (namely Articles 8, 9, 10 and 13), particularly because good environmental status, targets and measures have not been reported in a sufficiently concrete and measurable way in previous MSFD reports, as highlighted in the Commission’s 2022 assessment. Moreover, common monitoring programmes across sectors and regions are inconsistently reported. This indicates that Member States are not yet making the most of the links with other sectors either at national or regional level, leading to inefficiencies.

Work to address those gaps should be given priority by Member States at all implementation levels of the Directive. These recommendations should help Member States to fill the gaps and develop efficient monitoring programmes that will ultimately contribute to achieving their environmental objectives. A clean and healthy marine and coastal environment is not only a legal requirement or a moral obligation to future generations. It is also the necessary basis of all maritime activities and an essential condition for the sustainability of key economic sectors, such as fisheries and tourism. This makes protection and systematic monitoring of the marine and coastal environment a truly meaningful investment, including from an economic point of view.

The Commission is aware that monitoring environmental parameters to assess the marine environment is an enormous task. It covers numerous aspects, ranging across many marine species, habitats and multiple anthropogenic pressures and impacts. The efforts made by Member States are remarkable and despite the shortcomings identified, it should be recognised that coordinated environmental marine monitoring in the EU under the MSFD and with four Regional Sea Conventions is a globally unique achievement.

As underlined in its report to the European Parliament and the Council on the MSFD implementation in 2020 (36), the Commission considers the Directive a harmonised legal framework that enables constant improvements in data gathering and fosters the design of comprehensive marine monitoring programmes. In this same report, the Commission also points out that the data collected by Member States – through MSFD monitoring programmes – are often not comparable. It also points to the fact that those monitoring programmes are not always linked to the targets, and because they are set up before the measures, the connection between the two is often suboptimal.

The Commission maintains that monitoring programmes should measure in a harmonised way the state of the marine environment, the achievement of environmental targets and the effectiveness of measures. The Commission will integrate these considerations into the ongoing review of the MSFD, while aiming to simplify reporting requirements at the same time. Ultimately, the data derived from these monitoring programmes are essential to implement the European Green Deal, feeding, as they become available, into the Zero Pollution and the Biodiversity Monitoring Frameworks under the overarching eighth Environment Action Programme (EAP) Monitoring Framework. Finally, they will also contribute to implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, by populating the marine-related headline and other indicators and by facilitating the adaptation of the national biodiversity strategies and action plans.

---

(1)  Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19).

(2)  COM/2020/259 final.

(3)  The 11 qualitative descriptors are defined in Annex I of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and further specified in Commission Decision 2017/848/EU. They include: D1 – Biodiversity; D2 – Nonindigenous species; D3 – Commercial fish and shellfish; D4 – Food webs; D5 – Eutrophication; D6 – Sea-floor integrity; D7 – Hydrographical changes; D8 – Contaminants; D9 – Contaminants in seafood; D10 – Litter; D11 – Energy, including underwater noise.

(4)  https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/index_en.htm

(5)  Malta had not reported by 22 February 2023.

(6)  Tornero V., Palma M., Boschetti S.T., Cardoso A.C., Druon J.-N., Kotta M., Louropoulou E., Magliozzi C., Palialexis A., Piroddi C., Ruiz-Orejón L.F., Vasilakopoulos P., Vighi M., Hanke G. Review and analysis of EU Member States’ 2020 reports: Monitoring programmes (MSFD Article 11), EUR 31181 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 978-92-76-55778-4, doi:10.2760/8457, JRC129363.

(7)  Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 of 17 May 2017 laying down criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters and specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment, and repealing Decision 2010/477/EU (OJ L 125, 18.5.2017, p. 43).

(8)  COM(2022) 674 final, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions on the First 'zero pollution' monitoring and outlook for 'Pathways towards cleaner air, water and soil for Europe'.

(9)  See p.174 of JRC analysis.

(10)  Reporting for descriptor 9 is missing for Germany; reporting for descriptor 1 on birds is missing for Romania; reporting for descriptor 4 is missing for Germany and Romania. Although Belgium, Ireland, France, Cyprus, and Latvia provided reports for descriptor 4, they did not do so for any of its criteria, but reported for other descriptor criteria (mainly descriptor 1). This is mostly because there is no monitoring for descriptor 4. For this descriptor Member States rely on data coming from other descriptors’ monitoring programmes.

(11)  Reporting on the MSFD needs to consider reporting for the features (e.g. ecosystem components, pressures, activities), elements (e.g. specific species, habitats, contaminants, litter categories) and parameters monitored, as stated in the monitoring reporting guidance (MSFD guidance document 17).

(12)  As identified in Commission Decision 2017/848/EU.

(13)  Descriptor 1, criterion 2 (population abundance of selected species); descriptor 3, criterion 1 (fishing mortality rate), descriptor 3, criterion 2 (spawning stock biomass), descriptor 5, criterion 1 (nutrients’ concentration), descriptor 8, criterion 1 (contaminants’ concentration), descriptor 9, criterion 1 (level of contaminants in edible tissues of seafood), descriptor 10, criterion 1 (macro litter quantities and composition) and descriptor 11, criterion 1 (anthropogenic impulsive sound in water).

(14)  According to Article 3.2 of Commission Decision 2017/848/EU, secondary criteria are used to complement a primary criterion or when the marine environment is at risk of not achieving or not maintaining a good environmental status for that particular criterion.

(15)  https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/326ae5ac-0419-4167-83ca-e3c210534a69/library/bc5bb466-2855-4308-be2e-4a585ee8ba69/details

(16)  See p.95-118 and 175-177 of the JRC analysis.

(17)  As envisaged in Commission Decision 2017/848/EU.

(18)  Covering assessment of the marine environment (Article 8), determination of good environmental status (Article 9) and environmental targets (Article 10): C(2022)1392 ‘Commission Notice on recommendations per Member State and region on the 2018 updated reports for Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC)’

(19)  See footnote 18.

(20)  COM (2017) 3 final.

(21)  COM (2018) 562 final.

(22)  Find your EU funding programme for the environment - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu)

(23)  See p.179 of the JRC analysis.

(24)  Mostly from two regional sea conventions, in the Northeast Atlantic (OSPAR) and the Baltic Sea (HELCOM).

(25)  See p.119-149 and 181 of the JRC analysis.

(26)  EMFAF Call for Proposals - Regional flagships projects supporting sustainable blue economy in EU sea basins (europa.eu)

(27)  See p.150-157 and 181 of the JRC analysis.

(28)  Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35).

(29)  Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, and Sweden.

(30)  Belgium, Denmark, Spain and Sweden.

(31)  Spain and Italy.

(32)  Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22).

(33)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1).

(34)  Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

(35)  See p.164-166 and 183 of the JRC analysis.

(36)  Report on the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (europa.eu)

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11075 – EBERT HERA ESSER HOLDING / SERVICECO)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 165/02)

On 3 May 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

—	in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

—	in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11075. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

Euro exchange rates (1)

8 May 2023

(2023/C 165/03)

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,1037
JPY	Japanese yen	149,15
DKK	Danish krone	7,4473
GBP	Pound sterling	0,87228
SEK	Swedish krona	11,2012
CHF	Swiss franc	0,9813
ISK	Iceland króna	150,50
NOK	Norwegian krone	11,5505
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	23,410
HUF	Hungarian forint	372,20
PLN	Polish zloty	4,5693
RON	Romanian leu	4,9246
TRY	Turkish lira	21,5304
AUD	Australian dollar	1,6244
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,4710
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	8,6618
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,7389
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,4620
KRW	South Korean won	1 458,26
ZAR	South African rand	20,2552
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,6347
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	16 237,42
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,8971
PHP	Philippine peso	61,015
RUB	Russian rouble
THB	Thai baht	37,382
BRL	Brazilian real	5,4613
MXN	Mexican peso	19,6393
INR	Indian rupee	90,2775

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Euro exchange rates (1)

9 May 2023

(2023/C 165/04)

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,0959
JPY	Japanese yen	147,97
DKK	Danish krone	7,4452
GBP	Pound sterling	0,86990
SEK	Swedish krona	11,1885
CHF	Swiss franc	0,9788
ISK	Iceland króna	150,70
NOK	Norwegian krone	11,5750
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	23,363
HUF	Hungarian forint	371,68
PLN	Polish zloty	4,5723
RON	Romanian leu	4,9200
TRY	Turkish lira	21,3858
AUD	Australian dollar	1,6217
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,4679
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	8,5934
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,7320
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,4544
KRW	South Korean won	1 451,90
ZAR	South African rand	20,2003
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,5853
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	16 159,20
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,8762
PHP	Philippine peso	61,123
RUB	Russian rouble
THB	Thai baht	36,921
BRL	Brazilian real	5,4863
MXN	Mexican peso	19,4970
INR	Indian rupee	89,9495

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Notice of the areas available for the granting of licences for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons

(2023/C 165/05)

Pursuant to Article 20 of the Hydrocarbon Exploration and Exploitation Act (Narodne novine (NN; Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia) Nos 52/18, 52/19 and 30/21), the Ministry of the Economy and Sustainable Development, on behalf of the Republic of Croatia, hereby publishes the following

The Government of the Republic of Croatia invites all interested legal persons to submit bids to obtain a licence for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in respect of the available exploration blocks on the mainland.

1.   INFORMATION REGARDING EXPLORATION BLOCKS

The areas for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons on the mainland for which hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation licences are available are:

1.	Exploration block SA-08/SA-09

2.	Exploration block SA-11/SA-12

3.	Exploration block DR-02/1

Maps and coordinates of the exploration blocks are provided in the tender documentation.

The exploration blocks for which exploration and exploitation licences are available have been the subject of a prior tender procedure for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in which no licence was granted for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons or a hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation licence was granted but no contract for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons was then signed; one of the blocks corresponds to the area relinquished by an investor in the process of exploration for hydrocarbons in accordance with Article 36 of the Hydrocarbon Exploration and Exploitation Act.

2.   CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF BIDDERS

Under Article 2(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3) in relation to national security and in accordance with Article 19 of the Hydrocarbon Exploration and Exploitation Act, the criteria to be taken into consideration in order to select the best bidder are:

1.	the technical, financial and professional competence of the bidder;

2.	how the bidder intends to carry out the activities covered by the licence for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons;

3.	the overall quality of the bid submitted;

4.	the financial conditions offered by the bidder in exchange for the licence for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons; and

5.	any lack of efficiency or responsibility in any form displayed by the bidder in another country when carrying out activities covered by a licence for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons.

Another criterion for selecting the bidder is the fee for entering into the contract for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons, the minimum amount of which is laid down in the decree referred to in Article 51 of the Hydrocarbon Exploration and Exploitation Act.

If, following an evaluation on the basis of the criteria under the Hydrocarbon Exploration and Exploitation Act, two or more bids are of equal merit, other relevant, objective and non-discriminatory criteria will be taken into account for the final decision.

3.   PROCEDURE FOR SUBMITTING BIDS

Bids are to be submitted in accordance with the tender documentation published on the official website of the Croatian Hydrocarbon Agency –www.azu.hr – and submitted to the Hydrocarbon Agency in accordance with the provisions of the Hydrocarbon Exploration and Exploitation Act and the tender documentation.

All other relevant information and notices can be found on the Hydrocarbons Agency website – www.azu.hr.

Notice on the availability of areas in Austria for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2023/C 165/06)

With reference to Article 3(3) of Directive 94/22/EC (1), the Federal Minister for Finance of the Republic of Austria hereby gives notice that, in accordance with the Mineral Raw Materials Act (Federal Law Gazette (BGBl.) I No 38/1999), as last amended by the Federal Act published in BGBl. I No 60/2022, the whole national territory of the Republic of Austria is available on a permanent basis within the meaning of Article 3(3) provided that there are no existing prospection, production and storage contracts relating to hydrocarbons, or existing mining rights which also include hydrocarbons. For detailed information on this matter, please contact the Federal Ministry of Finance, Section VI – Telecommunications, Postal Services and Mining, Denisgasse 31, 1200 Vienna.

This notice replaces the notice from the Republic of Austria published in the Official Journal of the European Union C 111 of 3 April 2020, page 3.

---

(1)  Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3).

Publication of an approved standard amendment to a product specification of a protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication in the sector of agricultural products and foodstuffs, as referred to in Article 6b(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014

(2023/C 165/07)

This communication is published in accordance with Article 6b(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 (1).

Communicating the approval of a standard amendment to the product specification of a protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication originating in a Member State

(Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012)

‘Χαλλούμι / Halloumi / Hellim’

EU No: PDO-CY-01243-AM03 - 14.3.2023

PDO (X) PGI ( )

1.   Name of product

‘Χαλλούμι / Halloumi / Hellim’

2.   Member State to which the geographical area belongs

Cyprus

3.   Member State authority communicating the standard amendment

Department of Agriculture – Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

4.   Description of the approved amendment(s)

1.   Inclusion of unfolded (single-layer) Halloumi in the Product Specification

The shape of the product can differ, as follows: folded or unfolded, rectangular or semi-circular shape.

The amendment affects the Single Document.

2.   Possibility of using raw milk to produce Halloumi

Pasteurisation of the milk used to produce Halloumi is made optional.

The amendment affects the Single Document.

3.   The production stage providing for the reheating, to up to 40 °C, of the curds that have been cut immediately after the curdling of the milk is made optional

This amendment renders optional the production stage that provides for the reheating, to up to 40 °C, of the curds that have been cut immediately after the curdling of the milk.

The amendment does not affect the Single Document.

4.   Possibility of adding mint also at other stages in the Halloumi production process

Possibility of adding mint at the folding stage but also before the product is packaged.

The amendment does not affect the Single Document.

5.   Dry salting on the cheesemaking table is made optional and the possibility of salting exclusively in salted whey before the product is packaged is introduced

The stage involving the dry salting of Halloumi on the cheesemaking table is made optional and the possibility of salting the product exclusively in salted whey before it is packaged is introduced.

The amendment does not affect the Single Document.

6.   Possibility for the product to remain in salted whey prior to packaging for at least 8 hours and up to 3 days

The product may remain in salted whey, before it is packaged, for less than 1 day (but for at least 8 hours) and up to 3 days.

The amendment does not affect the Single Document.

7.   Introduction of the possibility for the packaged product to be heated so that its core temperature exceeds 72 °C for a maximum of 3 minutes

The possibility for the product to undergo heat treatment after packaging, whereby its core temperature exceeds 72 °C for a maximum of 3 minutes, is included in the production process.

The amendment affects the Single Document.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘Χαλλούμι / Halloumi / Hellim’

EU No: PDO-CY-01243-AM03 - 14.3.2023

PDO (X) PGI ( )

1.   Name(s) [of PDO or PGI]

‘Χαλλούμι / Halloumi / Hellim’

2.   Member State or Third Country

Cyprus

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Type of product [listed in Annex XI]

Class 1.3. Cheeses

3.2.   Description of the product to which the name in (1) applies

The name ‘Halloumi’ will be used throughout the text, representing the names indicated above, i.e. ‘Χαλλούμι / Halloumi / Hellim’. There are two types of Halloumi – fresh and mature.Fresh Halloumi is made from curds produced by curdling milk with rennet. It is cooked and formed into its characteristic shape. It is semi-hard and elastic, folded or unfolded (rectangular or semi-circular shape), white to light-yellowish in colour, has a close texture and is easily sliced, with a characteristic smell and taste. It smells strongly of milk/whey and has an aroma and taste of mint, a barnyard smell and a pungent, salty taste. The maximum moisture content is 52 %, the minimum fat content is 43 % (in dry weight) and the maximum salt content is 3 %. Mature Halloumi is made from curds produced by curdling milk with rennet. It is cooked and formed into its characteristic shape and left to mature in salted whey for at least 40 days. It is semi-hard to hard, less elastic, folded or unfolded (rectangular or semi-circular shape), white to yellowish in colour, has a close texture and is easily sliced, with a characteristic smell and taste. It smells strongly of milk/whey and has an aroma and taste of mint, a barnyard smell and a pungent, salty taste; it is slightly bitter and very salty. The maximum moisture content is 37 %, the minimum fat content is 40 % (in dry weight), the maximum salt content is 6 % and the acidity is 1,2 % (expressed as lactic acid in dry weight).

Halloumi cheeses weigh from 150 to 1 200 grams.

3.3.   Feed (for products of animal origin only) and raw materials (for processed products only)

Regarding the milk used to make Halloumi, the following applies, without prejudice to the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 664/2014:

The sheep and goat’s milk comes from local and other breeds, including their crosses, that graze throughout the year, provided weather conditions permit. All the coarse fodder in the sheep and goats’ diet is locally produced (green forage, hay, silage, straw/stubble and grazing on wild plants). As regards feed supplements, cereals, including barley and maize, protein feed such as husked, partly decorticated soybean meal, products and by-products of various raw materials such as wheat bran, and inorganic substances, vitamins and micronutrients may be used.

The cow’s milk comes from cows that are housed in sheds and fed on forage, hay, silage and straw that are produced in Cyprus, mainly from native forage plants, and on feed supplements. Specifically, the cows’ diet consists of locally produced forage (green forage plants, hay, silage and straw/stubble). The remainder of their diet consists of feed supplements containing mainly barley, maize, soya and bran, and other protein feed such as husked, partly decorticated soybean meal, products and by-products of various raw materials such as wheat bran, and inorganic substances, vitamins and micronutrients.

Milk (fresh sheep or goat’s milk or a mixture thereof, with or without cow’s milk added), rennet (but not pig rennet), fresh or dried Cypriot mint leaves (Mentha viridis) and salt. The proportion of sheep or goat’s milk or the mixture thereof must always be greater than the proportion of cow’s milk. In other words, when cow’s milk is used in addition to sheep or goat’s milk or a mixture thereof, the proportion of cow’s milk in the Halloumi must not be greater than the proportion of sheep or goat’s milk or the mixture thereof. The milk used for making Halloumi is Cypriot full-fat milk. The milk may be raw or pasteurised or have been heated to a temperature above 65 °C. It must not be condensed milk or contain any of the following: milk powder, condensed milk, casein salts, colourings, preservatives or other additives. It must not contain antibiotics, pesticides or other harmful substances.

The sheep and goat’s milk comes from local and other breeds, including their crosses, that are reared within the defined geographical area.

The cow’s milk comes from cows that were gradually introduced in Cyprus and that are reared within the defined geographical area.

3.4.   Specific steps in production that must take place in the identified geographical area

The sheep, goat and cow’s milk that is the raw material for the production of ‘Halloumi’ cheese is produced within the defined geographical area. Halloumi itself is also produced within the defined geographical area.

3.5.   Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc. of the product the registered name refers to

The packaging and, where applicable, the heat treatment of ‘Halloumi’ cheese must take place within the defined geographical area for the following reasons: (a) immediately after it has been produced, Halloumi must be packaged to prevent further ripening, (b) the Halloumi production process (production-packaging-any heat treatment) cannot be interrupted (continuous production), (c) to ensure traceability, the product must be packaged by the producer and labelled accordingly, (d) to prevent any cheese produced outside Cypriot territory being marketed as PDO Halloumi, so as to guarantee the quality and origin of the product and ensure that the requisite controls can be carried out.

3.6.   Specific rules concerning labelling of the product the registered name refers to

Regarding the composition of the milk used to produce ‘Halloumi’, in cases where a mixture of milks is used, the different types of milk must be mentioned on the label, in decreasing order of percentage.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

The administrative boundaries of the districts of Nicosia, Limassol, Larnaca, Famagusta, Paphos and Kyrenia.

5.   Link with the geographical area

5.1.   Specificity of the geographical area

Natural factors: Cyprus has a Mediterranean climate characterised by hot, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The island’s terrain also plays a very important role: the mountains receive a relatively high amount of rainfall and affect the hydrology and environment of the lower lying areas, as the numerous streams are fed with water from springs for several months after the rains have stopped. In relation to its size Cyprus has one of the richest floras in the Mediterranean, owing to its geological structure, climate, geographical position, the surrounding sea and the land configuration (Tsintidis et al., 2002). There are 1 908 different species of plant, 140 of which are endemic, i.e. they are found only in Cyprus (Department of Forests, 2004). Lastly, the local breeds of dairy animals in Cyprus include the local fat-tailed sheep, which is well adapted to the dry climate and high temperatures of the area, and the local Machaira and Pissouri goats. The Chios sheep and the Damascus goat (introduced in the 1950s and 1930s respectively) are also local breed types, as their morphological and production characteristics have diverged from those of the populations of origin after a long-standing national breeding programme.

Human factors: historical references show that Halloumi production in Cyprus was known from the most ancient times. Halloumi is mentioned as ‘calumi’ in a codex containing five manuscripts on the history of Cyprus that is kept in the library of the Correr Museum in Venice. Dating back to 1554, this is the oldest written reference to Halloumi that has been found up to now. There are also later references to Halloumi, inter alia by Archimandrite Kyprianos in 1788.

The importance of Halloumi in the life of the local people can be clearly seen through art (poetry, literature) and the place it occupied in agricultural shows (Lyssi, 1939). The list of classes and cash prizes and the conditions for entry for the Lyssi Agricultural Show, which was published in both Greek and Turkish, includes the products that can be entered in the competition. The Turkish name for ‘Halloumi’ is ‘Hellim’. Turkish Cypriot Halloumi producers use both names for our traditional product or just the name ‘Hellim’. There is ample evidence that the two names ‘Halloumi’ and ‘Hellim’ refer to the same traditional Cypriot product, for which both names are used (Halkin Sesi newspaper, 1959 and 1962 and product packaging for export bearing both names).

The close link between the product and the island’s inhabitants is also evident from the fact that today ‘Halloumas’, ‘Hallouma’, ‘Halloumakis’ and ‘Halloumis’ are common Cypriot surnames.

From ancient times Halloumi was an important element in the Cypriot diet (Bevan, 1919; Pitcairn, 1934; Zigouris, 1952) and met the needs of Cypriot families all year round. Halloumi was ‘the famous Cypriot cheese, produced in a special way’, one of the most common accompaniments to bread in every Cypriot household, essential to every rural family (Xioutas, 2001). As well as being consumed locally, from ancient times Halloumi was exported to various countries (Archimandrite Kyprianos, 1788), including Egypt, Syria, Greece, Turkey, Palestine, France, Sudan, the United Kingdom, America, Australia and China (Dawe, 1928).

The production process is unique, in particular the stages of cooking the product at a high temperature for a specific length of time, the folding and the addition of Cypriot mint. Cooking the curds is very important since, according to a relevant study, it enhances the product’s organoleptic qualities. Specifically, cooking the curds at a high temperature produces high levels of certain basic chemical compounds that help determine the taste of Halloumi. Some of these compounds are lactones, such as delta-dodecalactone (characterised by a fruity flavour) and delta-decalactone (characterised by a creamy flavour), whereas some are methyl ketones, which are characterised by a milk-like flavour (P. Papademas, 2000).

The typical folding of the curds, as part of the traditional processing, sets Halloumi apart from all other cheeses. The practice of folding came into use because, traditionally, this made it easier to put the cheeses into the containers where they were kept in whey. Also, the mint leaves are placed between the curd layers (during the folding process) so that they are held in place, allowing the mint to give its characteristic aroma to the final product. The use of mint (Mentha viridis) at the folding stage gives the final product its characteristic aroma thanks to the presence of the terpenes pulegone (‘mint terpene’) and carvone (Papademas and Robinson, 1998). It is the local producers who have the knowledge of this production process.

5.2.   Specificity of the product

The specific characteristics of the product include:

(a)	the property that it does not spread or melt at high temperatures (it can be eaten not only as it is but also fried, grilled, etc.);

(b)	the heat treatment of the curds in whey at a temperature of over 90 oC for at least 30 minutes, which is a unique feature of the production process and contributes to the specific organoleptic characteristics of the product;

(c)	the folding that gives it its characteristic shape;

(d)

its organoleptic characteristics (with a characteristic smell and taste – it smells strongly of milk/whey and has an aroma and taste of mint, a barnyard smell and a pungent, salty taste) due mainly to the sheep and goat’s milk, which is affected by the animals’ diet, the mint that is added during the production process and the volatile compounds that are formed during the heat treatment of the curds in whey; and

(e)	its traditional character, derived from the fact that it has been made in Cyprus since ancient times according to the traditional method handed down from one generation to the next, and it is the local producers who have the knowledge of this process today.

5.3.   Causal link between the geographical area and the quality or characteristics of the product (for PDO) or a given quality, the reputation or other characteristics of the product (for PGI)

The link between Halloumi and the geographical environment resides in the specificity of the island’s Mediterranean climate. The local vegetation consumed by the dairy animals passes from the stage of green pasture to semi-dry and finally dry fodder, following the characteristic phases of the local microclimate. Some of these plants are endemic. This local Cypriot vegetation, consumed by the animals either fresh or dried, has a crucial effect on the quality of the milk and consequently the specific characteristics of the cheese (Papademas, 2000). The presence of the bacillus Lactobacillus cypricasei (lactobacillus from Cypriot cheese), which has been isolated only from Cypriot Halloumi, testifies to the link between the island’s microflora and the product (Lawson et al., 2001). Also, the addition of Cypriot mint further contributes to the product’s characteristic flavour. Other factors affecting the product’s organoleptic characteristics, especially its taste and smell, are the type of milk used, as sheep and goat’s milk contain specific low molecular weight fatty acids, and the volatile compounds formed during the production process.

Regarding the link between human factors and the product, Halloumi is considered traditional to Cyprus, since, as described in point 5.1, it has played a very important role in the life and diet of the island’s inhabitants, both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, since ancient times and knowledge of the production process has been handed down from one generation to the next. Both its characteristic folded shape and its specific property of not melting at high temperatures are due to this traditional production process that has been passed down through the generations.

Reference to publication of the product specification

http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/da/da.nsf/All/82B33F7D83ABF5A8C225879C00346BA5?OpenDocument

---

(1)  OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 17.

Corrigendum to Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11055 - EQUITIX / CUBE / RIVER RIDGE) – Candidate case for simplified procedure

( Official Journal of the European Union C 133 of 17 April 2023 )

(2023/C 165/08)

On page 7, point 1, first line:

for:

read: