Back to section

Post a comment on the text below

10.  PROGRAMME OF MEASURES REPORTED AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL (SCHEMA RBMPPOM) including 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 (cont.)

  • KTMs should be reviewed to incorporate MFSD KTM as measures for coastal waters are shared by both directives and those shared measures should not be classified in different KTM depending on the directive they relate to.
  • KTM enumeration list should be spread to KTMs used by countries beyond RBMP2 enumeration list.
  • Distinction to be made within “supplementary measures” as follows:
  • KTMs should be reviewed to incorporate MFSD KTM as measures for coastal waters are shared by both directives and those shared measures should not be classified in different KTM depending on the directive they relate to.
  • KTM enumeration list should be spread to KTMs used by countries beyond RBMP2 enumeration list.
  • Distinction to be made within “supplementary measures” as follows:
    • −Supplementary measures - achievement of objectives
    • −Supplementary measures - additional protection

Previous comments

  • SE - Sweden (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 02 May 2019 11:12:39
    KTMs should be reviewed to incorporate MFSD KTM as measures for coastal waters are shared by both directives and those shared measures should not be classified in different KTM depending on the directive they relate to. SE: Yes. We agree a revision would be helpful
    KTM enumeration list should be spread to KTMs used by countries beyond RBMP2 enumeration list.  
    KTM enumeration list should be spread to KTMs used by countries beyond RBMP2 enumeration list.  
    Distinction to be made within “supplementary measures” as follows: SE: No. We so not understand the purpose of a change, it will increase the administrative burden
    −Supplementary measures - achievement of objectives  
    −Supplementary measures - additional protection  
  • SI - Slovenia (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 21:49:33

    1.Regarding Comment no. 267 in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„ we do not agree with the proposal.

    2.Regarding Comment no. 269 in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„ we cannot agree or disagree on the comment because it is not clear what is proposed.

    3.Regarding Comment no. 271 in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„, we do not object to the proposal, but different aspects as proposed in the comment, must be explained and clearly defined in the reporting guidance in such a way that there will be no uncertainty in the meaning of measures.

You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.