BSC

The Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution


BLACK SEA STATE OF ENVIRONMENT REPORT 2009-2014/5


© 2019, Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution

ISBN 978-605-84837-0-5

For bibliographic purposes this document may be cited as:

BSC, 2019. State of the Environment of the Black Sea (2009-2014/5). Edited by Anatoly Krutov. Publications of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (BSC) 2019, Istanbul, Turkey, 811 pp.

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or nonprofit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the Permanent Secretariat of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution.

Cover design by Iryna Makarenko

Cover images by EMBLAS Project


Authors of the State of Black Sea Environment Report  
CHAPTER 1: STATE AND DYNAMICS OF THE BLACK SEA ECOSYSTEM  
Alexandrov Boris Institute of Marine Biology, National Academy of Sciences of UkraineOdesa, Ukraine
Krutov Anatoly State Oceanographic Institute Moscow, Russia 
Korshenko Alexander State Oceanographic InstituteMoscow, Russia
Lavrova Olga Space Research Institute of Russian Academy of SciencesMoscow, Russia
Adobovskiy Vladimir Institute of Marine Biology, National Academy of Sciences of UkraineOdesa, Ukraine
Lipchenko Alexander Sevastopol Branch of the State Oceanographic InstituteSevastopol, Ukraine
Amalina Anastasia Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of SciencesMoscow, Russia
Luybimtsev Andrey Special Center on Hydrometeorology and Monitoring of Environment of the Black and Azov SeasSochi, Russia
Arashkevich Elena Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of SciencesMoscow, Russia
Machitadze Nino GAMMATbilisi, Georgia
Benashvili Nino GAMMATbilisi, Georgia
Malakhov Igor Ukrainian Scientific Center of Ecology of SeaOdesa, Ukraine
Coatu Valentina National Institute for Marine Research and Development "Grigore Antipa"Constanta, Romania
Mgeladze Marina National Environmental AgencyBatumi, Georgia
Denga Yury Ukrainian Scientific Center of Ecology of SeaOdesa, Ukraine
Minicheva Galina Institute of Marine Biology, National Academy of Sciences of UkraineOdesa, Ukraine
Doncheva Valentina Institute of Oceanology, Bulgarian Academy of SciencesVarna, Bulgaria
Migas Ruslana Institute of Marine Biology, National Academy of Sciences of UkraineOdesa, Ukraine
Dudnik Dmitriy Ukrainian Scientific Center of Ecology of SeaOdesa, Ukraine
Mityagina Marina Space Research Institute of Russian Academy of SciencesMoscow, Russia
Dyakov Nikolay Sevastopol Branch of the State Oceanographic InstituteSevastopol, Ukraine
Moncheva Snejana Institute of Oceanology BASVarna, Bulgaria
Gelashvili Nino GAMMATbilisi, Georgia
Oguz Temel Middle East Technical UniversityErdemli, Turkey
Gubanova Alexandra A.O. Kovalevsky Institute of Marine Biological Research, Russian Academy of SciencesMoscow, Russia
Oros Andra National Institute for Marine Research and Development "Grigore Antipa"Constanta, Bulgaria
Gusev Alexey Meteorological Synthesizing Centre East of EMEPMoscow, Russia
Pogozheva Maria State Oceanographic InstituteMoscow, Russia
Gvakharia Vakhtang GAMMATbilisi, Georgia
Stefanova Elica Institute of Oceanology, Bulgarian Academy of SciencesVarna, Bulgaria
Feyzioglu A. Muzaffer Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Marine SciencesTrabzon, Turkey
Stefanova Kremena Institute of Oceanology, Bulgarian Academy of SciencesVarna, Bulgaria
Kabatchenko Ilya State Oceanographic InstituteMoscow, Russia
Ukrainsky Vladymyr Ukrainian Scientific Center of Ecology of SeaOdesa, Ukraine 
Khalvashi Mary National Environmental AgencyBatumi, Georgia
stn Funda  Sinop University, Fisheries FacultyTurkey
Kovalishina Svetlana Ukrainian Scientific Center of Ecology of SeaOdesa, Ukraine
Ilknur Yildiz Karadeniz Technical University, Institute of Marine Sciences and TechnologyTrabzon, Turkey
Lazar Luminita National Institute for Marine Research and Development "Grigore Antipa"Constanta, Romania 
Varenik Alla Sevastopol Branch of the State Oceanographic InstituteSevastopol, Ukraine   
Sezgin Murat  Faculty of Fisheries, Dept. of Hydrobiology, Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey 
Kurt-Şahin Gley Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Dept. of Biology, Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey 
Dencheva K. Institute of Oceanology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (Bulgaria)  
Sahin Fatih University of Sinop, Department of Marine BiologySinop, Turkey 
Dykyi E. Ukrainian scientific center of Ecology of Sea (Ukraine) 
Shiganova Tamara P. P. Shirshov Institute of oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia 
Tretyak I. Ukrainian scientific center of Ecology of Sea (Ukraine)  
Ozturk Bayram Turkish Marine Research Foundation ,Istanbul.Turkey 
Karauha A. Sinop University, Faculty of Fisheries (Turkey)  
Stoica Elena National Institute for Marine Research and Development Grigore Antipa (NIMRD), Constanta, Romania 
Marin O. National Institute for Marine Research and Development (Romania) 
Grgoire Marilaure MAST group, Liege University, Lige Belgium 
Staneva Anna BirdLife International 
Capet Arthur MAST group, Liege University, Lige Belgium 
Dias Maria BirdLife International 
Culcea Oana National Institute for Marine Research and Development, Constanta, Romania 
Boicenco Laura National Institute for Marine Research and Development, Constanta, Romania 
Zotov Andrei Institute of Biology - UAS, Odessa, Ukraine 
Mikaelyan Alexander S. Institute of Oceanology RAS, Moscow, Russia 
Gvarishvili Ciuri Black Sea Monitoring Center, Batumi, Georgia 
Derezyuk Natalia Odessa University, Odessa, Ukraine 
Mavrodieva Radka Institute of Oceanology-BAS, 9000 Varna, Bulgaria 
Slabakova Natalia Institute of Oceanology-BAS, 9000 Varna, Bulgaria 
Silkin Vladimir A. Institute of Oceanology RAS, Moscow, Russia 
Pautova Larisa A. Institute of Oceanology RAS, Moscow, Russia 
Mironenko Elena M. Shirshov Institute of oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia 
Medinets Volodymyr Odessa University, Odessa, Ukraine    
Anokhina Ludmila L. Shirshov Institute of oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia 

CHAPTER 2. STATE AND DYNAMICS OF THE LIVING AND NON-LIVING RESOURCES AND THEIR EXPLOITATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION
Raykov Violin Institute of Oceanology BASVarna, Bulgaria
Ivanova Petya Instutute of OceanologyVarna,Bulgaria
Dencheva Kristina Institute of OceanologyVarna,Bulgaria
Nicolaev Simion National Institute for Marine Research and Development Grigore Antipa (NIMRD)Constanta, Romania
Duzgunes Ertug Black Sea Technical UniversityTrabzon,Turkey
Ozturk Bayram Turkish Marine Research FoundationIstanbul, Turkey
Gucu Ali Cemal Middle East technical UniversityCanakaya,Turkey
Yankova, Maria Institute of Oceanology BASVarna, Bulgaria

CHAPTER 3: STATE OF THE BLACK SEA COAST AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS 
Antonidze Ekaterina ICZM Advisory Group ChairpersonKuban Basin Water Directorate of the Federal Water Resources AgencyKrasnodar, Russian Federation
Golumbeanu Mariana ICZM National Focal Point for Romania, NIMRDConstanța, Romania
 Gvilava Mamuka ICZM National Focal Point for GeorgiaTbilisi, Georgia
Hamamci Nihan Şahin Ministry of Environment and Urbanization of TurkeyAnkara, Turkey
 Karamushka Viktor Department of Environmental Studies, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla AcademyKyiv, Ukraine
 Ikonomov Lyudmil ICZM National Focal Point for BulgariaVarna, Bulgaria
Abaza Valeria Black Sea Commission Permanent SecretariatIstanbul, Turkey
Ispas-Sava Catalina NIMRDConstanța, Romania
Allenbach Karin UNEP/GRID-GenevaGeneva, Switzerland
Makarenko Iryna Black Sea Commission Permanent SecretariatIstanbul, Turkey
Boltenko Irina ICZM National Focal Point for Ukraine, Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of UkraineKyiv, Ukraine
zhan Erdal Medcoast Foundation, Turkey
Bon Oleksandr Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of UkraineKyiv, Ukraine
Parlichev Georgi Black Sea Basin DirectorateVarna, Bulgaria
Breton Franoise PEGASO Scientific Coordinator, Universitat Autnoma de BarcelonaBarcelona, Spain
Petit Sylvain UNEP MAP, PAP/RACSplit, Croatia
Chatenoux Bruno UNEP/GRID-GenevaGeneva, Switzerland
Nal Seda ICZM National Focal Point for Turkey, Ministry of Environment and UrbanizationAnkara, Turkey
Constantin Mirela TerraSignaBucharest, Romania
Shipman Brian UNEP MAP, PAP/RACSplit, Croatia
Costache Mihail Ministry of Environment, Waters and Forests of RomaniaBucharest, Romania
karičić eljka UNEP MAP, PAP/RACSplit, Croatia
Craciunescu Vasile TerraSignaBucharest, Romania
Velikova Violeta Black Sea Commission Permanent SecretariatIstanbul, Turkey
Gigineishvili Amiran ICZM Advisory Group MemberLanchkhuti, Georgia
Yarmak Leonid ICZM National Focal Point for Russian Federation, Institute of Applied EcologyKrasnodar, Russian Federation

Preface and Acknowledgements

This Report on the State of the Black Sea Environment (further referred to as BS SoE Report) for the years 2009-2014 is a scientific marine environmental assessment report undertaken periodically to trace the state of knowledge and to propose measures for improvement of the quality of environment and protection of ecosystems from impact of anthropogenic activities in the Black Sea basin[1]. This Report synthesizes the collected and evaluated data/information in this period. Its main findings demonstrated by smart indicators and, where possible, visualized on maps.

Therefore, the purpose of this assessment is to provide decision-makers, relevant stakeholders and public with comprehensive summary of contemporary knowledge on the state of the Black Sea environment in the selected period and to assess the efficiency of implemented policy and management measures. This Report also aims at identifying significant gaps in knowledge and to serve as basis for judging the effectiveness and adequacy of environmental protection measures, in particular, proposed in the Strategic Action Plan for the Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea (BS SAP) adopted in 2009 and for making any necessary adjustments in national environmental policies and elaboration of scenarios for tackling environmental consequences of the human activities in the Black Sea basin.

This BS SoE Report is the third assessment prepared by the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution[2] (further also referred to as Black Sea Commission or BSC), steps on the previous BSC SoE reports[3], [4] as well as on the reports and deliverables of the different international projects, such as SESAME, PERSEUS, KnowSeas, PEGASO, MISIS, EMBLAS, EMODNet and other relevant projects , as well as national projects and initiatives. It also refers to and utilizes to a certain extent relevant publications prepared for the Black Sea by various experts working in the Black Sea basin and beyond. This Report is prepared with financial contribution from EC/UNDP EMBLAS Project[5].

A lot of experts contributed to the elaboration of this SoE Report. These include representatives of the Black Sea scientific institutions; experts from projects and national programs of the Black Sea importance; individual scientists and research teams; partner organizations that have proven dedication and reached significant scientific results in the Black Sea environmental studies.

A dedicated Expert Working Group (WG) on elaboration of draft BS SoE Report was established under the auspices of the Black Sea Commission. The members of the WG met on 29th October, 2015 in Istanbul (Turkey) in order to discuss the modalities of report preparations in accordance with outline of the report which incorporated both existing approaches to ocean assessment - UN World Ocean Assessment approach (also called Regular Process)[6] and European approach reflecting provisions of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)[7]. The preparation of this meeting was partialy financed within the work of the EU PERSEUS Project[8].

Chapter 1 of the Report, within three sub-chapters, presents the state and dynamics of the Black Sea, geographical, physico-chemical characteristics and features of its biological community. Chapter 2 describes the state, dynamics and status of exploitation of the living and non-living resources in the Black Sea. Chapter 3 incorporates data on the state of Black Sea coast and socio-economic pressures and factors.

To conclude, I would like to extend my gratitude to colleagues from Permanent Secretariat, Kiril Iliev for his help in formatting and in particular Iryna Makarenko (PMA Officer) for her efforts throughout the production of the Report, all authors and especially to members of Working Group on elaboration of SoE Report for their scientific contributions, to the members of Black Sea Commission and its Advisory Groups for their valuable comments and proposals, all other organizations and individuals who kindly provided relevant data and information for this Report.

Let me wish all of us success in our efforts to preserve the unique and precious ecosystem of the Black Sea - our common heritage!

Prof. Dr. Halil İbrahim Sur

Executive Director

Permanent Secretariat

Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution

BLACK SEA STATE OF ENVIRONMENT REPORT 2009-2014/5

Text
Tables
Figures
Tools

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

CHAPTER 1: STATE AND DYNAMICS OF THE BLACK SEA ECOSYSTEM

CHAPTER 2. STATE AND DYNAMICS OF THE LIVING AND NON-LIVING RESOURCES AND THEIR EXPLOITATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION

CHAPTER 3: STATE OF THE BLACK SEA COAST AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS

3.1. STATE OF THE BLACK SEA COAST

3.2 INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

3.3. SOCIO-ECONOMICS OF THE BLACK SEA COAST

Annex 1 Quantitative summary of ICZM stock-taking for the Black Sea Countries

Annex 2 Colour coded ICZM progress indicators for the Black Sea Region Countries

List of Tables

Executive Summary

CHAPTER 1: STATE AND DYNAMICS OF THE BLACK SEA ECOSYSTEM

1.1 Physical Features

1.2. Hydrochemistry and pollution_

Table 1.2.1.1.1. Total volume of waste waters and selected indicators of waters discharged.

Table 1.2.1.1.2. Volume of wastewaters discharged from Romania into the Black Sea at 2008-2013.

Table 1.2.1.1.3. Total volume of wastewaters discharged.

Table 1.2.1.1.4. Wastewater quality discharged from Georgian rivers into the Black Sea in 2014.

Table 1.2.1.1.5. Distribution of pollution loads between main sources in 2014.

Table 1.2.1.1.6. Comparison of contaminants indicators of wastewaters discharged into the Black Sea.

Table 1.2.1.1.1. Total volume of waste waters and selected indicators of waters discharged.

Table 1.2.1.1.2. Volume of wastewaters discharged from Romania into the Black Sea at 2008-2013.

Table 1.2.1.1.3. Total volume of wastewaters discharged.

Table 1.2.1.1.4. Wastewater quality discharged from Georgian rivers into the Black Sea in 2014.

Table 1.2.1.1.5. Distribution of pollution loads between main sources in 2014.

Table 1.2.1.1.6. Comparison of contaminants indicators of wastewaters discharged into the Black Sea.

Table 1.2.2.1. Descriptive statistics of nutrients surface layer (0-5m), Black Sea, 2009-2014 (data from Black Sea Database).

Table1.2.2.2. Range of water quality according to BEAST method.

Table 1.2.3.1. Number of samples with Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons concentration presented in the joint Regional Data Base for period 2009-2014.

Table 1.2.3.2. Maximum TPHs concentration (g/dm3) in the costal waters during the period 2009-2014.

Table 1.2.4.1. Concentration (ng/l) of most abundant polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the Romanian coastal waters in July-October 2009.

Table 1.2.4.2. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the Romanian waters in February 2010.

Table 1.2.4.3. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the Romanian waters in March 2010.

Table 1.2.4.4. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the Romanian waters in August 2010.

Table 1.2.4.5. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the Romanian waters in September 2010.

Table 1.2.4.6. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in Ukrainian marine waters near Zmeiny Island in 2010.

Table 1.2.4.7. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the Romanian waters in May 2011.

Table 1.2.4.8. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the Romanian waters in July 2011.

Table 1.2.4.9. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the Romanian waters in March-April 2012.

Table 1.2.4.10. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the Romanian waters in October 2012.

Table 1.2.4.11. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the Ukrainian waters in 2012.

Table 1.2.4.12. Content of total PAHs S16 PAHs (g/l) and various indices of toxicity in transitional, coastal and marine waters in Romanian part of the Black Sea in May-August 2013.

Table 1.2.4.13. PAHs toxicity equivalent.

Table 1.2.4.14. Average concentration of organic pollutants in bottom sediments in the Kerch Strait and NW Shelf of the Black Sea in 2009.

Table 1.2.4.15. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the bottom sediments of NW Shelf in 2009.

Table 1.2.4.16. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the bottom sediments of the Kerch Strait in 2009.

Table 1.2.4.17. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the bottom sediments in the Romanian coastal area in February 2010.

Table 1.2.4.18. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the bottom sediments in the Romanian coastal area in March 2010.

Table 1.2.4.19. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the bottom sediments in the Romanian coastal area in July-August 2010.

Table 1.2.4.20. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the bottom sediments in the Romanian coastal area in September 2010.

Table 1.2.4.21. The results of determination of 16 PAHs in the bottom sediments in front of the Danube Delta.

Table 1.2.4.22. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the bottom sediments in the Romanian coastal area in May 2011.

Table 1.2.4.23. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the bottom sediments in the Romanian coastal area in July 2011.

Table 1.2.4.24. The results of GC/MS determination of PAHs in bottom sediments of Danube area.

Table 1.2.4.25. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the bottom sediments in the Romanian coastal area in March-April 2012.

Table 1.2.4.26. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the bottom sediments in the Romanian coastal area in October 2012.

Table 1.2.4.27. Total concentration of 16 priority PAHs and calculation of Indexes describing their origin in the bottom sediments of Zernovs Phyllophora Field in 2012.

Table 1.2.4.27. Statistical results of the total content of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons S16 PAH (μg/kg) in sediments from the Romanian sector of the Black Sea in 2013.

Table 1.2.4.62. The results of calculations of the origin of priority PAHs in Phyllophora.

Table 1.2.5.1. Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in Black Sea surface waters, 2009-2014 (data from Black Sea Database)

Table 1.2.5.2. Percentage of observations exceeding threshold values stipulated by Directive 2013/39/CE, in surface waters, 2009-2014.

Table 1.2.5.3. Concentrations of OCPs (μg/L) in water samples collected from the Romanian, Bulgarian and Turkish area, MISIS cruise, 2013.

Table 1.2.5.4. Concentrations of PCBs (μg/L) in water samples collected from the Romanian, Bulgarian and Turkish area, MISIS cruise, 2013.

Table 1.2.5.5. Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in Black Sea surface sediments, 2009-2014 (data from Black Sea Database).

Table 1.2.5.6. Percentage of observations surpassing sediment quality criteria (EAC, ERL), 2009-2014.

Table 1.2.5.7. Concentrations of OCPs (ng/g dry weight) in sediment samples collected from the Romanian, Bulgarian and Turkish area, MISIS cruise, 2013.

Table 1.2.5.8. Concentrations of PCBs (ng/g dry weight) in sediment samples collected from the Romanian, Bulgarian and Turkish area, MISIS cruise, 2013.

Table 1.2.6.1. Concentrations of heavy metals in Black Sea surface waters, 2009-2014 (data from Black Sea Database).

Table 1.2.6.2. Percentage of observations surpassing EQS (Directive 2013/39/CE) in surface waters, 2009-2014.

Table 1.2.6.3. Concentrations of heavy metals in Western Black Sea surface waters, 2009-2014 (data from Black Sea Database).

Table 1.2.6.4. Concentrations of heavy metals in Eastern Black Sea surface waters, 2009-2014 (data from Black Sea Database).

Table 1.2.6.5. Concentrations of heavy metals in North-Western Black Sea surface waters, 2009-2014 (data from Black Sea Database).

Table 1.2.6.6. Concentrations of heavy metals in Southern Black Sea surface waters, 2009-2014 (data from Black Sea Database).

Table 1.2.6.7. Comparative data on heavy metals in seawater of the Black Sea region.

Table 1.2.6.8. Average concentrations of trace metals in Ukrainian marine waters in 2012.

Table 1.2.6.9. Concentration of heavy metals in the Black Sea sediments, 2009-2014 (data from Black Sea Database).

Table 1.2.6.10. Percentage of observations surpassing sediment quality criteria (ERL), 2009-2014.

Table 1.2.6.11. Concentration of heavy metals in Western Black Sea sediments, 2009-2014 (data from Black Sea Database).

Table 1.2.6.12. Concentration of heavy metals in Southern Black Sea sediments, 2009-2014 (data from Black Sea Database).

Table 1.2.6.13. Concentration of heavy metals in North-Western Black Sea sediments, 2009-2014 (data from Black Sea Database).

Table 1.2.6.14. Main statistical parameters of the distribution of the inorganic chemical components of sediment in MISIS stations, July 2013 (Secrieru D data, in Oros et al, 2014; 2016a).

Table 1.2.6.15. Content of metals in bottom sediments of Poti Sea Area.

Table 1.2.6.16. Average concentrations of trace metals in the bottom sediments of Ukrainian part of the Black Sea.

Table 1.2.6.17. Descriptive statistics of heavy metals concentration in mussels in 2009-2014.

Table 1.2.6.18. Concentration of heavy metals in three species of marine mollusks from the Western Black Sea, July 2013 (Oros Andra data, in Coatu et al, 2014; 2016).

Table 1.2.6.19. Comparative heavy metal concentrations (μg/g wet weight tissue) in bivalve molluscs worldwide.

1.3. THE STATE AND DYNAMICS OF THE BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY

Table 1.3.2.1. Phytoplankton parameters/indicators

Table 1.3.2.2. Methods for phytoplankton laboratory analysis by countries

Table 1.3.2.3. List of phytoplankton species new for the BG waters and the Black Sea_

Table 1.3.2.4. Basic statistic of phytoplankton abundance and biomass (2008-2014)

Table 1.3.2.5. Maximum concentrations of blooming phytoplankton species between 2008 -2014 in the Black Sea in different waters

Table 1.3.2.6. Maximum densities (>106 cells/l) of dominant phytoplankton species between 2008 -2014 in Romanian waters

Table 1.3.2.7. Trends of phytoplankton parameters/indicators during 2008-2014_

Table 1.3.3.1. Sampling inventory and data sources

Table 1.3.3.2.. Coordinates and depth of the routine monitoring stations.

Table 1.3.3.3. Threshold values of mesozooplankton biomass.

Table 1.3.3.4. Indicators: mesozooplankton biomass (mgm-3), N. scintillans (% N.sci), Shannon index H (A) and H (B) at three habitats in the period 2007-2014. Blue color cells correspond to GEnS values.

Table 1.3.3.5. Coordinates of monitoring stations in the Georgian Black Sea coastal zone.

Table 1.3.3.6. The biodiversity of mesozooplankton groups in the Georgian Black Sea coastal zone (2008-2014).

Table 1.3.3.7. Seasonal dynamics of quantitative development of zooplankton in the shelf zone of Georgia (2008-2014)

Table 1.3.3.7. Threshold values of mesozooplankton biomass (B) for determination of the coastal marine water quality in the Black Sea (Stefanova et al., 2016).

Table 1.3.3.4.1. Coordinates and depth of the routine monitoring stations.

Table 1.3.3.4.2. Distribution of total number of registered mesozooplankton taxons and biomass (mg Cm-3) on northeastern (Russian Federation) shelf area_

Table 1.3.3.4.3. Distribution of some indicators of mesozooplankton expressed in their percentage of total biomass (mg WWm-3) and water quality (WQ)*_

Table 1.3.3.5.1. Geographic coordinate, station depth, sampling period and location.

Table 1.3.3.5.2. Main Mesozooplanktonic groups and species registered in southeastern Black Sea continental shelf area of Turkey.

Table 1.3.3.5.3. Annual mean abundances and biomasses of mesozooplankton groups in Sinop area (standard deviation values given after ).

Table 1.3.3.5.4. Distribution of zooplankton diversity index in investigated areas along the southeastern Black Sea in winter.

Table 1.3.3.5.5. Distribution of zooplankton diversity index in investigated areas along the southeastern Black Sea in spring.

Table 1.3.3.5.6. Distribution of zooplankton diversity index in investigated areas along the southeastern Black Sea in summer.

Table 1.3.3.5.7. Distribution of zooplankton diversity index in investigated areas along the southeastern Black Sea in autumn.

Table 1.3.3.5.8. Distribution of mesozooplankton biomass in Sinop coastal zone (southern Black Sea).

Table 1.3.3.5.9. Distribution of mesozooplankton biomass on southeastern Black Sea continental shelf area of Turkey.

Table 1.3.3.5.10. The percentage of copepods from the total biomass of mesozooplankton as an indicator of water quality (WQ)* in the Black Sea shelf area of Turkey.

Table 1.3.3.6.1. General characteristics of expeditions on RV "Sprut" in northwestern Black Sea shelf.

Table 1.3.3.6.2. Location of mesozooplankton sampling station on the shelf area of Ukraine in northwestern part of the Black Sea.

Table 1.3.3.6.3. Location of mesozooplankton sampling station in coastal stations of Odessa region.

Table 1.3.3.6.4. Distribution of mesozooplankton characteristics on the shelf area of Ukraine in northwestern part of the Black Sea.

Table 1.3.3.6.5. Average values for mesozooplankton characteristics of marine coastal zone in Odessa region.

Table 1.3.3.6.6. Long-term changes of Noctiluca scintillans biomass (B) and its percentage from the total biomass of mesozooplankton (%).

Table 1.3.3.6.7. Seasonal dynamics of the mesozooplankton total biomass (mgm-3) in the northwestern part of the Black Sea (2008-2014).

Table 1.3.3.6.8. Threshold values of mesozooplankton indicators that correspond to Good Environment Status of the Black Sea.

Table 1.3.3.6.9. Mesozooplankton indicators at two habitats (marine coastal area and marine shelf area: shelf 1 Odessa region, shelf 2 Danube region) in northwestern Black Sea.

Table 1.3.4.1. Alien species reported from the Turkish coasts of the Black Sea_

Table 1.3.5.1. Species composition along the Bulgarian coast in different periods of investigation. * - literature data

Table 1.3.5.2. Changes in floristic index of macrophytes in Varna Bay in the years of investigation_

Table 1.3.5.3. Changes in saprobic structure of macrophytes in Varna Bay in the years of investigation_

Table 1.3.5.5. Ecological index, Ecological Quality Ratio and ecological status of investigated polygons in Varna bay: 2007-2014 years. Ecological Status Class: red-bad status; orange-poor; moderate-yellow; good-green; high-blue

Table 1.3.5.6. Ecological quality ratio, Ecological index values of investigated polygons along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Ecological Status Class: red-bad status; orange-poor; moderate-yellow; good-green; high-blue

Table 1.3.5.7. Romanian phytobenthic species evolution over decades

Table 1.3.5.8. Romanian species list (2009 2014)

Table 1.3.5.9. Ecological Index (EI) and Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) of macrophytobenthic communities for different status classes (Berov D. et.al, 2015)

Table 1.3.5.10. Macrophytes diversity from different areas in the Black Sea of Turkey (Aysel et al., 2005).

Table 1.3.5.11. Dominancy in division level among of Black Sea coast of Turkey (Aysel et al., 2005)

Table 1.3.5.12. Comparative characteristics of the floristic composition and ecological activity of macrophytes in the offshore and coastal zones of the north-western part of the Black Sea in 2011_

Table 1.3.5.13. Ukrainian water bodies ESC assessment by macrophytes morphofunctional EEI the Three Dominants Ecological Activity (S/W3Dp)

Table 1.3.6.1. Metric and classification system for the coastal marine waters on the base of zooplankton characteristics (according to WFD).

Table 1.3.6.2 Ecological status of marine environment (GES), in the northeastern Black Sea on the base macro- and mesozooplankton parameters as indicators in 2016.

Table 1.3.7.1: List of seabird species occurring in the Black Sea, including the countries where they occur. SPEC category corresponds to the European birds of conservation concern of BirdLife International (2017).

CHAPTER 2. STATE AND DYNAMICS OF THE LIVING AND NON-LIVING RESOURCES AND THEIR EXPLOITATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION

2.1. MAIN BIORESOURCES

Table 2.1.2.1 Maximum size, size at first maturity and size at recruitment of Azov anchovy

Table 2.1.2.2 Maximum size, size at first maturity and size at recruitment of Black Sea anchovy

Table 2.1.2.3. Population parameters of E.e.ponticus (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.2.4. M vector and proportion of matures by size or age (Males)

Table 2.1.2.5. M vector and proportion of matures by size or age (Females)

Table 2.1.2.6. Landings in Black Sea of sprat 2009-2014 (AG FOMLR, 2015)

Table. 2.1.2.7. Indicators of anchovy stock derived from analytical assessments (STECF, 2015; GFCM,2015)

Table 2.1.2.8. Results from ichthyoplankton survey in 2013 (Gucu et al., 2016)

Table 2.1.2.9. Anchovy -Engraulis encrasicolus, gonad maturity stages (STECF, 2010)

Table 2.1.2.10. Estimated number of anchovy (millions) by age group and polygon, October - November 2014 (Panayotova et al., 2015)

Table 2.1.2.11. Estimated relative biomass (tones) of anchovy by age group and polygon, October - November 2014. (Panayotova et al., 2015)

Table 2.1.2.12. Estimated number of anchovy (millions) per size classes and polygons, October - November 2014 (Panayotova et al., 2015)

Table 2.1.2.13. Estimated relative biomass (tonnes) of anchovy by size classes and polygons, October - November 2014 (Panayotova et al., 2015)

Table 2.1.2.14.a Growth and length weight model parameters (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.2.14.b Growth and length weight model parameters of sprat in Black Sea (STECF, 2015)

Table 2.1.2.15. Landings of sprat in Black Sea for 2009-2014. AG FOMLR, 2015_

Table 2.1.2.15. Biomass (t) of sprat in Bulgarian and Romanian marine areas (estimations from surveys) AG FOMLR, 2015_

Table 2.1.2.16. Descriptive data regarding abundance indices of sprat for spring 2011 in Samsun shelf area (Turkey).

Table 2.1.2.17. Spatial distribution of sprat in Turkish waters in 2013_

Table 2.1.2.18. Estimated abundance of sprat (millions) by age groups and polygons, October - November 2014 (Panayotova et al., 2015)

Table 2.1.2.19. Biomass of sprat by age groups in 2014, Bulgarian marine area (Panayotova et al., 2015)

Table 2.1.2.20. Sprat means length (Lmean) by years in the shelf zone with corresponding min-max values and CI (95%)

Table 2.1.2.21. Landings of Scad in Black Sea AG FOMLR, 2015_

Table 2.1.2.22. Growth and length weight model parameters

Table 2.1.2.23. Results of the best assessments Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB), F over age 1-4 (Fbar), Recruitment (REC), catch and landings (STECF, 2014)

Table 2.1.2.22. Identified age groups from length-frequency analysis of T. mediterraneus during the monthly sampling using the Bhattacharya method (Yankova and Raykov 2012; Yankova, 2013).

Table 2.1.2.23. Various growth parameter estimates of T. Mediterraneus along the Bulgarian coast

Table 2.1.2.24. Estimated relative biomass (tonnes) of horse mackerel by age group and polygon, October - November 2014 (Panayotova et al.,2015)

Table 2.1.2.26. Distribution of bluefish at age 0 and 1 in Bulgarian marine area, 2014_

Table 2.1.2.27. M vector and proportion of matures by size or age (Males) (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.2.28. M vector and proportion of matures by size or age (Females) (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.2.29. Growth and length weight model parameters (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.2.30. Growth parameters of bonito 2000-2013 (GFCM, 2014)

Table 2.1.2.26. Landings of Bonito 2009-2014 in Black Sea (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.2.27. Aggregated catch at age in number 10-3 of Turkey (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.2.28. Weight at age in the catch (in g).

Table 2.1.2.29 Table of indicators of Bonito in Black Sea (GFCM, 2015).

Tab. 2.1.3.1. Growth parameters of turbot by countries and periods

Table 2.1.3.2. Common maturity ogive of turbot by ages and years.

Table 2.1.3.4. CPUE data for Romania in 2012.

Table 2.1.3.5. Assessment of turbot agglomerations in t May 2012, demersal trawl survey, and Romanian area.

Table 2.1.3.6. Assessment of turbot agglomerations in the period October -November 2012, demersal trawl survey, Romanian area.

Table 2.1.3.7. Values of parameters in VBGF for both genders (STECF, 2013)

Table 2.1.3.8. CPUE of turbot in 2008-2011 by mtier in Bulgaria_

Table 2.1.3.9. Growth parameters of turbot in Black Sea for different periods (STECF,2012)

Table 2.1.3.10. Common maturity ogive of turbot by ages and years (STECF, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.11.Turkish Black Sea turbot catch per unit effort (kg/h) and biomass indices (kg/km2) in 2012 (STECF, 2013)

Table 2.1.3.27. Red mullet in GSA 29. Parameters of VBGF and L-W relationship_

Table 2.1.3.28. Growth and length weight model parameters (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.29. Landings of red mullet in Black Sea_

Table 2.1.3.30. Tuning fleet data (CPUE kg/h)

Table 2.1.3.31. Estimated relative biomass (tonnes) of red mullet by size classes and polygons, October - November 2014 (Panayotova et al., 2015)

Table 2.1.3.32. Growth parameters of whiting in Black Sea (Raykov et al., 2008)

Table 2.1.3.33. Population parameters of whiting from Black Sea (STECF, 2015, GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.37. Landings of whiting in period 2009-2014_

Table 2.1.2.38. Estimated number of whiting (millions) by age groups and polygons, October - November 2014 (STECF, 2015)

Table 2.1.2.39. Estimated relative biomass (tonnes) of whiting by age groups and polygons, October - November 2014 (STECF, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.37.Catch at age of whiting in Black Sea (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.38.Whiting in GSA 29. Survey CPUE (kg/h) between 2011 to 2014 in the Samsun shelf area (SSA) and West Turkish Black Sea (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.39.Whiting in GSA 29. Trend of abundance indices (N10-3) and average CPUE (kg/h) by age according to the Turkish trawl surveys in 2009 2014 (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.40. Whiting in GSA 29. Indices of abundance by length according to the Romanian research trawl surveys in 2011 - 2014 (106) (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.41.Thornback ray in GSA 29. Mean, minimum, and maximum length, width, and weight.

Table 2.1.3.42.Thornback ray in GSA 29. Parameters of VBGF and L-W relationship.

Table 2.1.3.43.Thornback ray in GSA 29. Natural mortality.

Table 2.1.3.44.Thornback ray in GSA 29. Landings by country.

Table 2.1.3.45. Thornback ray in GSA 29. Landings (t) by country.

Table 2.1.3.46. Thornback ray in GSA 29. Catch at age (thousands).

Table 2.1.3.47. Thornback ray in GSA 29. Main outputs of the pseudo-cohort analysis carried out by means of VIT program.

Table 2.1.3.48.Piked dogfish growth parameters in the Romanian marine area (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.49.Maturity ogive after Ukrainian scientists (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.50.Maturity ogive from Romanian data (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.51. Natural mortality for piked dogfish in the Romanian Black Sea area (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.52. Picked dogfish landings 2009-2014 in Black Sea_

Table 2.1.3.53. Number of fishing gillnets for dogfish in the Romanian area (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.54. Romanian CPUE in commercial fishing, 2009-2014 periods (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.55. Estimated piked dogfish biomasses (t) in May and November of 2009- 2014 in Romanian waters (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.56. CPUE for the at sea surveys for Romanian Black Sea areas (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.57. Assessment of dogfish agglomerations in the period May 2012, demersal trawl survey , Romanian area (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.58. Assessment of dog fish agglomerations in the period October - November 2012, pelagic trawl survey , Romanian area (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.59. Assessment of dogfish agglomerations in the period May June 2013, demersal trawl survey, Romanian area (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.60. Assessment of dogfish agglomerations in October 2013, demersal trawl survey, Romanian area (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.61. Assessment of dogfish agglomerations in the period May June 2014, demersal trawl survey, Romanian area (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.62. Assessment of dogfish agglomerations in October 2014, demersal trawl survey, Romanian area (GFCM, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.62.Proportion of maturity by age

Table 2.1.3.63.Settings for minimizing the residuals (STECF, 2015)

Table 2.1.3.64.Piked dogfish in Black Sea. XSA summary results.

Table 2.1.3.65.Piked dogfish in Black Sea. F-at-age matrix obtained from XSA.

Table 2.1.4.1. Length, catch-at length and average weights in Romanian waters in 2014 Landings - 1,953.161 tons / 1953161 kg_

Table 2.1.4.2..Discards Length, catch-at length and average weights in Romanian waters in 2014 DISCARD 2013 1.270 tons / 1270 kg (GFCM,2015)

Table 2.1.4.3. Length, catch-at length and average weights in Romanian waters in 2015_

Table 2.1.4.4. Time series of Rapa whelk landings (tons) in the Black Sea_

Table 2.1.5 1.. Alien species intentionally or unintentionally introduced into the Black Sea (Zaitsev and ztrk, 2001; Gomoiu et al., 2002; Alexandrov et al., 2007).

Table 2.5.4.1. Biomass of Cystoseira genus (0-3m depth) in kg.m-2 in different regions for two periods of investigation_

2.2. BLACK SEA BIORESOURCES EXPLOITATION

Table 2.2.2.: EU Gear Code Descriptions

Table 2.2.3.: Metiers operated in the Romanian Fleet (2013). Table adapted from that published in Romanias National Programme.

Table 2.2.4: Current Bulgarian Fleet Capacity (28/5/2014)

Table 2.2.5.: Segmentation of the Bulgarian active Fishing Fleet per category of fishing technique (main fishing gear) and length. Data based on 2009.[4]

Table 2.2.6. Metiers operated in the Bulgarian Fleet (2009). Table adapted from that published in Bulgarias National Programme [3]

Table 2.2.7. Historical Estimates of Ukrainian Fleet Size.

Table 2.2.8: Current Ukrainian Fleet Capacity (2012 [14])

Table 2.2.9.. The list of permitted for the Black Sea (except of Zones of Integral Protection) fishing gears [14]

Table 2.2.10.: Gear Types Utilised in the Ukrainian Fleet and Matched to EU Gear Codes.

Table 2.2.11. Distribution of boats by length and the number of gillnets in use with a mesh size of 180-200 mm [14]

Table 2.2.12. Proposed Metiers operated in the Ukrainian fleet (2012-14) based on the EU metier classification.

Table 2.2.13.: Historical Estimates of Turkish Fleet Size.

Table 2.2.14.: Turkish Fleet Capacity (2012 [16])

Table 2.2.15.: Turkish Vessel Operating Types (2012 [16]) on the Black Sea Coast.

Table 2.2.16. TACs and quota for sprat in Black Sea(STECF, 2015)

Table 2.2.17.Sprat total TAC ( in thousands of tons) applied to vessels of Ukraine and Russian Federation.

2.3. NON-LIVING RESOURCES AND THEIR EXPLOITATION

2.4. CHANGES IN THE STATE OF THE BLACK SEA RESOURCES

CHAPTER 3: STATE OF THE BLACK SEA COAST AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS

Annex 1 Quantitative summary of ICZM stock-taking for the Black Sea Countries

Annex 2 Colour coded ICZM progress indicators for the Black Sea Region Countries

Table of Figures

Executive Summary

CHAPTER 1: STATE AND DYNAMICS OF THE BLACK SEA ECOSYSTEM

1.1 Physical Features

Figure 1.1.1.2. Vertical variations of density (expressed in terms of sigma-t, kg m-3) at various locations of the interior basin during different months representing different types of vertical structures.

Figure 1.1.1.3. Time averaged (2002-2016) SST distribution over the Black Sea provided by the 4km resolution monthly mean MODIS satellite products.

Figure 1.1.1.4. Long term variations of the winter (December-March) mean sea surface temperature and the summer-autumn (May-November) mean Cold Intermediate Layer (CIL) temperature below the seasonal thermocline.

Figure 1.1.1.5. The sea level anomaly time series at Poti tide-gauge site located at the southeastern corner of the sea.

Figure 1.1.1.6. A typical structure of the upper layer circulation field deduced from a circulation model using assimilation of altimeter sea level anomaly data as described by Korotaev et al. (2003).

Figure 1.1.1.7. Surface salinity distribution determined by the July 1992 multi-ship basinwide survey.

Figure 1.1.1.8. SeaWiFS chlorophyll distributions showing two alternative forms of circulation structure in the northwestern shelf; (a) a southward coastal current system during days 152-155 (early June) and (b) a closed circulation system confined into its northern sector during days 194-197 (mid-July), 1998 (taken from Oguz et al., 2002).

Figure 1.1.2.1. Average wave heights, possible occur once a year in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according to 1979-2013 data).

Figure 1.1.2.2. The highest average wave in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according to 2013 data).

Figure 1.1.2.3. The highest average wave in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according to 2014 data).

Figure 1.1.2.4. The highest average wave in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according to 2015 data).

Figure 1.1.2.5 Mean annual wave heights in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according to 1979-2013 data)

Figure .1.1.2.6 Mean annual wave heights in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according 2013 data)

Figure 1.1.2.7 Mean annual wave heights in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according 2014 data)

Figure 1.1.2.8 Mean annual wave heights in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according 2015 data)

Figure 1.1.2.9 Average periods of waves in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according to 1979-2013 data).

Figure 1.1.2.10 Average periods of waves in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according to 2013 data)

Figure 1.1.2.11 Average periods of waves in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according to 2014 data)

Figure 1.1.2.12 Average periods of waves in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according to 2015 data)

Figure 1.1.2.13 Average directions of sea swells in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according to 1979-2013 data).

Figure 1.1.2.14 Average directions of sea swells in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according to 2013 data).

Figure 1.1.2.15 Average directions of sea swells in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according to 2013 data).

Figure 1.1.2.16 Average directions of sea swells in the Azov-Black Sea basin (according to 2015 data).

Figure 1.1.3.1. Long-term (a) and seasonal (b) hydrographs of river runoff into the Black Sea for 1958-2017.

Figure 1.1.3.2. Normalized difference-integral curve of river flows to the Black Sea.

Figure 1.1.3.3. Intra-annual distribution of rivers flow (km3 / month) with natural (1921-1955) and regulated (1975-2017) regimes. (Notes: x-axis of the plot years, y-axis of the plot river flows km3/year).

Figure 1.1.3.4: Long-term (a) and seasonal (b) distribution of atmospheric precipitation (km3 / year) for the period 1958 2017.

Figure 1.1.3.3. Multiannual (а) seasonal (b) evaporation (km3/year) for the period from 1958 to 2017.

Figure 1.1.3.4. Long-term (a) and seasonal (b) changes in the freshwater balance of the Black Sea (km3 / year) for 1958-2017.

Figure 1.1.3.5. Scheme of stations (a) and the cross-section (b) port Crimea - port Caucasus in the Kerch Strait.

Figure 1.1.3.6. Multiyear water flows through the Kerch Strait (km3/year). Notes: x-axis of the plot years, y-axis of the plot flow; . flow from the Azov Sea, - - - - flow from the Black Sea, ____ summary of flows.

Figure 1.1.3.7. The intra-annual distribution of mean annual monthly values of the components of the Black Sea water balance (km3 / month), calculated according to [13] for 1958 - 2017. Notes: x-axis of the plot months, y-axis of the plot flow; . Upper Bosporus flow, - - - - Lower Bosporus flow, ____ fresh water flow, -A-A- total flow.

Figure 1.1.3.8. Interannual variability of the resulting water exchange (km3 / year) across the Bosporus Strait. Notes: x-axis of the plot years, y-axis of the plot flow.

Figure 1.1.3.9 Interannual variability of the Black Sea water volume (km3 / year).

1.2. Hydrochemistry and pollution_

Figure 1.2.1.A. Samples sites of marine waters from the RDB-P for period 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.1.B. Samples sites of the bottom sediments from the RDB-P for period 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.1.C. Samples sites of the biota from the RDB-P for period 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.1.1.1. Changes of total organic matters indicated in BOD5 discharged.

Figure 1.2.1.1.2. Changes of total nitrogen discharged.

Figure 1.2.1.1.3. Changes of total phosphorus discharged.

Figure 1.2.1.1.4. Changes of total suspended solids discharged.

Figure 1.2.1.1.5. Changes of total nitrogen discharged and annual flow.

Figure 1.2.1.1.6. Changes of total phosphorous discharged and annual flow.

Figure 1.2.1.1.7. Changes of organic matters in BOD5 discharged and annual flow.

Figure 1.2.1.1.8. Changes of TSS discharged and annual flow.

Figure 1.2.1.1.9. Changes of the total nitrogen discharges from the main LBS into the Black Sea.

Figure 1. 2.1.1.10. Changes of the total phosphorus discharges from the main LBS into the Black Sea.

Figure 1.2.1.1.11. Changes of the total suspended solids (TSS) discharges from the main LBS into the Black Sea.

Figure 1.2.1.1.12. Changes of organic matters (BOD5) discharges from the main LBS into the Black Sea.

Figure 1.2.1.1.13. Changes of organic matters in rivers discharging into the Black Sea.

Figure 1. 2.1.1.14. Changes of TSS in rivers discharging into the Black Sea.

Figure 1.2.1.1.15. Changes of total nitrogen and total phosphorous discharged into the Black Sea.

Figure 1.2.1.1.16. Changes of total nitrogen discharged.

Figure 1.2.1.1.17. Changes of total organic matters indicated in BOD5 discharged.

Figure 1.2.1.1.18. Changes of total suspended solids discharged.

Figure 1.2.1.1.19. Discharges into the Black Sea from LBS at Russian coast in 2014 and 2015.

Figure 1.2.1.1.20. Changes of mineral nitrogen runoff into the Black Sea.

Figure 1.2.1.1.21. Changes of phosphorous runoff into the Black Sea.

Figure 1.2.1.1.22. Changes of organic substances indicated in BOD5 runoff into the Black Sea.

Figure 1.2.1.1.23. Changes of suspended solids runoff into the Black Sea.

Figure 1.2.1.1.24. Changes of total nitrogen discharged into the Black Sea.

Figure 1.2.1.1.25. Changes of total phosphorus discharged into the Black Sea.

Figure 2.1.26. Changes of total organic matters discharged into the Black Sea.

Figure 1.2.1.2.1. Temporal changes of annual total deposition of cadmium (ton/year), mercury (t/y), lead (100*t/y), and benzo(a)pyrene (t/y) to the Black Sea in the period from 2009 to 2014 (a) and their relative changes in comparison to the level of deposition in 2009 (%).

Figure 1.2.1.2.2. Annual deposition of benzo(a)pyrene (g/km2/year) to the Black Sea in 2009 and 2014.

Figure 1.2.1.2.3. Annual deposition of cadmium (g/km2/year) to the Black Sea in 2009 and 2014.

Figure 1.2.1.2.4. Annual deposition of mercury (g/km2/year) to the Black Sea in 2009 and 2014.

Figure 1.2.1.2.5. Annual deposition of lead (g/km2/year) to the Black Sea in 2009 and 2014.

Figure 1.2.1.2.6. Average and maximum pH values in precipitation for different seasons in 2014.

Figure 1.2.1.2.7. The average values of concentration of various forms of phosphorus (phosphates and total phosphorus, g/l) in precipitation samples in 2014.

Figure 1.2.1.2.8. Relative contributions of nitrogen ions in general nitrogen content in atmospheric deposits during 2014.

Figure 1.2.1.2.9. Link between concentration of SAS and quantity of wet atmospheric precipitation in 2014.

Figure 1.2.2.1. Map of the Black Seas network of monitoring stations nutrients in seawater 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.2.2. Surface distribution of phosphates concentration in the Black Sea, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.2.4. Seasonal variations of vertical distribution phosphates (L) and oxygen saturation (R), Black Sea, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.2.5. Phosphates annual mean concentration in the surface - Black Sea (2009-2014)

Figure 1.2.2.6. Surface distribution of silicates concentration, Black Sea, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.2.7. Seasonal variations of vertical distribution - silicates (L) and oxygen saturation (R) - Black Sea, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.2.8. Silicates annual mean concentration in the surface - Black Sea (2009-2014)

Figure 1.2.2.9. Surface distribution of nitrates concentration, Black Sea, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.2.10. Seasonal variations of vertical distribution - nitrates (L) and oxygen saturation (R), Black Sea, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.2.11. Nitrates annual mean concentration in the surface - Black Sea (2009-2014)

Figure 1.2.2.12. Surface distribution of nitrites concentration, Black Sea, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.2.13. Seasonal variations of vertical distribution - nitrites (L) and oxygen saturation (R), Black Sea, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.2.14. Nitrites annual mean concentration in the surface - Black Sea (2009-2014)

Figure 1.2.2.15. Surface distribution of ammonia concentration, Black Sea,2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.2.16. Seasonal variations of vertical distribution - ammonia N-NH4 (L) and oxygen saturation (R), Black Sea,2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.2.17. Ammonia annual mean concentration in the surface - Black Sea (2009-2014)

Figure 1.2.2.18. Black Sea coastal water quality assessed by the BEAST for period 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.2.19. Average annual long-term changes in water quality state of Ukraine region by the BEAST method in 2008-2015.

Figure 1.2.2.20. Average annual long-term changes in water quality state of the Romanian region by the BEAST method in 2007-2012.

Figure 1.2.2.21. Average annual long-term changes in water quality state of the Bulgarian region by the BEAST method in 2011-2015.

Figure 1.2.2.22. Average annual long-term changes in water quality state of the Turkish region by the BEAST method in 2008-2014.

Figure 1.2.2.23. Average annual long-term changes in water quality state of the Georgia region by the BEAST method in 2007-2013_

Figure 1.2.2.24. Average annual long-term changes in water quality state of Anapa and Sochi-Adler regions by the BEAST method in 2008-2014.

Figure 1.2.3.1. The average of total petroleum hydrocarbons concentration (g/dm3) in the coastal waters of the Black Sea countries in 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.3.2. The average of total petroleum hydrocarbons concentration (g/dm3) in the coastal waters of Romania in 2009-2012.

Figure 1.2.3.3. The maximum of total petroleum hydrocarbons concentration (g/dm3) in the coastal waters of Romania in 2009-2012.

Figure 1.2.3.4. The average of total petroleum hydrocarbons concentration (mg/dm3) in the coastal waters of Russia in 1996-2014 and long-term trend.

Figure 1.2.3.5. The annual average of total petroleum hydrocarbons concentration (mg/dm3) in the coastal waters between Adler and Sochi in 2002-2015 and long-term trend.

Figure 1.2.3.6. The annual average of total petroleum hydrocarbons concentration (g/dm3) in the marine coastal waters in 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.3.7. Maximum of total petroleum hydrocarbons concentration (g/dm3) in the Kerch Strait waters in different sampling time.

Figure 1.2.3.8. (a) Map of oil spills on the Black Sea surface revealed from satellite SAR imagery in 20092011; (b) individual spill size distribution; (c) monthly distribution of spills.

Figure 1.2.3.9. Surface slicks in the continental slope area offshore Georgia as seen in SAR imagery: (a) Sentinel-1 SAR, 15 October 2014, 15:10 UTC; (b) Sentinel-1 SAR, 8 November 2014, 15:10 UTC; (c) Envisat ASAR, 27 September 2011, 07:21 UTC.

Figure 1.2.3.10. Analysis of SAR imagery of sea surface oil pollution due to seabed seepages in the south-eastern continental slope area: (a) consolidated map of oil patches; (b) size distributions of individual oil patches; (c) monthly means of oil patch sizes.

Figure 1.2.4.1. Average concentration of the PAHs in the Romanian coastal waters in July-October 2009.

Figure 1.2.4.2. Average concentration of the PAHs in the Romanian coastal waters in July 2009.

Figure 1.2.4.3. Average concentration of the PAHs in the Romanian coastal waters in September-October 2009.

Figure 1.2.4.4. Concentration of the PAHs total in water, (Romania 2010).

Figure 1.2.4.5. The level of water contamination by PAHs in the Romanian part of the Black Sea in February 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.6. The ratio of 16 PAHs in water by the number of rings in the molecules.

Figure 1.2.4.7. The level of water contamination by PAHs in the Romanian part of the Black Sea in March 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.8. The ratio of 16 PAHs in water by the number of rings in the molecules.

Figure 1.2.4.9. The level of water contamination by PAHs in the Romanian part of the Black Sea in August 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.10. The ratio of 16 PAHs in water by the number of rings in the molecules.

Figure 1.2.4.11. The level of water contamination by PAHs in the Romanian part of the Black Sea in September 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.12. The ratio of 16 PAHs in water by the number of rings in the molecules.

Figure 1.2.4.13. Concentration of the PAHs in marine waters near Zmeiny Island in 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.14. The level of marine waters contamination by PAHs near Zmeiniy Island in 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.15. The ratio of 16 PAHs in the waters by the number of rings in the molecules.

Figure 1.2.4.16. Total concentration of the PAHs in the waters of the Romanian part of the Black Sea in 2011.

Figure 1.2.4.17. The level of water contamination by PAHs in the Romanian part of the Black Sea in May 2011.

Figure 1.2.4.18. The ratio of 16 PAHs in the waters by the number of rings in the molecules.

Figure 1.2.4.19. The level of water contamination by PAHs in the Romanian part of the Black Sea in July 2011.

Figure 1.2.4.20. The ratio of 16 PAHs by the number of rings in the molecules in the Romanian waters in July 2011.

Figure 1.2.4.21. The level of water contamination by PAHs in the Romanian part of the Black Sea in March-April 2012.

Figure 1.2.4.22. The ratio of 16 PAHs by the number of rings in the molecules in the Romanian waters in March-April 2012.

Figure 1.2.4.23. The level of water contamination by PAHs in the Romanian part of the Black Sea in October 2012.

Figure 1.2.4.24. The ratio of 16 PAHs by the number of rings in the molecules in the Romanian waters in October 2012.

Figure 1.2.4.25. Concentration of the sum of 16 individual PAHs, and 7 carcinogenic PAHs, and total B(a)Peqv in the Ukrainian waters in 2012.

Figure 1.2.4.26. The ratio of 16 PAHs by the number of rings in the molecules in the Ukrainian waters in 2012.

Figure 1.2.4.27. Histogram of total content of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons - S16 PAHs (g/l) in the Romanian Black Sea waters in 2013.

Figure 1.2.4.28. Distribution of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations - S16 PAH (g/L) in the Romanian Black Sea waters during period 20062013.

Figure 1.2.4.29. The average concentration of the PAHs in bottom sediments of the Romanian part of the Black Sea in July 2009.

Figure 1.2.4.30. The average concentration of the PAHs in bottom sediments of the Romanian part of the Black Sea in Autumn 2009.

Figure 1.2.4.31. The average concentration of the PAHs in the bottom sediments of the Kerch Strait and NW Shelf of the Black Sea in 2009.

Figure 1.2.4.32. Concentration of the sum of 16 individual PAHs, and 7 carcinogenic PAHs, and total B(a)Peqv in the bottom sediments of NW Shelf in 2009.

Figure 1.2.4.33. The ratio of 16 PAHs by the number of rings in the molecules in the bottom sediments of NW Shelf in 2009.

Figure 1.2.4.34. Concentration of the sum of 16 individual PAHs, and 7 carcinogenic PAHs, and total B(a)Peqv in the bottom sediments of NW Shelf in 2009.

Figure 1.2.4.35. The ratio of 16 PAHs by the number of rings in the molecules in the bottom sediments of Kerch Strait in 2009.

Figure 1.2.4.36. The sum of 16 PAHs concentration in the bottom sediments in the Romanian coastal area in 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.37. Concentration of the sum of 16 individual PAHs, and 7 carcinogenic PAHs, and total B(a)Peqv in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in February 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.38. The ratio of 16 PAHs by the number of rings in the molecules in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in February 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.39. Concentration of the sum of 16 individual PAHs, and 7 carcinogenic PAHs, and total B(a)Peqv in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in March 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.40. The ratio of 16 PAHs by the number of rings in the molecules in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in March 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.41. Concentration of the sum of 16 individual PAHs, and 7 carcinogenic PAHs, and total B(a)Peqv in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in July-August 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.42. The ratio of 16 PAHs by the number of rings in the molecules in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in July-August 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.43. Concentration of the sum of 16 individual PAHs, and 7 carcinogenic PAHs, and total B(a)Peqv in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in September 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.44. The ratio of 16 PAHs by the number of rings in the molecules in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in September 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.45. The level of sediment contamination PAHs in front of the Danube Delta in 2010.

Figure 1.2.4.46. The ratio of 16 PAHs in the bottom sediments in front of the Danube Delta by the number of rings in the molecules.

Figure 1.2.4.47. Concentration of the sum of 16 individual PAHs, and 7 carcinogenic PAHs, and total B(a)Peqv in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in May 2011.

Figure 1.2.4.48. The ratio of 16 PAHs by the number of rings in the molecules in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in May 2011.

Figure 1.2.4.49. Concentration of the sum of 16 individual PAHs, and 7 carcinogenic PAHs, and total B(a)Peqv in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in July 2011.

Figure 1.2.4.50. The ratio of 16 PAHs by the number of rings in the molecules in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in July 2011.

Figure 1.2.4.51. The ratio of 16 PAHs in the bottom sediments of Danube estuarine by the number of rings in molecule (the number of stations is located along the vertical axis; the PAHs percentage of on the number of rings is located along abscissa).

Figure 1.2.4.52. Concentration of the sum of 16 individual PAHs, and 7 carcinogenic PAHs, and total B(a)Peqv in the bottom sediments from the Danube estuary in 2011.

Figure 1.2.4.53. Values of the ratio Fl/Fl+Py, BaA/228, IP IP+ BghiP, An/178 for the stations from the Danube area.

Figure 1.2.4.54. Concentration of the sum of 16 individual PAHs, and 7 carcinogenic PAHs, and total B(a)Peqv in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in March-April 2012.

Figure 1.2.4.55. The ratio of 16 PAHs by the number of rings in the molecules in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in March-April 2012.

Figure 1.2.4.56. Concentration of the sum of 16 individual PAHs, and 7 carcinogenic PAHs, and total B(a)Peqv in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in October 2012.

Figure 1.2.4.57. The ratio of 16 PAHs by the number of rings in the molecules in the bottom sediments of the Romanian coastal area in October 2012.

Figure 1.2.4.58. Concentration of the sum of 16 individual PAHs, and 7 carcinogenic PAHs, and total B(a)Peqv in the bottom sediments of Zernovs Phyllophora Field in 2012.

Figure 1.2.4.59. Spatial distribution of individual PAHs (g/kg) in the the bottom sediments of Zernovs Phyllophora Field in 2012.

Figure 1.2.4.60. The concentrations of Naphtalene, Fluorene and Phenanthrene in Phyllophora.

Figure 1.2.4.61. Concentrations of other individual PAHs in Phyllophora.

Figure 1.2.4.62. The ratio of 16 PAHs in Phyllophora from the NWS by the number of rings in the molecules.

Figure 1.2.4.63. Concentrations of sum PAHs, carcinogenic PAHs and B(a)Peqv. in Phyllophora.

Figure 1.2.5.1. Share of DDT and its metabolites concentrations in Black Sea surface waters, 2009-2014 (data from Black Sea Database).

Figure 1.2.5.2. Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in water, 2012 2014, in Constanţa and Danube mouth area, in relation to the proposed values for the definition of good environmental status.

Figure 1.2.5.3. Trend analysis of OCPs in the west part of the Black Sea, in water, 2012 2014.

Figure 1.2.5.4. Concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls in water, 2012 2014, in Constanţa and Danube mouth area.

Figure 1.2.5.5. Mean plot of organochlorine pesticides in north and north west part of the Black Sea surface sediments, 2009-2014 (data from Black Sea Database).

Figure 1.2.5.6. Concentrations of PCB28, PCB52, PCB101 and PCB118, in sediment, 20122014, in Constanta and Danube mouth area, in relation to the proposed values for the definition of good environmental status (ERL).

Figure 1.2.5.7. Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in water, 20122014, in Constanta and Danube mouth area, in relation to the proposed values for the definition of good environmental status (ERL).

Figure 1.2.5.8. Trend analysis of OCPs in the west part of the Black Sea, in water, 2012 2014.

Figure 1.2.6.1. Distribution of Cu, Cd and Pb along water column, Black Sea Database, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.6.2. Black Sea monitoring stations and spatial distribution of average values of heavy metals in surface waters, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.6.3. Spatial distribution of heavy metals concentrations in surface waters, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.6.4. Trends of heavy metals concentrations in Black Sea surface waters, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.6.5. Map of study area, MISIS Joint Cruise, 22-31 July 2013.

Figure 1.2.6.6. Distribution of nickel (g/L) in coastal, shelf and open sea waters from the Romanian, Bulgarian and Turkish area, July 2013.

Figure 1.2.6.7. Trends of heavy metals in the Romanian Black Sea waters during 20062014.

Figure 1.2.6.8. Average concentration of trace metals in seawater of NW Black Sea and Kerch Strait in 2009.

Figure 1.2.6.9. Average concentrations of trace metals in Ukrainian waters in 2011.

Figure 1.2.6.10. The maximal concentrations of trace metals in Ukrainian marine waters.

Figure 1.2.6.11. Average concentrations of trace metals in Ukrainian marine waters in 2012.

Figure 1.2.6.12. Average concentrations of trace metals in Ukrainian marine waters in 2013.

Figure 1.2.6.13. Average concentrations of trace metals in Ukrainian marine waters in 2014.

Figure 1.2.6.14. Routine monitoring stations in the coastal waters between estuaries of the rivers Mzymta and Sochi.

Figure 1.2.6.15. Average and maximal concentration of iron and lead (g/l) in the coastal waters of region Adler-Sochi in period of 2003-2015.

Figure 1.2.6.16. Black Sea monitoring stations and spatial distribution of average values of heavy metals in sediments, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.6.17. Spatial distribution of heavy metals concentrations in sediments, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.6.18. Trends of heavy metals concentrations in Black Sea sediments, 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.6.19. Distribution of copper in sediments along the Romanian Black Sea coast (13 transects), study areas Danube (SulinaPortita) and Constanta (Gura BuhazVama Veche) in 2012-2014.

Figure 1.2.6.20. Trends of heavy metals in marine sediments at Romanian Black Sea coast during 20062014.

Figure 1.2.6.21. Sampling stations along Georgian coastal zone.

Figure 1.2.6.22. Heavy metals concentration (g/g) in the bottom sediments along the Georgian coastal zone, 20082009.

Figure 1.2.6.23. Average concentrations of trace metals (g/g) in the bottom sediments of Ukrainian Black Sea in 2011.

Figure 1.6.2.24. Average and maximal concentration of trace metals in bottom sediments of Ukraine in 2012.

Figure 1.2.6.25. Average concentrations of trace metals in bottom sediments of Ukraine in 2013.

Figure 1.2.6.26. Average concentrations of trace metals in bottom sediments of Ukrainian Black Sea in 2014.

Figure 1.2.6.27. Mussels sampling points at 2009-2014.

Figure 1.2.6.28. Lead concentrations (g/g) in mollusks from the Romanian, Bulgarian and Turkish waters, July 2013, in comparison with EC regulatory values.

Figure 1.2.6.29. Levels (g/g) of Cd and Cu in mussels along Romanian Black Sea coast (2012-2014) against background assessment concentrations (BAC/OSPAR) and maximum allowable concentrations (MAC/EC nr. 1881/2006).

Figure 1.2.6.30. Trends of heavy metals concentration (g/g) in mussels along the Romanian Black Sea coast during 20062014.

Figure 1.2.6.31. Interspecific differences of heavy metals accumulation in 9 species of pelagic and demersal fish from Romanian Black Sea waters during 2012-2014.

Figure 1.2.6.32. Trends of heavy metals content in small pelagic fish (anchovy, sprat) from the Romanian Black Sea waters during 20012014.

Figure 1.2.6.33. Concentrations of metals (g/g) in the taloms of Phyllophora seagrass.

Figure 1.2.6.34. Concentrations of Cu, Zn, As, Pb, Hg and Cd (g/g) in fish tissues from waters of Zmeinyi Island in 2012.

Figure 1.2.6.35. Concentrations of trace metals Cu, Zn, As, Pb, Hg and Cd (g/g) in mollusks tissue in 2012.

Figure 1.2.6.36. Concentrations of trace metals Hg, Cd and Pb (g/g) in fish tissue (I. Zmeinyi) in 2013.

Figure 1.2.6.37. Concentrations of trace metals Cu, Zn and As (g/g) in fish (goby) tissue near Zmeinyi Island in 2013.

Figure 1.2.6.38. Concentrations of trace metals Pb, Hg, Cd, Cu, Zn and As (g/g) in mussels tissue near Zmeinyi Island in 2012-2014.

Figure 1.7.1. Map of the study area (North-western Black Sea) showing the distribution of Anthropogenic Marine Debris (AMD-dark bars) and Natural Marine Debris (NMD-light bars) densities (expressed as number of items/km).

1.3. THE STATE AND DYNAMICS OF THE BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY

Figure 1.3.2.1. Map of sampling station and distribution of number of stations by seasons and pelagic habitats per country: BG-Bulgaria, GE-Georgia, RO-Romania, TR- Turkey, UA- Ukraine; RU-Russia (Tr- transitional, CO-coastal (depth <30m), SH- shelf (depth>30-<200m and O-open sea (depth>200m), SO- shelf-open sea)

Figure 1.3.2.2. Phytoplankton biodiversity by taxonomic classes for the period 2008-2014 by countries: a) BG pelagic habitats; b) Georgia coastal habitat; c) Romanian pelagic habitats (CW-coastal waters, TW-transitional waters, SW-shelf waters, OW-open waters) d) island Zmiiniy e) Russia waters f) Odessa coastal habitat g) Turkish waters

Figure 1.3.2.3. Number of phytoplankton species by taxonomic classes for the period 2008-2014 in Georgian coastal waters

Figure 1.3.2.4. Trends in phytoplankton Total Abundance (cells/l) during 2008-2014 in spring and summer by habitats (BG-Bulgaria); CO-WFD 1n.m. coastal, CO-coastal, SH-shelf, O-open sea; on the x axes are given the months of sampling_

Figure 1.3.2.5. Trends in phytoplankton Total Biomass (mg/m3) during 2008-2014 in spring and summer by habitats (BG-Bulgaria); CO-WFD 1n.m. coastal, CO-coastal, SH-shelf, O-open sea; x axis-months of sampling

Figure 1.3.2.6. Trends in phytoplankton Total abundance (103 cells/l) during 2008-2014 in the Georgian coastal waters

Figure 1.3.2.7. Variation of total phytoplankton abundance (cells/l) and biomass (mg/m3) by seasons and habitats in the period 2008-2014 in Romanian waters

Figure 1.3.2.8. Spatial distribution of mean monthly abundance (103 cells/l) of phytoplankton in the waters along the Romanian shore, between 2008 2014_

Figure 1.3.2.9. Spatial distribution of mean monthly biomass (g/m3) of phytoplankton in the waters along the Romanian shore during 2008 2014_

Figure 1.3.2.10. Changes in the monthly mean pytoplankton total abundance (top panel) and biomass (bottom panel) during 2008-2014 in May-June in Russian waters . Minimum, maximum, 25% and 75% percentiles are shown_

Figure 1.3.2.11. Seasonal variability of phytoplankton abundance (106 cells/l) and biomass (mg/m3) by years (left) and seasonal averages for the entire period (2008-2013) (right) in the Odessa coast

Figure 1.3.2.11a. Variability of phytoplankton monthly abundance (103 cells/l) and biomass (mg/m3) and diatoms and dinoflagellates biomass (mg/m3) during 2008-2014 in Zmiiniy island_

Figure 1.3.2.12. Taxonomic structure by phytoplankton abundance (cells/l) in spring and summer in the coastal (a, b), shelf(c) and open sea habitats (d) in the Bulgarian marine waters

Figure 1.3.2.13. Taxonomic structure by phytoplankton biomass (mg/m3 ) in spring (left) and summer (right) in the coastal (a, b), shelf(c) and open sea habitats (d) in the Bulgarian marine waters

Figure 1.3.2.14. Long- term variation of spring Bac:Din biomass ratio: a) CUSUM curve and b)Regimeshift in the coastal BG waters (Moncheva et al., 2017).

Figure 1.3.2.15. The average annual phytoplankton abundance (103cells/l) by taxonomic classes for the period 2008-2014 in the Georgian coastal waters

Figure 1.3.2.16. Taxonomic structure by phytoplankton abundance (103cells/l) in spring and summer in the coastal habitats in the Georgian marine waters

Figure 1.3.2.17. Taxonomic structure of phytoplankton densities (cells/l, left) and biomasses (mg/m3, right) in the Romanian coastal waters, between 2008 2014_

Figure 1.3.2.18. Taxonomic structure of phytoplankton densities (cells/l, left) and biomasses (mg/m3, right) in the Romanian transitional waters, between 2008 2014_

Figure 1.3.2.19. Taxonomic structure of phytoplankton densities (cells/l, left) and biomasses (mg/m3, right) in the Romanian shelf waters, between 2008 2014.

Figure 1.3.2.20. Changes in phytoplankton taxonomic structure: average monthly biomass and annual averages (Avr) during cold (a) and warm (b) years

Figure 1.3.2.21. Interannual changes of phytoplankton biomass taxonomic structure in May-June 2008-2014 in Russian waters

Figure 1.3.2.22. Average contribution of number of species per taxon in the abundance (N) and biomass (B) in the Odessa coastal phytoplankton communities during 2008-2011_

Figure 1.3.2.23. Average abundance (106cells/l) and biomass (mg/m3) of phytoplankton taxa on the Odessa coast during 2008-2011_

Figure 1.3.2.24. Interannual variability of average relative contribution of phytoplankton taxa in the biomass (%) and abundance (%) in the Odessa coast (2006-2011)

Figure 1.3.2.25. Interannual variability of average contribution of phytoplankton taxa in the biomass (mg/m3) and the abundance (1x106cells/l) in Odessa coast (2006-2011)

Figure 1.3.2.25a. Taxonomic structure of phytoplankton abundance (cells/l, left) and biomasses (mg/m3, right) in the Zmiinyi island during 2008 2014_

Figure 1.3.2.26. Long-term record of blooms of Prorocentrum minimum (=cordatum) and Emiliania huxleyi in BG waters

Figure 1.3.2.26a. Satelite images of Basin scale bloom of Emiliania huxleyi during 2008-2016_

Figure 1.3.2.26b. Monthly averaged spring (a) and summer (b) phytoplankton blooms magnitude (mg/m3) in the shelf and open sea (c-spring and d-summer) (Slabakova et al., 2014)

Figure 1.3.2.26c. Monthly averaged bloom area (km2) in the shelf (upper left) in spring, and summer (upper right) and open sea (spring (right) and summer (left)) by years) (after Slabakova et al., 2014)

Figure 1.3.2.27. Dynamics of the Proboscia alata bloom on the north-eastern shelf area with sea bottom depths from 10 to 100 m in 2009 (surface biomass)

Figure 1.3.2.28. Interannual variability of the abundance (Nc, 1x106cells/l), biomass (Bc, mg/m3), surface area (Sс, μm2/m3), surface index (ISс, m-1) and specific surface ((SW)c, m2/kg1) of the of phytoplankton communities of the Odessa coast (2006-2013)

Figure 1.3.2.29. Fragment of MODIS Aqua space image with fields of Nodularia spumigena blooms (July 2010) in the in North-western part of the Black Sea from Dnieper estuary till Zmiinyi island_

Figure 1.3.2.30. Ecological quality status of coastal waters based on phytoplankton Integrated Biological Index (IBI) between 2011 2014 in RO waters (color codes according WFD)

Figure 1.3.2.31. Ecological quality status of BG coastal water bodies based on phytoplankton Integrated Biological Index (IBI) between 2011 2014 (color codes according WFD)

Figure 1.3.2.32. Spatial distribution of phytoplankton abundance (106 cells/l) and biomass (g/m3) in spring (a, b) and summer (c, d); the numbers in white denote averages and in red-maximum values (based on data in Table 1.3.2.4).

Figure 1.3.2.1.1. Number of species distribution of phytoplankton classes sampled in 2008-2014.

Figure 1.3.3.1. The course of annual values of the rivers runoff in 2007-2014 (data of DHMO and MRHMC).

Figure 1.3.3.2 Distribution of the Danube discharge (Q) by quarters in 2007-2014 (data of DHMO).

Figure 1.3.3.4. The course of average values ​​of the water temperature in 2001-2016 (data of MGL OSEU).

Figure 1.3.3.4. Shifts in sea surface temperature (∆T) from the average values for 2005-2014: (1) winter temperature; (2) summer temperature; and (3) annual average temperature. Line shows linear trend of annual average temperature (Arashkevich et al., 2015).

Figure 1.3.3.5. Location of stations corresponding to the sampling programmes during the monitoring exercises in 2007-2014.

Figure 1.3.3.6. Zooplankton species number by taxa and groups from 2007 to 2014.

Figure 1.3.3.7. Zooplankton species number by taxa and groups at coastal (CO), shelf (SH) and open sea (O) habitats above and below thermocline (TK).

Figure 1.3.3.8. Seasonal interannual dynamic of total mesozooplankton (N. scintillans is not included) abundance (indm-3) during the period 2007-2014: a) spring, b) summer, c) autumn.

Figure 1.3.3.9. Seasonal annual fluctuations of taxonomic structure in abundance (indm-3) at different habitat type during the period 2007-2014: a) spring, b) summer, c) autumn. N. scintillans is not included in the total mesozooplankton abundance.

Figure 1.3.3.10. Seasonal annual dynamic of total mesozooplankton (N. scintillans is not included) biomass (mgm-3) during the period 2007-2014: a) spring, b) summer, c) autumn.

Figure 1.3.3.11. Seasonal fluctuations of taxonomic structure in biomass (indm-3) at different habitat type during the period 2007-2014: a) spring, b) summer, c) autumn. N. scintillans is not included in the total mesozooplankton biomass.

Figure 1.3.3.11. Seasonal succession zooplankton community from May to November 2012.

Figure 1.3.3.13. Spatial distribution of zooplankton biomass, horizontal (upper panel) and vertical (lower panel) - SESAME project cruise, April 2008.

Figure 1.3.3.14. Spatial distribution of zooplankton biomass, horizontal (upper panel) and vertical (lower panel) SESAME project cruise October 2008_

Figure 1.3.3.15. Spatial distribution of zooplankton biomass, November 2014 data collection Sprattus spratus.

Figure 1.3.3.16. Mesozooplankton biomass dynamic from 2010 to 2014 at three habitats.

Figure 1.3.3.17. The map of monitoring stations in the Georgian Black Sea coastal zone during the 2008-2014.

Figure 1.3.3.18. Average diversity of zooplankton in the Georgian Black Sea coastal zone (2008-2014).

Figure 1.3.3.19 Zooplankton species number by taxa and groups at Black Sea Georgian coastal zone in 2008-2014.

Figure 1.3.3.20. Mean abundances and biomasses of mesozooplankton in the Georgian Black Sea coastal zone.

Figure 1.3.3.21. Spatial distribution of mesozooplankton biomass in Georgian coastal waters (2014).

Figure 1.3.3.4.1. Location of mesozooplankton sampling station on northeastern shelf area of Russian Federation.

Figure 1.3.3.4.2. Interannual variation in biomass (B, mg Cm-3) and taxonomic structure of mesozooplankton in 050 m layer of the mid shelf of the northeastern Black Sea: (1) Noctiluca; (2) meroplankton; (3) cladocerans; (4) chaetognaths; (5) copepods and (6) others. Traditionally for the Black Sea, the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Noctiluca scintillans is regarded as a component of mesozooplankton because of its large size and omnivorous diet.

Figure 1.3.3.4.3. Cross-shelf distribution of mesozooplankton biomass (mg Cm-3) in the northeastern Black Sea in (a) spring and (b) autumn. The average values of the total biomass for each coastal zone are reported with the standard error bars.

Figure 1.3.3.5.1. Location of mesozooplankton sampling station on shelf of Turkey.

Figure 1.3.3.5.2. Interannual and seasonal dynamics of the total biomass of mesozooplankton in the southeastern part of the Turkish coast of the Black Sea. To biomass value conversion from dry to wet weight, the following dependence was used: 1 mg DW = 5 mg WW (Cushing et al., 1958).

Figure 1.3.3.5.3. Seasonal changes of the zooplankton groups in net samples.

Figure 1.3.3.5.4. Biomass of the Copepod species throughout the sampling period.

Figure 1.3.3.5.5. Monthly changes of N. scintillans abundance (indm-3) in net samples.

Figure 1.3.3.5.6. Monthly changes of N. scintillans biomass (mg Cm-3) in net samples.

Figure 1.3.3.5.7. Geographic variation of mean mesozooplankton abundance along the southestern Black Sea coast.

Figure 1.3.3.5.8. Geographic variation of mean mesozooplankton biomass along the southeastern Black Sea coast.

Figure 1.3.3.5.9. Geographic variation of mean N. scintillans abundance along the southestern Black Sea coast.

Figure 1.3.3.6.1. Investigated polygons and research stations in Ukrainian shelf area of the Black Sea.

Figure 1.3.3.6.2. Marine coastal stations in Odessa region (northwestern part of the Black Sea).

Figure 1.3.3.6.3. Seasonal and interannual variations in zooplankton taxonomic composition and abundance in the bay (st. 2, st.3) and open coastal area (st. 1).

Figure 1.3.3.6.4. Average monthly changes in abundance (A) and biomass (B) of mesozooplankton in the coastal zone of the Odessa region (2008-2014).

Figure 1.3.3.6.5. The interannual dynamics of changes in the total abundance and biomass of mesozooplankton in the coastal zone of the northwestern part of the Black Sea.

Figure 1.3.3.6.6. Seasonal variations of total zooplankton abundance (without Noctiluca scintillans) during 2008-2014.

Figure 1.3.3.6.7. Spatial distribution of zooplankton biomass (mgm-3) on the shelf area of Ukraine in northwestern part of the Black Sea (2008).

Figure 1.3.3.6.8. Spatial distribution of zooplankton biomass (mgm-3) on the shelf area of Ukraine in northwestern part of the Black Sea (2010).

Figure 1.3.3.6.9. Spatial distribution of zooplankton biomass (mgm-3) on the shelf area of Ukraine in northwestern part of the Black Sea (2013).

Figure 1.3.4.1. Number of species in the zoobenthic taxa reported from the Turkish coasts of the Black Sea

Figure 1.3.4.2. Relative percentages of the zoobenthic taxa reported from the Turkish coasts of the Black Sea

Figure 1.3.4.3. Annual changes in the number of species of macrozoobenthos along the Turkish coasts of Black Sea.

Figure 1.3.4.4. m-AMBI results of the stations along the Turkish coast of the Black Sea_

Figure 1.3.5.1. Changes in species structure of phylums of macrophytes in Varna Bay through different time periods

Figure 1.3.5.2. Average dry biomass of а C. crinita [gm-2 D.W.] of samples from the coast of Sozopol town , average daily temperature (C, grey line) and average monthly solar illumination (kWh.m-2, black line)

Figure 1.3.5.3. Averaged horizontal projected cover of samples from the coast of Sozopol town_

Figure 1.3.5.4. Seasonal changes of biomass (gm-2) for some polygons along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast (spring and summer, 2012 year)

Figure 1.3.5.4. Classification of typical phytobenthic habitats found along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast according to different classification schemes

Figure 1.3.5.5. Average per meter-depth intervals photo cover of the benthos by dominant benthic organisms at study stations along the S coast of Burgas Bay in 06.2010_

Figure 1.3.5.6. Overall number of red, brown and green macroalgae in samples from study stations along the Sea coast of Burgas Bay

Figure 1.3.5.7. Upper infralittoral macroalgal communities structure at depths 2-3 meters at stations at Cape Galata (Gal_02, 2 km from the inner Varna Bay), Rodni Balkani 2 (RB_02 9 km from the inner Varna Bay), and Rodni Balkani 3 ( RB_03, 10 km from the inner Varna Bay) in the summer of 2011 (Todorova et al., 2012)

Figure 1.3.5.8. Percentage of species of Chlorophyta, Ochrophyta and Rhodophyta phylums from polygons in Varna bay and average species number through different years of investigation (2007-2014)

Figure 1.3.5.9 Changes in species number of Chlorophyta, Ochrophyta and Rhodophyta phylums along the Bulgarian coast from investigated polygons (from north to south) in the period 2007-2014 years, summer - autumnal season.

Figure 1.3.5.10. Changes in the Floristic index (F) along the Bulgarian coast from investigated polygons (from north to south) in the period 2007-2014 years, summer - autumnal season (symbols correspond to Fig. 1.3.5.9).

Figure 1.3.5.11. Biomass (gm-2) proportion of Chlorophyta, Ochrophyta and Rhodophyta phylums from investigated polygons in Varna bay through different years of investigation_

Figure 1.3.5.12. Total biomass (gm-2) values of macropohyte communities in Varna Bay (summer season) from the years of investigation (2007-2014). Vertical lines show standard error from average biomass values (quadrates)

Figure 1.3.5.13. Total biomass (g.m-2) values of macropohyte communities in Bulgarian coast (summer season) from the years of investigation (2007-2014).

Figure 1.3.5.14. Map with the investigated polygons along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast

Figure 1.3.5.15. Romanian phytobenthos sampling map_

Figure 1.3.5.16. Opportunistic species average fresh biomass values (summer seasons 2009-2014)

Figure 1.3.5.17. Zostera noltei fresh biomass variation between 20092014_

Figure 1.3.5.18. Coccotylus truncatus was found along the beach at Constanta Nord_

Figure 1.3.5.19. Ecologial state class (between 20092014) for Romanion coast

Figure 1.3.5.20. Map of the macrophytes samplieng places along the Turkish coast of the Black Sea_

Figure 1.3.5.21. Study area (Karauha and Ersoy Karauha, 2013)

Figure 1.3.5.22. Seasonal variations of average biomass (g dry weight m-2) of macroalgal taxa (a) and the average biomass (g dry weight m-2) of each class in each season (b) (Karauha and Ersoy Karauha, 2013)

Figure 1.3.5.23. The total biomass (g dry weight m-2) of macroalgae taxa according to the station during a year (Karauha and Ersoy Karauha, 2013).

Figure 1.3.5.24. Comparison of the seasonal dynamics of the solar radiation (a), water temperature (b) and functioning intensity of macrophytes communities Surface Index (c) for the period 2011-2013 on the Odessa coast

Figure 1.3.5.25. The decline of phytobenthos biomass on the Odessa coast in climatically anomalous 2010_

Figure 1.3.5.26. Discharge of deep-water macrophytes on the Odessa coast in July of 2011_

Figure 1.3.5.27. Synchronicity deviations from average value of the period of 1981-2010 for Precipitation and Danube flow (a) and Surface Index and Production of macrophytes community (b) in 2008-2015_

Figure 1.3.5.28. Long-term dynamic of the biomass and production of the macrophytobenthos community in the Danube Dnieper interfluves

Figure 1.3.5.29. The percentage of bottom cover of the total macrophytes and Phyllophora spp. populations at Zernovs Phyllophora Fieldaccording to survey by UkrSCES in 2012 (Komorin V., UkrSCES, unpublished)

Figure 1.3.5.30. Assessment of ESC of different water bodies in the Ukrainian Northern Black Sea sector by macrophytes morphofunctional EEI the Three Dominants Ecological Activity (S/W3Dp)

Figure 1.3.5.31. Temporal dynamic of the ECS categories on the Odessa cost (northwestern part of Black Sea) in period 2008-2015 year have assessment by macrophytes morphofunctional EEI the phytocenosis Surface Index (SIph).

Figure 1.3.6.1. Map of the north-eastern Black Sea, showing the locations of Blue Bay and the sampling transect.

Figure 1.3.6.2. Abundances of adult M. leidyi and B. ovata along transect in the north-eastern Black Sea from 1999 to 2016 in the coastal waters up to 100 m depth. Error bars: standard deviations. (A) Interannual variations of mean values during each sampling survey along transect in Figure 1.3.6.1.

Figure 1.3.6.3. Maximal annual number of adult B. ovata in 1999-2016 plotted as a function of maximum annual number of adult M. leidyi. The coefficient of linear correlation between the two variables is r2 = 0.95 (prob. < 0.001).

Figure 1.3.6.4. Starting date of reproduction of adult M. leidyi plotted as a function of average temperature in the surface layer in inshore waters within and off Blue Bay from 1999 to 2017.

Figure 1.3.6.5. 1- Annual change temperature oC, 2-seasonal development of edible zooplankton, 3-M.leidyi and B.ovata in in coastal waters (10-100 m depth) in 2006.

Figure 1.3.6.6. Seasonal development of M.leidyi and B.ovata in the coastal waters (10-100 m depth) in 2015-2017.

Figure 1.3.6.7. M.leidyi and B.ovata larvae occurrence above the depth 10-100 m in 2015-2017.

Figure 1.3.6.8. Occurrence of adult M.leidyi and B.ovata above the depths 500 m above the anoxic layer .

Figure 1.3.6.9. Occurrence of larvae M.leidyi and B.ovata at the depths 500 m above anoxic layer .

Figure 1.3.6.9. Seasonal dynamic of edible (without Noctiluca scintillans) zooplankton biomass

Figure 1.3.6.10. Aggregations of Aurelia aurita in the open waters in May.

Figure 1.3.6.11. Seasonal dynamic of Aurelia aurita in the coastal waters (10-100 m) I 2015-2017.

Figure 1.3.6.12. Seasonal dynamic of Aurelia aurita above 500 m in the layer from anoxic layer to the surface.

Figure 1.3.7.1. Marine IBAs of global importance in the Black and Caspian Seas.

Figure 1.3.7.2: Distribution of the globally threatened seabird species occurring in the Black Sea and in the Caspian Sea (Yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan, Velvet Scoter Melanitta fusca and Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus)

Figure 1.3.8.1: Trends of (a) oxygen penetration depth, (b) oxygen penetration density level () and (c) oxygen inventory deduced from (dots) DIVA analysis of ship-based casts and (blue) ARGO floats. 476

Figure 1.3.8.2: (a) Area affected by hypoxia, redrawn from Zaitsev (1997), and locations of hypoxic records from the WOD database. (b) Extension of the surface affected by bottom hypoxia, as reported in the literature (Mee, 2006; UkrSCES, 2002) and simulated by the 3-D model (Capet et al., 2013).

Figure 1.3.8.3: Distribution of data collected during the last decades and available in the World Ocean data base. After 1995, no data has been collected in areas and during periods of occurrence of hypoxia.

Figure 1.3.8.4: Level of hypoxia, H, reached at equilibrium for a range of nitrate riverine load, N.

CHAPTER 2. STATE AND DYNAMICS OF THE LIVING AND NON-LIVING RESOURCES AND THEIR EXPLOITATION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION

2.1. MAIN BIORESOURCES

Figure 2.1.1.1. Shifts of the mean landings of pontic shad, 1925-2010 (Panayotova et al., 2012)

Figure 2.1.1.2. Map of Alosa immaculata distribution in Danube River and marine area (Bulgarian part) (http://natura2000.moew.government.bg/PublicDownloads/Auto/SDF_REF_SPECIES/4125/4125_Species_102.pdf)

Figure 2.1.1.3. Shad distribution in spring and autumn season in 1956-2011 (Panayotova et al., 2012)

Figure 2.1.2.4. Length weight relationship of Pontic shad (2010-2011)

Figure 2.1.2.5.(a) A. immaculata, Spring-summer, Length groups (cm) (b) A. immaculata, Autumn, Length groups (cm) (Raykov et al., 2016)

Figure 2.1.2.1 (a) Landings of E.e.ponticus and maeoticus; (b) anchovy landings and number of purse seiners; (AG FOMLR, 2014) (c).landings 2009-2015_

Figure A. 2.1.2.2. Spawning stock biomass SSB, t; B. Recruitment, mil (GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.3. Model estimated harvest and comparison with STECF (2015)(GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.4. SSB,t and recruitment of anchovy in Black Sea (STECF,2013)

Figure 2.1.2.5. Limit and precautionary biomass reference points for Black Sea anchovy (GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.6. A. Spawning, feeding and overwintering grounds of anchovy in the Black Sea (upper: black arrows: overwintering, empty arrows: spawning migration; shaded area: overwintering; dots: spawning areas; taken from Ivanov and Beverton, 1985; B. lower: the Azov anchovy 1= spawning and foraging region; 2 = wintering region; 3 = spring migrations; 4 = autumnal migrations; 5 = periodical migrations of a mixed population. The Black Sea anchovy: 6 = spawning and foraging region; 7 = wintering region; 8 = spring migrations; 9 = autumnal migrations taken from Chashchin (1996) (in Gucu et al., 2016)

Figure 2.1.2.6. Results of ichthyoplankton survey conducted in July 2013 (a) density of anchovy (viable and non viable) eggs (b) live eggs only (advection accounted); (c) density of larvae;(d) percentage of live eggs (Gucu et al.,2016).

Figure 2.1.2.7. Spatial distribution of anchovy in November 2012 in Turkish Black Sea waters (STECF, 2013)

Figure 2.1.2.8. Distribution maps of anchovies in November-December 2011 (upper left); January-February2012 (upper right); November 2012 (lower left) and December 2012 (lower right) (STECF, 2013)

Figure 2.1.2.9. Distribution of spawning stock acoustically detected in July 2013 (STECF, 2014)

Figure 2.1.2.10. Time series of the length frequency distributions of the Black Sea anchovy sampled at the Turkish landing sites by SUMAE (STECF, 2013)

Figure 2.1.2.11. Anchovy, Engraulis encrasicolus, spring-summer, length groups (cm), sampling gear: uncovered pound net (FPO) - a; anchovy, Engraulis encrasicolus, autumn, length groups (cm), sampling gear: uncovered pound net (FPO) b (Raykov et al., 2016).

Figure 2.1.2.12. Structure on length classes for anchovy in 2009, total catches (STECF, 2010)

Figure 2.1.2.13. Length distributions (TL, cm) in Black Sea 1998 2012 (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.14. Mean length and weight on age classes for anchovy in 2009, total catches (STECF, 2010)

Figure 2.1.2.14. Spawning stock biomass, t (SSB, t), recruits (10-9), landings and fishing mortality 1-3 of Black Sea sprat (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.15. Sprat in GSA 29. Time-series of estimated and observed abundance-at-age and age-structured Bulgarian CPUE (best fit is given by linear relationships and r2 are displayed): (a) Age 1. (b) Age 2. (c) Age 3. (d) Age 4 (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.16. Sprat in GSA 29. Time-series of estimated and observed abundance-at-age and age-structured Ukrainian CPUE (best fit is given by linear relationships and r2 are displayed): (a) Age 1. (b) Age 2. (c) Age 3. (d) Age 4.(STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.17. Sprat in GSA 29. Time-series of estimated and observed abundance-at-age and age-structured Turkish CPUE (best fit is given by linear relationships and r2 are displayed): (a) Age 1. (b) Age 2. (c) Age 3. (d) Age 4. (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.18. Trend of CPUE from active and passive fishing gears in Romanian marine area (Totoiu et al., 2016)

Figure 2.1.2.18. (a.)CPUE kg / h on fields (2009). (b.) CPUA kg / km2 in fields (2009) (Raykov, 2012)

Figure 2.1.2.19. Catch per unit area (kg/sq.km) of sprat in Western part of Black Sea (Raykov et al., 2012)

Figure 2.1.2.20. Share (%) of the sprat age groups in different strata compared with commercial catch in Bulgaria and Turkey (Raykov,2012).

Figure 2.1.2.21. Distribution map of sprat relative biomass along Bulgarian coast in 2010 and 2011 (STECF,2013)

Figure 2.1.2.22. Distribution and abundance of sprat 2010, 2012 and 2013 in Romanian Black Sea waters (STECF,2014).

Figure 2.1.2.23. Length distribution of Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) by hauls during acoustic survey along Bulgarian coast in 2011 (STECF, 2012)

Figure 2.1.2.24. Distribution of sprat CPUA kg/km2 for spring 2011 along Samsun Shelf Area (Turkey) (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.25. Length distribution from commercial sampling in 2013 (Bulgarian area)(STECF,2014)

Figure 2.1.2.26. Age classes of sprat (share %) in Romanian marine area (Totoiu et al. 2016)

Figure 2.1.2.27. Age groups and average length and weight distribution of Sprattus sprattus in the Samsun Shelf Area in 2013 (STECF, 2014)

Figure 2.1.2.27. Length (a) and weight (b) frequency distributions of sprat I Turkey (STECF, 2014)

Figure 2.1.2.28. Hydro acoustic survey in Turkish waters conducted in 2013 with corresponding sprat agglomerations (STECF, 2014)

Figure 2.1.2.29. CPUA kg/sq.km of sprat in Turkish waters, 2013 (STECF, 2014)

Figure 2.1.2.30. Total fish NASC values per EDSU in October November 2014 (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.30. Length and age frequency data for turbot, obtained during the survey along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast in May, 2012 (STECF, 2013).

Figure 2.1.2.31. Distribution map of sprat biomass values in October - November 2014 (Panayotova et al., 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.33. Length distribution of sprat from scientific survey in 2010 (A. Romania; B.Bulgaria) (Raykov et al., 2014)

Figure 2.1.2.34. Age distribution of sprat from scientific survey in 2010 (A. Romania; B.Bulgaria) (Raykov et al., 2014)

Figure 2.1.2.35. Indicator based on length-frequency distributions of sprat: 95% percentile of the population length distribution for 2007-2011 in Bulgarian marine area (Raykov, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.36. Equilibrium yield-per-recruit as fraction of unexploited Biomass (Raykov et al., 2011)

Figure 2.1.2.37. F0.1 reference points of sprat: reference fishing mortality (a); reference yield per recruit, kg (b); reference SSB per recruit, kg (c); reference fishable biomass per recruit, kg (d); reference total biomass per recruit, kg (e)

Figure 2.1.2.38. Mediterranean Horse Mackerel in GSA 29. XSA summary results. SSB and catch are in tons, recruitment in thousands of individuals (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.39. Mediterranean Horse Mackerel in GSA 29. Patterson Exploitation in relation to reference point E=0.4 (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.40. VBG curve of T. mediterraneus with normal length frequency histograms. Lines superimposed on the histograms link successive peaks of growing cohorts as extrapolated by the model.

Figure 2.1.2.41. Recruitment pattern of horse mackerel. The recruitment pattern showed one annual pulse of recruitment for horse mackerel (Yankova, 2013)

Figure 2.1.2.42. Chart of summer migration of horse mackerel in Black and Azov seas after Aleev (1959). Legend: 1- south-western (Bosporic) shoal; 2- northern (Crimean) shoal; 3- eastern (Caucasian) shoal.

Figure 2.1.2.43. Point map of horse mackerel NASC values (m2.nm-2)( Panayotova et al.,2015)

Figure 2.1.2.44. Distribution of horse mackerel biomass values, obtained during the acoustic survey of R/V Akademik in October - November 2014 (Panayotova et al., 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.45. Estimated number of bluefish (millions) by age groups and polygons, October - November 2014 (Panayotova et al., 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.46. Growth curve of Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda) in the Turkey waters of Black Sea and Sea of Marmara between 2001-2013 years (GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.47. Length-weight relationship of bonito 2009-2014 in Black Sea (GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.2.48. Landings of Bonito in Black Sea_

Figure 2.1.3.1. Landings and IUU estimates of turbot in the Black Sea during the period 1950 2014.

Figure 2.1.3.2. Distribution of fishing effort in turbot fisheries by vessel length and engine power in the East and West Turkish Black Sea Region (STECF, 2013)

Figure 2.1.3.3. Monthly average CPUE (kg/h) of turbot for commercial trawl in the Turkish Black Sea area (STECF, 2013)

Figure 2.1.3.4. Relative biomass of S. maximus by strata in front of Bulgarian Black Sea coast in May 2012 (Panayotova, Raykov, 2013).

Figure 2.1.3.5. Distribution of turbot CPUA (kg/Nm2) from surveys along the Romanian Black Sea coast in spring (A) and autumn (B) seasons of 2012 (Maximov et.al, 2012).

Figure 2.1.3.6. Biomass indices derived from national surveys in Bulgaria and Romania) for turbot in the Black Sea in the period 2003 2012 (Panayotova, Raykov, 2013).

Figure 2.1.3.7. Distribution of turbot CPUA (kg/km2) and density, obtained from research survey along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast in May 2012 (Panayotova, Raykov, 2013).

Figure 2.1.3.8. Size and age structure of turbot, obtained during the spring survey along the Romanian Black Sea coast in 2012 (Maximov 2012).

Figure 2.1.3.9. Size and age structure of turbot, obtained during the autumn survey along the Romanian Black Sea coast in 2012. (Maximov, 2012).

Figure 2.1.3.10. Linear growth of turbot by ages (STECF, 2013)

Figure 2.1.3.11. Distribution of turbot CPUA (kg.km-2) from surveys along the Turkish East (A) and West (B) Black Sea coast in 2012 (Zengin, Gumus, 2013).

Figure 2.1.3.12. Turbot distribution off the Bulgarian coast in November 2014( Tserkova et al., 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.13.Distribution of turbot biomass (kg.km-2) in Bulgarian and Turkish waters (STECF, 2013)

Figure 2.1.3.14. Distribution of turbot CPUA (kg.km-2) from surveys along the Turkish Black Sea coast in 2011 (STECF, 2012)

Figure 2.1.3.15. Length and age frequency data for turbot, obtained during the surveys along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast in the period 2006 2011. (STECF, 2012)

Figure 2.1.3.16. Length frequency data for turbot, obtained during the surveys along the Romanian Black Sea coast in the period 2002 2010 (A) and 2011 (B) (STECF, 2012).

Figure 2.1.3.17. Dynamics of GSI (%) in female and male turbots caught in December 2014 (GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.18. Distribution of spring turbot biomass (t/km2) in Romanian waters in 2014 (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.19. Turbot in GSA 29. Distribution of biomass indices in autumn season, as estimated by the Romanian survey 2014 (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.20. Trends in relative biomass (t) of turbot derived from surveys in Bulgarian marine zone (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.21. Distribution of turbot juveniles in spring and autumn 2014 (STECF, 2015;Raykov, et al., 2016

Figure 2.1.3.22. Number of turbot specimens/Km2 and ratio between the specimens with small and standard sizes.

Figure 2.1.3.23. (A). Map of distribution of mature and immature individuals in Romanian Black Sea waters in spring 2014 and in autumn 2014 (B) (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.23. A: distribution of spawning turbot in Ukrainian waters B; juvenile and larvae distribution in Bulgarian waters (BSERP, 2007;STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.24. Sex structure of turbot catches in November 2014 (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.25. Sex structure of Psetta maxima in November 2014 (Tserkova et al., 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.26. The length frequency distribution of turbot population along Turkish Black Sea Coasts, 2012 (STECF,2013).

Figure 2.1.3.27. Turbot length-weight relationship in 2012 (STECF, 2013)

Figure 2.1.3.28. Time-series of population estimates of Black Sea turbot (SAM final model): SSB, F (ages 48) and recruitment with estimate of uncertainty (STECF, 2015).

Figure 2.1.3.29. Catches of Red mullet in Bulgaria, Russia, and Ukraine. B: Catches of Red mullet and Striped mullet in Turkey. Note the divergent trends after 2003 (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.29.Red mullet in GSA 29. Map of biomass indices in the Samsun Shelf Area (upper) and West Black Sea (lower) for 2013 (STECF, 2014)

Figure 2.1.3.30.Red mullet in GSA 29. XSA summary results. SSB and catch are in tonnes, recruitment in 1000s individuals (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.31.Catch, Recruitment, SSB and harvest of red mullet in 2013 and 2014 (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.31.Spatial distribution of red mullet in November 2014, Bulgarian area (Panayotova et al., 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.32. Distribution of red mullet biomass values, obtained during the acoustic survey of R/V Akademik in October - November 2014 (Panayotova et al., 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.32. The length, weight and age frequency (n=1,407) distributions of whiting from Turkish coasts for 2014 (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.33. The length, weight and age frequency (n=1,407) distributions of whiting from Turkish coasts for 2014 (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015).

Figure 2.1.3.34. The length, weight and age frequency (n=3,241) distributions of whiting from Romanian coasts for 2014 (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.35. The length and age frequency (n = 1,184) distributions of whiting from Bulgarian coasts for 2014 (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.36. Whiting in GSA 29. Average weight at age by country (A=2013,B=2014) (GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.37. in GSA 29. Distribution along the Romanian littoral (2014)

Figure 2.1.3.38. Whiting in GSA 29. Distribution along the Turkish littoral (August 2014).

Figure 2.1.3.39. Point map of whiting NASC values (m2.nm-2)(STECF,2015)

Figure 2.1.3.40. Distribution map of whiting relative biomass values, obtained during the acoustic survey of R/V Akademik in October - November 2014 (Panayotova et al., 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.41. Length distribution by sex (A=spring, B=autumn) estimated by the Romania survey (GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.42.Whiting in GSA 29. Age composition estimated from the Romanian trawl survey (A=spring, B=autumn)(STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.43. Whiting in GSA 29. Trends in catches by country (1980 2014) (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.44. Whiting in GSA 29. A) Trends in the Romanian survey (2007 2014) and B) Turkish CPUE (2009 2014) series at age (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.45.Dynamics of Recruitment, SSB, Catch and harvest of whiting in Black Sea (GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.46. Whiting in GSA 29. Exploitation rate in relation to the reference point (E=0.4). STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.46. Histogram and % cumulative frequency of thornback ray (Raja clavata L.) by months and sex

Figure 2.1.3.47. Box Plot Mean length and weight (kg) distribution by months (median, values hinge: 25-75 %, minimum and maximum value of percent participation)

Figure 2.1.3.47. Thornback ray in GSA 29. The abundance of Thornback ray in the Turkish coasts in August 2014 (n. individuals/km2).

Figure 2.1.3.48. Thornback ray in GSA 29. Map showing area and localities of catches off the Bulgarian coasts.

Figure 2.1.3.49. Thornback ray in GSA 29. Distribution by length, cm (A), and weight, kg (B).

Figure 2.1.3.50. Thornback ray in GSA 29. Yield-per-Recruit (Y/R) and SSB-per-Recruit (SSB/R) curves (year 2014).

Figure. 2.1.3.51. Total landings of Picked dogfish in Black Sea for 1990 - 2014_

Figure. 2.1.3.52. Piked dogfish catches in the Black Sea area by countries (t) STECF, 2014;

Figure. 2.1.3.53. Distribution of piked dogfish catches during demersal trawl survey in 2011 (A - spring season. B - autumn season), Romanian Black Sea area.

Figure. 2.1.3.54. Distribution of the dogfish agglomerations in demersal trawl survey, in May and October 2012, Romanian area_

Figure 2.1.3.54. Distribution of the dogfish agglomerations in demersal trawl survey, in May and October 2013, Romanian area (STECF, 2014, GFCM, 2014)

Figure 2.1.3.55. The distribution of the dogfish agglomerations in demersal trawl survey, in May and October 2014, Romanian area (STECF, 2014, GFCM, 2014)

Figure 2.1.3.56. Percentage of total number of specimens on length classes for dogfish, Romanian area_

Figure 2.1.3.57. Structure on length classes for dogfish in 2014,Romanian area (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.58. Mean weight on length classes for dogfish in 2014, Romanian area (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.59. Age on length classes for picked dogfish 2014, Romanian area (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.60. Percentage on age classes for picked dogfish 2014, total catches (STECF, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.61. Piked dogfish in Black Sea. Recruitment trends obtained by means of XSA fitting with five shrinkage settings (STECF, 2015; GFCM,2015)

Figure 2.1.3.62. Piked dogfish in Black Sea. Spawning stock biomass (SSB) trends obtained by means of XSA fitting with five shrinkage settings (STECF, 2015;GFCM,2015)

Figure 2.1.3.63. Piked dogfish in Black Sea. Fbar (10-17) trends obtained by means of XSA fitting with five shrinkage settings (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.64. Piked dogfish in Black Sea. Results of the XSA best model (shrinkage 1.5) (STECF, 2015; GFCM, 2015)

Figure 2.1.3.65. Piked dogfish distribution of juveniles and during the period of reproduction (BSERP, 2007)

Figure 2.1.4.1. Rapana venosa_

Figure 2.1.4.2. Landings of R. venosa in the Black Sea_

Figure 2.1.4.3. Structure by lengths and mass cards of Rapa whelk during commercial fishing_

Figure 2.1.4.4. Structure by lengths and Mass cards of Rapa whelk during commercial fishing_

Figure 2.1.4.6. Trends of catches of Rapa whelk in Black Sea_

Fig 2.1.4.7. Geographic distribution of Chamelea gallina (URL-2, 2006)

Figure 2.1.4.8. Harvest of striped venus in the Black Sea along the Turkish coasts (State of the Environment of the Black Sea, 2001-2006/7, Fisheries Statistics, Turkey)

Figure 2.1.5.1. The Black Sea.

Figure 2.1.5.2. Vertical profile of salinity, temperature and density of the Black Sea.

Figure 2.1.5.3. Main shipping routes in the Black Sea.

Figure 2.1.5.4. Donor areas of alien species and their proportions in the Black Sea (Shiganova and ztrk, 2009).

Figure 2.1.5.5. Mnemiopsis leidyi.

Figure 2.1.5.6. Distribution of Mnemiopsis leidyi in the Black Sea during its maximum development in September 1998.

Figure 2.1.5.7. Beroe ovata.

Figure 2.1.5.8. Impacts of alien species on pelagic fisheries in the Black Sea_

Figure 2.1.5.9. Anchovy catches and ctenophore biomass in the Black Sea (Niermann, 2004).

Figure 2.5.4.1. Sampling stations along the Bulgarian coast

Figure 2.5.4.2. Biomass of Cystoseira genus (0-3m depth) from Bulgarian coast (2012-2016 years).

2.2. BLACK SEA BIORESOURCES EXPLOITATION

Figure 2.2.1. Total catch in Black Sea_

Figure 2.2.2.: Historical Trend in the Size of the Active Fleet in Romania. Source Eurostat. Data refers to the situation of the national fleets on the 31st of December of the reference year.

Figure 2.2.3. Historical Trend in Total Tonnage (GT) in the Romanian Active Fleet. Source Eurostat. Data refers to the situation of the national fleets on the 31st of December of the reference year.

Figure 2.2.4: Historical Trend in Total Horsepower (Kw) in the Romanian Active Fleet. Source Eurostat. Data refers to the situation of the national fleets on the 31st of December of the reference year.

Figure 2.2.5.: Romanian Fleet Capacity: Length (m), Tonnage (GT) and Power (Kw) of the Active Fleet (as of 29/07/2014).

Figure 2.2.6. Gear Type Utilisation in the Romanian Active Fleet (As of 30th July 2014)

Figure 2.2.7.: Historical Trend in the Size of the Active Fleet in Bulgaria. Source Eurostat. Data refers to the situation of the national fleets on the 31st of December of the reference year.

Figure 2.2.8.: Historical Trend in Total Tonnage (GT) in the Bulgarian Active Fleet. Source Eurostat. Data refers to the situation of the national fleets on the 31st of December of the reference year.

Figure 2.2.9. Historical Trend in Total Horsepower (Kw) in the Bulgarian Active Fleet. Source Eurostat.

Figures 2.2.10. a-c: Bulgarian Fleet Capacity: Length (m), Tonnage (GT) and Power (Kw) of the Active Fleet (as of 29/07/2014)

Figure 2.2.11.: Gear Type Utilisation in the Bulgarian Active Fleet (As of 30th July 2014)

Figures 2.2.12. a-c: Ukrainian Fleet Capacity: Length (m), Tonnage (GT) and Power (Kw) of the Active Fleet.

Figure 2.2.14.: Gear Type Utilisation in the Ukrainian Active Fleet (As estimated by national teams in May 2014)

Figure 2.2.15. The Number of Vessels Utilising Different Gear Types (in terms of EU codes) in the Ukrainian Fleet.

Figure 2.2.16. Historical Estimates of Turkish Fleet Size 1945-2000. Source: Saglam and Duzgunes (2010)22

Figures 2.2.17. a-c: Turkish Fleet Capacity: Length (m), Tonnage (GT) and Power (Kw) of the Active Fleet

Figure 2.2.18.: Estimated Number of Active Vessels in All Countries.

Figure 2.2.19.: Estimated Number of Active Vessels in All Countries Over Various Length Categories.

Figure 2.2.20.: Estimated Number of Active Vessels in All Countries Over Various Tonnage Categories.

Figure 2.2.21.: Estimated Number of Active Vessels in All Countries Over Various Power Categories.

Figure 2.2.22.: Number of vessels surveyed in each region in the Black Sea. CRS: WGS 84_

Figure 2.2.23 Distribution of vessel size classes of all vessels surveyed in the Black Sea. CRS: WGS 84.

Figure 2.2.24.: Distribution of each gear class across the Black Sea. CRS: WGS 84.

2.3. NON-LIVING RESOURCES AND THEIR EXPLOITATION

2.4. CHANGES IN THE STATE OF THE BLACK SEA RESOURCES

CHAPTER 3: STATE OF THE BLACK SEA COAST AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS

3.1. STATE OF THE BLACK SEA COAST

Figure 3.1.1. Length of the coast in the Black Sea countries

Figure 3.1.2. Coastal zone of Bulgaria.

Figure 3.1.3. Coastal zone of Georgia.

Figure 3.1.4. Coastal zone of Romania.

Figure 3.1.5. Coastal zone of Russia.

Figure 3.1.6. Turkish coastal zone

Figure 3.1.7. Black Sea Region of Ukraine. Legend: 1 7 watershed areas. (Source: State of the Black Sea Environment: National Report 1996 2000. Odessa: Astroprint, 2002. 80 p.)

Figure3.1.8. Population of the Black Sea countries.

Figure 3.1.9. Population density in coastal zone of the Russian Federation, inhabitants per sq.km_

Figure 3.1.10. Land use in the Black sea countries

Figure 3.1.11. Percentage of Population connected to WWTP in Turkey (a) and Russia (b)

Figure 3.1.12. NATURA 2000 sites in Bulgaria_

Figure 3.1.13. Average rate of coastal erosion and cliff retreats along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast

Figure 3.1.14. Dynamics of Poti (Georgia) coastline from Khobistskali to Supsa river mouths for period 2009-2013 (GDC, Landsat 7). Legend: red: land-to-water, green: water-to-land_

Figure 3.1.15. Accumulation/erosion 2011-2012_

Figure 3.1.16. Accumulation/erosion 2011-2012 in Perisor Cape Midia sector, Romania_

Figure 3.1.17. Number of visitors arrivals to the Romanian Black Sea coast in 2006-2012.

Figure 3.1.18. Industry in Black sea coastal zone of Turkey

Figure 3.1.19. Area (km2) of built-up land in coastal NUTS 5 as a proportion of the area of built-up land in the wider reference region for years 1990 and 2000 for Constanta County, Romania_

Figure 3.1.20. Percent of built-up land by distance from the coastline in 0-1km, 0-10km and 1-100 m buffers units, by NUTS 3 for years 1990 and 2000 for Constanta County, Romania.

Figure 3.1.21. Added value per sectors relevant in relation to ICZM (Constanta County, Romania)

Figure 3.1.22. The dynamics of added value in the relevant sectors (Constanta County, Romania)

Figure 3.1.23. Coastline instability (Romanian littoral)

Figure 3.1.24. Coastline dynamics (Romanian littoral)

Figure 3.1.25. Economic production (turnover) per sectors that are relevant in relation to the ICZM (Constanta County, Romania)

Figure 3.1.26. The dynamics of economic turnover in relevant sectors (Constanta County, Romania)

Figure 3.1.27. Employment level per sectors relevant in relation to the ICZM (Constanta Country, Romania).

Figure 3.1.28. Percent Number of enterprises per sectors that are relevant in relation to the ICZM_

Figure 3.1.29. Percent Number of enterprises per sectors that are relevant in relation to the ICZM_

Figures 3.1.30. Number of inhabitants per square kilometre in coastal LAU 2 compared to the number of inhabitants in non-coastal LAU 2 for 1966, 1977, 1992, 2002 and 2011 (Constanta County, Romania)

Figure 3.1.31. Population of the coastal LAU 2 as a proportion of the total population of the wider reference region (Constanta County, Romania)

Figure 3.1.32. Sea Level relative to land for Constanta and Varna (source: http://www.psmsl.org)

3.2 INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

Figure 3.2.1. Evolution of built-up space in Black Sea 10-km coastal buffer during 1992-2015 (cf. Figure 3.2.3 below)

Figure 3.2.2. Night lights can indicate the extent of artificialisation in the coastal zones around the Black Sea

Figure 3.2.3. Colour coded maps illustrating integral indices for BS coastal zones & catchments (1992 and 2015). Expansion of built-up areas in entire 10 km buffer is most obvious at south-eastern Black Sea coastline.

Figure 3.2.4.1. Coastal zone boundaries appropriately defined_

Figure 3.2.4.2. Coordination/integration mechanisms in place (horizontal)

Figure 3.2.4.3. Setback zones for coastal development control claimed_

Figure 3.2.4.4. National ICZM strategy prepared_

Figure 3.2.4.5. Environmental assessment procedures in place and adequate

Figure 3.2.4.6. Coastal hazard prevention, mitigation & adaptation measures

Figure 3.2.4.7. Coastal zone management and sustainability indicators

3.3. SOCIO-ECONOMICS OF THE BLACK SEA COAST

Annex 1 Quantitative summary of ICZM stock-taking for the Black Sea Countries

Annex 2 Colour coded ICZM progress indicators for the Black Sea Region Countries

Tools for highlighting and searching the text

Executive Summary

Krutov Anatoly

State Oceanographic Institute, Moscow, Russia

The Black Sea, surrounded by the six coastal countries the Republic of Bulgaria (Bulgaria), Georgia, Romania, the Russian Federation (Russia), the Republic of Turkey (Turkey), and Ukraine. The location of the Black Sea Basin together with its climatic conditions has created a unique ecological system. Today, many of the Black Sea species are threatened by over-exploitation, habitat destruction, pollution and climate change. It reflects negatively on human well-being, social and economic sectors, and environmental services. By 1994, all Black Sea littoral states ratified the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution of the Black Sea (the Bucharest Convention).

Being the first regional and legally binding instrument signed by all six Black Sea littoral states, the Bucharest Convention serves as an overarching framework laying down the general requirements and the institutional mechanism for the protection of the marine environment of the Black Sea.

Concrete commitments are determined and dealt with in protocols to the Convention. Negotiations on three protocols have been concluded. They focus on the protection of the marine environment of the black sea from land-based sources and activities, cooperation in combating pollution of the black sea marine environment by oil and other harmful substances in emergency situations, the protection of the black sea marine environment against pollution by dumping.

At the Meeting of the Parties to the Convention, held in Istanbul, the Republic of Turkey, 2013, the Conference of Parties (COP) requested the preparation of the second State of the Environment (SoE) of the Black Sea Report for distribution among Parties. Pursuant to that and other related requests by Parties, the Permanent Secretariat of the Convention organized a meeting of the leaders of Working Groups, in Istanbul, the Republic of Turkey, 28-31 October 2015. The Meeting agreed that the Report to be based, inter alia, on reports and documentation developed by the Working Groups and adopted by the Permanent Secretariat of the Black Sea Commission Against Pollution during 2009 - 2014. The content and the outline of the Report and distribution of responsibilities were also agreed.

For the assessment of the Black Sea status during 2009-2014 and its comparison with the previous period several data sources were used. The major source of the chemical data is the joint Regional Database on Pollution (RDB-P) of the Black Sea Commission. Additional important sources of environmental information for the Assessment are the Annual State Reports to the Secretariat of the Black Sea Commission Working Groups Pollution Monitoring Assessment (PMA) and Land Base Sources (LBS).National scientific expeditions and environmental research activities also were used for the analysis of Sea condition and preparation of the assessment.

In the preparation of the report, due account was furthermore taken of other relevant scientific national and regional reports and publications and the development of a reporting format for the implementation of the Bucharest Convention and its Protocols. In order to increase the understanding and enhance the information on the state and trends of the marine environment of the Black Sea, there is a clear need to get a better insight about emerging environmental concerns.

The report summarizes the findings of the different assessments and includes existing updated figures. It is based on the latest information on policy and legislative measures, institutional setup, stakeholder engagement, future challenges and barriers to the improvement of the state of the environment in the region. The report is an effort to highlight the main trends in the marine and coastal environment of the Black Sea. It provides a gap analysis, showing the needs and requirements of the countries, individually and collectively, in the areas of monitoring, information collection and management related to policy, decision-making and implementation of the Bucharest Convention and its Protocols.

This report is based on materials and documents of the Permanent Secretariat of the Black Sea Commission Against Pollution, and does not reflect the official position of governments of the Black Sea states. It should not be regarded as a comprehensive analysis taking into account the consensus of all stakeholders and developed with their participation, but rather as a blueprint to help pave the way ahead, indicating what is needed to establish a monitoring network and programme capable of systematically measuring the state of the environment of the Black Sea, in light of the requirements of the Convention and its Protocols.

There are three chapters in the Report to reflect the state and dynamics of the Black Sea ecosystem, the state and dynamics of the living and non-living resources and their exploitation in the Black Sea region, and the state of the Black Sea coast and socio-economics.

It was suggested by the Meeting of the leaders of the Working Groups and coordinated by the PS BSC that the Report should focus on the scientific analysis of the Black Sea state.

The Report partially presents a regional picture reflecting the state of environment country by country but does not reflect the regional perspective.

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the Black Sea circulation and stratification characteristics, calculated characteristics of wind and waves, the Black Sea Water balance, chemical features, including nutrients dynamics and water and bottom sediments pollution, as well as land-based sources of pollution characterization.

The Chapter presents first the properties of the water column structure followed by the overall water balance and the long-term climatic variations. Finally, the circulation characteristics are summarized by emphasizing its energetic mesoscale variability. Based on the all available information related to the Black Sea circulation system it was suggested that the most notable quasi-persistent and/or recurrent features of the circulation system include (i) the meandering Rim Current system cyclonically encircling the basin, (ii) two cyclonic sub-basin scale gyres comprising four or more gyres within the interior, (iii) the Bosphorus, Sakarya, Sinop, Kizilirmak, Batumi, Sukhumi, Caucasus, Kerch, Crimea, Sevastopol, Danube, Constantsa, and Kaliakra anticyclonic eddies on the coastal side of the Rim Current zone, (iv) bifurcation of the Rim Current near the southern tip of the Crimea; one branch flowing southwestward along the topographic slope zone and the other branch deflecting first northwestward into the shelf and then contributing to the southerly inner shelf current system, (v) convergence of these two current systems near the southwestern coast, (vi) presence of a large anticyclonic eddy within the northern part of the northwestern shelf. All of these are well known characteristics of the Black Sea for decades, which means that despite of certain occasional variations in the vertical structure of the Black Sea ecosystem due to climatic or anthopogenic influence, the general hydrological and hydrophysical features of the Black Sea remain the same during the studied period.

Yet, the regime of wind waves in the Black Sea-Azov basin has a pronounced multiannual variability. This is most fully manifested in the regime of extreme sea swells. Usually strong storms with waves of more than 5 m heights are extremely rare on the Black Sea. Because of this, one or two strong storms can lead to the fact that a particular year will be perceived as a "stormy". This was 2013, when, according to calculations, wave heights of more than 5 m were recorded in the centre of the sea. A different picture was observed in 2015, when waves of more than 2 m heights were observed only in the south-west of the sea. For the mean wave heights for a year, the opposite picture was observed. The height of extreme waves for 2013-2015 decreased but average of the height of waves for the year grew. Changes in the wave regime over these years are characterized by a decrease in extreme storms and an increase in the average wave strengths.

The wave regime for 2013-2014 was characterized by an increase in the average for the year wave periods in the west part of the sea. The average wave periods in the open water areas in the western part of the sea was increased by one second over the year. In the eastern part of the sea, the situation remained within the limits of the climatic norm.

According to climatic data, the direction of wind wave on the Black Sea has a north-easterly direction for the western part of the sea. The northern direction of wind wave is typical for the central water area and the north-western, western and south-western for its eastern part. North-eastern sea swells dominated the northeast of the sea as well as in its west in 2014 and 2015. Generally, this type of sea swells was typical until the 60s of the 20th century, when the winter northeast wind dominated the entire north-western part of the sea. The border of this domination was along the line of Novorossiysk-Bosporus.

The Black Sea is a semi-enclosed sea, surrounded by many industrialized countries, with important shipping routes, various fisheries and touristic areas. In addition it has a dynamic surface circulation and hosts a large drainage basin. All of the above factors make the Black Sea a particularly sensitive area for marine litter pollution (BSC, 2007; UNEP, 2009). A large number of rivers discharge into the Black Sea, including the second, third and fourth longest rivers in Europe. It is well acknowledged that rivers transport large amounts of natural and anthropogenic debris from in-land sources to the ocean and coastal beaches (Rech et al., 2014) and it is proven that high a percentage of marine litter, including micro-plastics, are introduced by river currents to the Black Sea (Tuncer et al., 1998; Topu et al., 2013; BSC, 2007; Lechner et al. 2014).

This Chapter also provides a brief and easy understand information on waste water discharges from the riparian countries to the Black Sea and includes selected land based sources (LBS) data reported by the Black Sea (BS) countries for 2009-2015. According to the agreed classification, data were aggregated by countries. Municipal sources include discharges from wastewater treatment plants (WWTP). Four indicators of municipal pollution sources were included in this report. The parameters are: BOD5, total Nitrogen (TN), total Phosphorus (TP), total Suspended Solids (TSS), and waste waters discharged into the Black Sea. These indicators were selected to keep the possibility to comparing of the conceivable impact of the riparian countries.

Chapter 1 presents also model assessment of HM and POPs atmospheric input to the Black Sea pollution for the period 2009-2014. Modelling of atmospheric transport and deposition of selected HMs and POPs, namely, Cd, Pb, Hg, and benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P), was carried out using MSC-E Eulerian transport models for Heavy Metals MSCE-HM (Travnikov and Ilyin, 2005) and for Persistent Organic Pollutants MSCE-POP (Gusev et al., 2005). Latest available official information on B(a)P emission from the EMEP countries was used in model simulations (Ilyin et al., 2016; Gusev et al., 2016).

The literature across international reports and scientific papers highlights that plastics are the most abundant type of marine litter worldwide. While plastic constitutes to around 75% of all litter items found in EU (Kershaw et al., 2013), the proportion found in both the Black seas seafloor and coastal environments increased up to 90% (Topu et al., 2013). Therefore, in accordance with global data, plastic waste has a worldwide predominance in the marine environment (Suaria et al., 2015). In regards to micro-plastics, the studies conveyed that the Black Sea is prone to micro-plastic accumulation, both in the pelagic and benthic habitats, which make it as a micro-plastic hotspot. In regards to the marine litter density, the Kerch Strait and Azov Sea each contain an extensive marine litter density relative to the rest of the Black Sea. It should also be highlighted that there are differences between each countries methodology and units when collecting and reporting marine litter densities; this makes it hard to compare the results between countries. There is therefore an urgent need for basin-wide surveys following similar observation techniques and to allow comparisons on marine litter composition and accumulation within and between countries. The majority of the marine litter data comes from coastal surveys followed by seabed studies. There were only two surveys focused on the presence of micro-plastics, one in Romania and one in Turkey. It is clear that all six Black Sea countries are on the pioneering stage of marine litter pollution management.

         Analysis of the information collected from the annual reports of the riparian countries delivered by LBS AG and presentations delivered during 21st LBS AG meeting 89 September 2016 allowed to make the following conclusions about the content of the waste waters discharged into the Black Sea:

         Bulgaria: there was an increasing tendency observed in the content of organic matters indicated in BOD5, total nitrogen, and suspended solids. At the same time, there was a decreasing tendency in the discharge of total phosphorous in the Bulgarian waste waters;

         Georgia: the waste waters discharged into the Black Sea from LBSs almost tripled from 2008 to 2014 with the volume of untreated waters decreased up to 40% in 2014 as compared with 2009. There was an increasing tendency in concentration of total nitrogen and total organic matters with the decreasing tendency in total suspended solids in Georgian waste waters;

         Romania: the volume of Romanian waste waters discharged into the Black Sea decreased by over 15% and the volume of untreated waters discharged into the Black Sea decreased almost by50% from 2008 to 2013. There was a decreasing tendency of content of total nitrogen and total suspended solids and an increasing tendency of total phosphorous and organic matters (BOD5);

         Russian Federation: there was a decreasing tendency in the volume of total nitrogen, phosphorous, organic matters, and suspended solids in Russian waste waters;

         Republic of Turkey: there was a substantial decrease of the volume of total discharge of pollutants in waste waters from Turkeys municipal source and there was a slight increasing tendency in BOD5, total suspended solids load, and total phosphorous, and visual increasing tendency in total nitrogen discharges in river waters;

         Ukraine: the total nitrogen discharge had slight increasing tendency and discharge of total phosphorous and organic matters had decreasing tendency in Ukrainian waste waters. There were decreasing tendencies in the content of total phosphorous and organic matters and slight increasing tendency in total nitrogen in Ukrainian waste waters.

Dynamics and over the years changes of Nutrients (C, N, P, Si), as well as the Black Sea eutrophication, and pollution, in particular by oil and oil products, are discussed in Subchapter 2. It was noted that information about pollution was largely fragmented and in most of the cases was not comparable.

Chapter 2 assesses the marine living resources status for the period of 2009-2014 and compares with the earlier period to explain the changes occurred. It first informs on anadromous fishes, and then about pelagic fishes.

It was noted that the lack of sufficient information concerning fishing activity, catch quantities, composition and its impact on the current state of the fish stocks are the critical issues for the Black Sea region. It is due to the fact that there are different techniques were and currently are in place for recording, evaluating, controlling and monitoring of the fishing activities as well as a number of surveys of the current state of the fishing stocks performed.

The analysis of data collected shows that:

         there is only one stock - sprat, which is considered sustainably exploited;

         most of fish stocks in the Black Sea are overexploited to the extent that some of them are nearly to depletion.

Therefore, there is the need to put more efforts in recovery and sustainable development of the fishing stocks to targeted levels of abundance identified. Measures, being developed and implemented, could mitigate the impact of the fishing activities endangering reproductive capacity and jeopardizing the fish stocks (EC, 2009).

Main conclusions to Chapter 2 are that the Black Sea is indeed exposed to many threats that need to be addressed urgently. Overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, pernicious discarding practices, ghost fishing, marine pollution, uneven development of aquaculture and invasive species are the most important threats, although not the only ones. The declines of marine living resources were generated by: eutrophication (sources from agriculture, municipal waste, industry, etc.); harmful substances (sources from agriculture, industry, municipal waste, etc). In summary, the main causes for the Black Sea current status are hydraulic works; commercial fisheries; alien species; and climatic changes. Therefore, the causes of this situation are multiple, the independent effect of each being very difficult to be assessed:

         The high value of the percentage of the species sprat and their constancy within the catches explain the high oscillations of the annual catches on the Romanian coast. These oscillations occur even more as the fishing is done in a restricted area of coast where the conditions of maintaining fish shoals are extremely variable;

         The passive fishery uses pound nets and has suffered the strongest impact due to the change of the ecological conditions near the coast zone. Moreover, there are observations attesting the fish migration routes changed during the last 6-7 years. The fish has the tendency to remain in the offing, at a certain distance from the coast zone with the isobaths of 5-13 m where the pound nets are located;

         The environmental conditions existing to the Romanian littoral allowed formation and maintaining of very large agglomerations of gelatinous species, especially jellyfish. Jelly fish and ctenophore agglomerations making difficult the trawl fishery on all hauling level in some years and periods;

         Heavy fishing on small pelagic fish predominantly by the Soviet Union, and later also by Turkey, was carried out in a competitive framework without any agreement between the countries on limits to fishing. Depletion of the small pelagic stock appears to have led to increased opportunities for population explosion of planktonic predators (jelly fish and ctenophores) which have competed for food with fish, and preyed on their eggs and larvae;

         The reduction of the fishing effort as a consequence of the economic changes occasioned by the transformation of the state capital into private capital;

         The limitation of market demands for some periods of the year, mainly amplified by the fact that more than 90% of the production was delivered as salted fish;

         The free market and imported products have caused the limitation of the traditionally prepared products and the reduction of their price until the limit of the profitableness (Radu et al., 2012).

Chapter 3 is devoted to the state of the coastal zone of the Black Sea and is based on the information presented annually by the Black Sea countries to the Permanent Secretariat of the Black Sea Commission Against Pollution for the period 2009 - 2013.

Economic activity at the coastal zone impacts on the state of the entire marine ecosystem. Therefore, it is important to take into consideration and discuss drivers, pressures, state, impact, and response analyzing the state of the Black Sea environment. Based on this approach the ICZM Advisory Group at its meeting decided to base its reports on general information of the Black Sea coastal zone as well as on data about population, including demographic trends, water and wastewater management, solid waste management, and information on protected areas. It was also decided that the Report should reflect coastal erosion, land use and economic activities.

Black Sea countries agreed that the Coastal Zone is the geomorphological area either side of the seashore in which the interaction between the marine and land parts occurs in the form of complex ecological and resource systems made up of biotic and abiotic components coexisting and interacting with human communities and relevant socio-economic activities..[9]

Analysis of information available related to the State of the Coast and Socio-economics allows to draw the following conclusions:

1. Due to the lack of important information a deep analysis of the state of the coast was impossible. To overcome the problem, ICZM Advisory Group of the Black Sea Commission decided to introduce new indicators for assessment of the state of the Black Sea coast. They were tested and ICZM Advisory Group agreed to use these indicators for future activities.

2. Black Sea coast is the zone of many types of activities. The most part of the coastal zones in Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine are used for agriculture. In Russia biggest part of the coast is covered by forest and protected.

3. The number of population in the coastal zone is growing in Bulgaria, Russia and Turkey and decreasing in Romania and Ukraine.

4. There is a sustainable growth in access to drinking water and sanitation in all countries.

5. There is an increase in the amount of municipal wastes. The number of landfills has increased in Romania, Turkey and has decreased in Russia and Bulgaria. There is only one incineration plant. It locates in Turkey.

6. Erosion of the coast is increasing. However, there are very few projects implemented to prevent it.

7. There are activities going on to improve protection of the coastal zone environment, including marine.

8. Since previous report the structure of economic activities was not changed. The leading sectors are tourism, food processing, agriculture and transport, including shipping.

9. Oil transshipment sufficiently impact on environment.