MS/Art8/2018/D1-P/Germany/NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea — Marine Information System for Europe

Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D1-P / Germany / NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea

Report type	Member State report to Commission
MSFD Article	Art. 8 Initial assessment (and Art. 17 updates)
Report due	2018-10-15
GES Descriptor	D1 Pelagic habitats
Member State	Germany
Region/subregion	NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea
Reported by	Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit
Report date	2020-02-17
Report access	DE_ART8_GES.xml

EF12 (ANSDE_D5_EF12)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P
Feature	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats
Element	Chlorophyll-a	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms
Element code	EEA_3164-01-0	HAB	HAB	HAB	HAB
Element code source	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	EU	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR
Criterion	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6
Parameter	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other
Parameter other	Concentration in water	Dinophysis	Phaeocystis	Prorocentrum	Pseudonitzschia
Threshold value upper	7.5	100.0	1000000.0	10000.0	1000000.0
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative
Threshold value source	Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention
Threshold value source other
Value achieved upper	12.78	403.0	1061581.0	239.0	329284.0
Value achieved lower
Value unit		Other	Other	Other	Other
Value unit other		Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved	No	No	No	Yes	Yes
Description parameter	In the coastal waters, the 90th percentile of the chlorophyll-a concentration for the assessment was used in accordance with the Water Framework Directive.
Related indicator	Concentrations of Chlorophyll-a in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Chlorophyllkonzentrationen	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Trends in Blooms of the Nuisance Phytoplankton Species Phaeocystis in Belgian, Dutch and German Waters Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung
Criteria status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description criteria
Element status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description element	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. In the coastal waters, the 90th percentile of the chlorophyll-a concentration for the assessment was used in accordance with the Water Framework Directive.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.
Integration rule type parameter	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description parameter	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.
Integration rule type criteria	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description criteria	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.
GES extent threshold	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent achieved
GES extent unit	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status
GES achieved	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported
Description overall status	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.
Assessments period	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014
Related pressures	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
Related targets	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3

ANSDE_D5_EF34

Simplified table

GES component	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P
Feature	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats
Element	Chlorophyll-a	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms
Element code	EEA_3164-01-0	HAB	HAB	HAB	HAB
Element code source	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	EU	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR
Criterion	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6
Parameter	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other
Parameter other	Concentration in water	Dinophysis	Phaeocystis	Prorocentrum	Pseudonitzschia
Threshold value upper	11.0	100.0	1000000.0	10000.0	1000000.0
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative
Threshold value source	Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention
Threshold value source other
Value achieved upper	11.96	826.0	2545133.0	157.0	236436.0
Value achieved lower
Value unit		Other	Other	Other	Other
Value unit other		Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved	No	No	No	Yes	Yes
Description parameter	In the coastal waters, the 90th percentile of the chlorophyll-a concentration for the assessment was used in accordance with the Water Framework Directive.
Related indicator	Concentrations of Chlorophyll-a in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Chlorophyllkonzentrationen	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Trends in Blooms of the Nuisance Phytoplankton Species Phaeocystis in Belgian, Dutch and German Waters Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung
Criteria status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description criteria
Element status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description element	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. In the coastal waters, the 90th percentile of the chlorophyll-a concentration for the assessment was used in accordance with the Water Framework Directive.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.
Integration rule type parameter	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description parameter	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.
Integration rule type criteria	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description criteria	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.
GES extent threshold	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent achieved
GES extent unit	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status
GES achieved	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported
Description overall status	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.
Assessments period	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014
Related pressures	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
Related targets	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3

EW34 (ANSDE_D5_EW34)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P
Feature	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats
Element	Chlorophyll-a	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms
Element code	EEA_3164-01-0	HAB	HAB	HAB	HAB
Element code source	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	EU	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR
Criterion	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6
Parameter	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other
Parameter other	Concentration in water	Dinophysis	Phaeocystis	Prorocentrum	Pseudonitzschia
Threshold value upper	11.0	100.0	1000000.0	10000.0	1000000.0
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative
Threshold value source	Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention
Threshold value source other
Value achieved upper	27.29	82.0	4242717.0	1067.0	106330.0
Value achieved lower
Value unit		Other	Other	Other	Other
Value unit other		Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Description parameter	In the coastal waters, the 90th percentile of the chlorophyll-a concentration for the assessment was used in accordance with the Water Framework Directive.
Related indicator	Concentrations of Chlorophyll-a in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Chlorophyllkonzentrationen	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Trends in Blooms of the Nuisance Phytoplankton Species Phaeocystis in Belgian, Dutch and German Waters Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung
Criteria status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description criteria
Element status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description element	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. In the coastal waters, the 90th percentile of the chlorophyll-a concentration for the assessment was used in accordance with the Water Framework Directive.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.
Integration rule type parameter	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description parameter	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.
Integration rule type criteria	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description criteria	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.
GES extent threshold	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent achieved
GES extent unit	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status
GES achieved	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported
Description overall status	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.
Assessments period	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014
Related pressures	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
Related targets	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3

ICEF (ANSDE_D5_ICEF)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P
Feature	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats
Element	Chlorophyll-a	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Photic limit
Element code	EEA_3164-01-0	HAB	HAB	HAB	HAB	EEA_3111-01-1
Element code source	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	EU	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	National
Criterion	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6
Parameter	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other
Parameter other	Concentration in water	Dinophysis	Phaeocystis	Prorocentrum	Pseudonitzschia	Transparency in water
Threshold value upper	2.57	100.0	1000000.0	10000.0	1000000.0	5.68
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative
Threshold value source	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	Other (specify)
Threshold value source other						National
Value achieved upper	3.12	48.0	2942766.0	553.0	56985.0	4.35
Value achieved lower
Value unit		Other	Other	Other	Other
Value unit other		Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No
Description parameter
Related indicator	Concentrations of Chlorophyll-a in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Chlorophyllkonzentrationen	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Trends in Blooms of the Nuisance Phytoplankton Species Phaeocystis in Belgian, Dutch and German Waters Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Sichttiefe
Criteria status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description criteria
Element status	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Not good
Description element	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results.
Integration rule type parameter	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description parameter	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.
Integration rule type criteria	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description criteria	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.
GES extent threshold	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent achieved
GES extent unit	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status
GES achieved	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed
Description overall status	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.
Assessments period	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014
Related pressures	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
Related targets	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3

ICNF (ANSDE_D5_ICNF)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P
Feature	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats
Element	Chlorophyll-a	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Photic limit
Element code	EEA_3164-01-0	HAB	HAB	HAB	HAB	EEA_3111-01-1
Element code source	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	EU	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	National
Criterion	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6
Parameter	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other
Parameter other	Concentration in water	Dinophysis	Phaeocystis	Prorocentrum	Pseudonitzschia	Transparency in water
Threshold value upper	3.66	100.0	1000000.0	10000.0	1000000.0	4.1
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative
Threshold value source	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	Other (specify)
Threshold value source other						National
Value achieved upper	6.07	2495.0	1343719.0	2495.0	72207.0	3.1
Value achieved lower
Value unit		Other	Other	Other	Other
Value unit other		Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
Description parameter	The means have been evaluated.
Related indicator	Concentrations of Chlorophyll-a in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Chlorophyllkonzentrationen	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Trends in Blooms of the Nuisance Phytoplankton Species Phaeocystis in Belgian, Dutch and German Waters Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Sichttiefe
Criteria status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description criteria
Element status	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Not good
Description element	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results.
Integration rule type parameter	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description parameter	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.
Integration rule type criteria	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description criteria	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.
GES extent threshold	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent achieved
GES extent unit	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status
GES achieved	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported
Description overall status	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.
Assessments period	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014
Related pressures	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
Related targets	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3

NF12 (ANSDE_D5_NF12)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P
Feature	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats
Element	Chlorophyll-a	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms
Element code	EEA_3164-01-0	HAB	HAB	HAB	HAB
Element code source	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	EU	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR
Criterion	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6
Parameter	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other
Parameter other	Concentration in water	Dinophysis	Phaeocystis	Prorocentrum	Pseudonitzschia
Threshold value upper	7.5	100.0	1000000.0	10000.0	1000000.0
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative
Threshold value source	Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention
Threshold value source other
Value achieved upper	14.06	12.0	1374849.0	17207.0	107867.0
Value achieved lower
Value unit		Other	Other	Other	Other
Value unit other		Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved	No	Yes	No	No	Yes
Description parameter	In the coastal waters, the 90th percentile of the chlorophyll-a concentration for the assessment was used in accordance with the Water Framework Directive.
Related indicator	Concentrations of Chlorophyll-a in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Chlorophyllkonzentrationen	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Trends in Blooms of the Nuisance Phytoplankton Species Phaeocystis in Belgian, Dutch and German Waters Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung
Criteria status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description criteria
Element status	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good
Description element	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. In the coastal waters, the 90th percentile of the chlorophyll-a concentration for the assessment was used in accordance with the Water Framework Directive.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.
Integration rule type parameter	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description parameter	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.
Integration rule type criteria	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description criteria	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2 and D5C3 were averaged.
GES extent threshold	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent achieved
GES extent unit	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status
GES achieved	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported
Description overall status	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.
Assessments period	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014
Related pressures	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
Related targets	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3

OCEF (ANSDE_D5_OCEF)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P
Feature	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats
Element	Chlorophyll-a	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Photic limit
Element code	EEA_3164-01-0	HAB	HAB	HAB	HAB	EEA_3111-01-1
Element code source	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	EU	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	National
Criterion	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6
Parameter	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other
Parameter other	Concentration in water	Dinophysis	Phaeocystis	Prorocentrum	Pseudonitzschia	Transparency in water
Threshold value upper	1.95	100.0	1000000.0	10000.0	10000.0	7.31
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative
Threshold value source	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	Other (specify)
Threshold value source other						National
Value achieved upper	1.94	203.0	467271.0	6103.0	42355.0	6.2
Value achieved lower
Value unit		Other	Other	Other	Other
Value unit other		Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Description parameter	The means have been evaluated.
Related indicator	Concentrations of Chlorophyll-a in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Chlorophyllkonzentrationen	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Trends in Blooms of the Nuisance Phytoplankton Species Phaeocystis in Belgian, Dutch and German Waters Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Sichttiefe
Criteria status	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Not good
Description criteria
Element status	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Not good
Description element	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results.
Integration rule type parameter	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description parameter	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.
Integration rule type criteria	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description criteria	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.
GES extent threshold	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent achieved
GES extent unit	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status
GES achieved	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed
Description overall status	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.
Assessments period	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014
Related pressures	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
Related targets	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3

OCNF (ANSDE_D5_OCNF)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P
Feature	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats
Element	Chlorophyll-a	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Photic limit
Element code	EEA_3164-01-0	HAB	HAB	HAB	HAB	EEA_3111-01-1
Element code source	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	EU	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	National
Criterion	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6
Parameter	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other
Parameter other	Concentration in water	Dinophysis	Phaeocystis	Prorocentrum	Pseudonitzschia	Transparency in water
Threshold value upper	1.79	100.0	1000000.0	10000.0	1000000.0	7.91
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative
Threshold value source	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	Other (specify)
Threshold value source other						National
Value achieved upper	2.08	1034.0	245082.0	4786.0	290372.0	6.25
Value achieved lower
Value unit		Other	Other	Other	Other
Value unit other		Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Description parameter	The means have been evaluated.
Related indicator	Concentrations of Chlorophyll-a in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Chlorophyllkonzentrationen	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Trends in Blooms of the Nuisance Phytoplankton Species Phaeocystis in Belgian, Dutch and German Waters Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Sichttiefe
Criteria status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description criteria
Element status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description element	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results.
Integration rule type parameter	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description parameter	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.
Integration rule type criteria	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description criteria	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.
GES extent threshold	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent achieved
GES extent unit	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status
GES achieved	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed
Description overall status	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.
Assessments period	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014
Related pressures	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
Related targets	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3

OFFI (ANSDE_D5_OFFI)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P
Feature	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats
Element	Chlorophyll-a	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Photic limit
Element code	EEA_3164-01-0	HAB	HAB	HAB	HAB	EEA_3111-01-1
Element code source	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	National
Criterion	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6
Parameter	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other
Parameter other	Concentration in water	Dinophysis	Phaeocystis	Prorocentrum	Pseudonitzschia	Transparency in water
Threshold value upper	1.48	100.0	1000000.0	10000.0	1000000.0	9.43
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative
Threshold value source		OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	Other (specify)
Threshold value source other						National
Value achieved upper	0.84	619.0	7962.0	7005.0	23032.0	7.69
Value achieved lower
Value unit		Other	Other	Other	Other
Value unit other		Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Description parameter	The means have been evaluated.
Related indicator	Concentrations of Chlorophyll-a in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Chlorophyllkonzentrationen	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Trends in Blooms of the Nuisance Phytoplankton Species Phaeocystis in Belgian, Dutch and German Waters Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Sichttiefe
Criteria status	Good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description criteria
Element status	Good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description element	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results.
Integration rule type parameter	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description parameter	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.
Integration rule type criteria	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description criteria	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.
GES extent threshold	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent achieved
GES extent unit	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status
GES achieved	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported
Description overall status	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.
Assessments period	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014
Related pressures	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
Related targets	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3

OFFO (ANSDE_D5_OFFO)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P
Feature	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats
Element	Chlorophyll-a	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Harmful algae blooms	Photic limit
Element code	EEA_3164-01-0	HAB	HAB	HAB	HAB	EEA_3111-01-1
Element code source	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Undefined	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	National
Criterion	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6
Parameter	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other
Parameter other	Concentration in water	Dinophysis	Phaeocystis	Prorocentrum	Pseudonitzschia	Transparency in water
Threshold value upper	1.31	100.0	1000000.0	10000.0	1000000.0	10.56
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative
Threshold value source	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	Other (specify)
Threshold value source other						National
Value achieved upper	0.56	54.0	14252.0	236.0	6021.0	11.64
Value achieved lower
Value unit		Other	Other	Other	Other
Value unit other		Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre	Cells per litre
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Description parameter	The means have been evaluated.
Related indicator	Concentrations of Chlorophyll-a in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Chlorophyllkonzentrationen	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Trends in Blooms of the Nuisance Phytoplankton Species Phaeocystis in Belgian, Dutch and German Waters Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Artenverschiebung in der Florazusammensetzung	Sichttiefe
Criteria status	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good
Description criteria
Element status	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good
Description element	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results. For the assessment of the MSFD, the indicator species Phaeocystis, Dinophysis, Prorocentrum and Pseudonizschia were assessed individually and initially evaluated individually against their specific thresholds. The overall assessment of the criterion was made by averaging the evaluation results for the four indicator species.	There was no averaging of the annual figures over the 9-year assessment period. Instead, a summary assessment was made based on an expert judgement. This results in some divergent status results.
Integration rule type parameter	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description parameter	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.	For the evaluation, an average of the annual values over the 9-year evaluation period was determined and this was then evaluated.
Integration rule type criteria	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI	NHIE_NWEI
Integration rule description criteria	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.	Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4 were averaged.
GES extent threshold	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent achieved	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent unit	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status
GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved
Description overall status	The evaluation of the pelagic habitats is based on OSPAR indicators ?Change in plankton communities?, ?plankton biomass and abundance? and ?change in plankton diversity?. However, the indicators are still under development. There are, among other things, no threshold values for good status, no evaluation is possible. For example, for the two indicators on changes in plankton communities and plankton biomass and abundance in OSPAR Intermediate Interrate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values. The indicator of change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the enlarged North Sea (OSPAR region II). For the time being it is only a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to present the concept of Intermediate Interrate Assessment 2017 in order to present the concept. This will require further further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. Nevertheless, in order to be able to carry out an evaluation and as eutrophication is one of the main loads for pelagic habitats, the criteria of eutrophication assessment, which describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on phytoplankton, are used for the time being ? in analogy to the approach to HELCOM for the Baltic Sea: Chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algal blooms and visibility.	The evaluation of the pelagic habitats is based on OSPAR indicators ?Change in plankton communities?, ?plankton biomass and abundance? and ?change in plankton diversity?. However, the indicators are still under development. There are, among other things, no threshold values for good status, no evaluation is possible. For example, for the two indicators on changes in plankton communities and plankton biomass and abundance in OSPAR Intermediate Interrate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values. The indicator of change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the enlarged North Sea (OSPAR region II). For the time being it is only a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to present the concept of Intermediate Interrate Assessment 2017 in order to present the concept. This will require further further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. Nevertheless, in order to be able to carry out an evaluation and as eutrophication is one of the main loads for pelagic habitats, the criteria of eutrophication assessment, which describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on phytoplankton, are used for the time being ? in analogy to the approach to HELCOM for the Baltic Sea: Chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algal blooms and visibility.	The evaluation of the pelagic habitats is based on OSPAR indicators ?Change in plankton communities?, ?plankton biomass and abundance? and ?change in plankton diversity?. However, the indicators are still under development. There are, among other things, no threshold values for good status, no evaluation is possible. For example, for the two indicators on changes in plankton communities and plankton biomass and abundance in OSPAR Intermediate Interrate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values. The indicator of change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the enlarged North Sea (OSPAR region II). For the time being it is only a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to present the concept of Intermediate Interrate Assessment 2017 in order to present the concept. This will require further further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. Nevertheless, in order to be able to carry out an evaluation and as eutrophication is one of the main loads for pelagic habitats, the criteria of eutrophication assessment, which describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on phytoplankton, are used for the time being ? in analogy to the approach to HELCOM for the Baltic Sea: Chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algal blooms and visibility.	The evaluation of the pelagic habitats is based on OSPAR indicators ?Change in plankton communities?, ?plankton biomass and abundance? and ?change in plankton diversity?. However, the indicators are still under development. There are, among other things, no threshold values for good status, no evaluation is possible. For example, for the two indicators on changes in plankton communities and plankton biomass and abundance in OSPAR Intermediate Interrate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values. The indicator of change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the enlarged North Sea (OSPAR region II). For the time being it is only a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to present the concept of Intermediate Interrate Assessment 2017 in order to present the concept. This will require further further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. Nevertheless, in order to be able to carry out an evaluation and as eutrophication is one of the main loads for pelagic habitats, the criteria of eutrophication assessment, which describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on phytoplankton, are used for the time being ? in analogy to the approach to HELCOM for the Baltic Sea: Chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algal blooms and visibility.	The evaluation of the pelagic habitats is based on OSPAR indicators ?Change in plankton communities?, ?plankton biomass and abundance? and ?change in plankton diversity?. However, the indicators are still under development. There are, among other things, no threshold values for good status, no evaluation is possible. For example, for the two indicators on changes in plankton communities and plankton biomass and abundance in OSPAR Intermediate Interrate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values. The indicator of change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the enlarged North Sea (OSPAR region II). For the time being it is only a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to present the concept of Intermediate Interrate Assessment 2017 in order to present the concept. This will require further further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. Nevertheless, in order to be able to carry out an evaluation and as eutrophication is one of the main loads for pelagic habitats, the criteria of eutrophication assessment, which describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on phytoplankton, are used for the time being ? in analogy to the approach to HELCOM for the Baltic Sea: Chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algal blooms and visibility.	The evaluation of the pelagic habitats is based on OSPAR indicators ?Change in plankton communities?, ?plankton biomass and abundance? and ?change in plankton diversity?. However, the indicators are still under development. There are, among other things, no threshold values for good status, no evaluation is possible. For example, for the two indicators on changes in plankton communities and plankton biomass and abundance in OSPAR Intermediate Interrate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values. The indicator of change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the enlarged North Sea (OSPAR region II). For the time being it is only a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to present the concept of Intermediate Interrate Assessment 2017 in order to present the concept. This will require further further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. Nevertheless, in order to be able to carry out an evaluation and as eutrophication is one of the main loads for pelagic habitats, the criteria of eutrophication assessment, which describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on phytoplankton, are used for the time being ? in analogy to the approach to HELCOM for the Baltic Sea: Chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algal blooms and visibility.
Assessments period	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014
Related pressures	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
Related targets	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3

Deutsche Nordsee (ANSDE_MS)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-P	D1-P	D1-P
Feature	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats
Element	Chlorophyll-a	Harmful algae blooms	Photic limit
Element code	EEA_3164-01-0	HAB	EEA_3111-01-1
Element code source	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view	Undefined	Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR
Criterion	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6
Parameter	Other	Other	Other
Parameter other	As used in OSPAR	As used in OSPAR	As used in OSPAR
Threshold value upper
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative
Threshold value source
Threshold value source other
Value achieved upper
Value achieved lower
Value unit
Value unit other
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant
Parameter achieved	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed
Description parameter	No assessment was carried out at the level of the entire North Sea. The parameter was assessed in the OSPAR Assessment Units of the Common Procedure.	No assessment was carried out at the level of the entire North Sea. The element has been assessed in the OSPAR Assessment Units of the Common Procedure.	No assessment was carried out at the level of the entire North Sea. The parameter was assessed in the OL-OSPAR Assessment Units of the Common Procedure.
Related indicator
Criteria status	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed
Description criteria	No assessment was carried out at the level of the entire North Sea. The criterion has been assessed in the OSPAR Assessment Units of the Common Procedure.	No assessment was carried out at the level of the entire North Sea. The criterion has been assessed in the OSPAR Assessment Units of the Common Procedure.	No assessment was carried out at the level of the entire North Sea. The criterion was assessed in the OSPAR-OSPAR Assessment Units of the Common Procedure.
Element status	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed
Description element	No assessment was carried out at the level of the entire North Sea. The element has been assessed in the OSPAR Assessment Units of the Common Procedure.	No assessment was carried out at the level of the entire North Sea. The element has been assessed in the OSPAR Assessment Units of the Common Procedure.	No assessment was carried out at the level of the entire North Sea. The element was assessed in the OL-OSPAR Assessment Units of the Common Procedure.
Integration rule type parameter	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant
Integration rule description parameter
Integration rule type criteria	Other	Other	Other
Integration rule description criteria	For the overall assessment of the German North Sea waters, the overall assessments of the individual MRU were aggregated according to the one out call.	For the overall assessment of the German North Sea waters, the overall assessments of the individual MRU were aggregated according to the one out call.	For the overall assessment of the German North Sea waters, the overall assessments of the individual MRU were aggregated according to the one out call.
GES extent threshold	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent achieved	23.00	23.00	23.00
GES extent unit	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status
GES achieved	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported
Description overall status	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.	The pelagic habitats are assessed on the basis of the OSPAR indicators “Change in plankton communities”, “Plankton biomass and abundance” and “Change in plankton diversity”. However, the indicators are still under development. There are no threshold values for good condition, an evaluation is not possible. For the two indicators on changes in the plankton communities and on the plankton biomass and abundance in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017, only a descriptive presentation of changes in the plankton communities and no assessment against threshold values is given yet. The indicator for the change in plankton diversity is currently not a common indicator for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). For the time being, it is only included in the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 as a pilot study for French and Spanish waters to illustrate the concept. This still requires extensive further developments for an application in the German North Sea waters. In order to still be able to carry out an assessment and since eutrophication is one of the main pressures in pelagic habitats, the criteria of the eutrophication assessment that describe the effects of nutrient enrichment on the phytoplankton: chlorophyll-a concentration, harmful algae bloom and water transparency.
Assessments period	2006-2014	2006-2014	2006-2014
Related pressures	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Contaminants - UPBT substances Contaminants - non UPBT substances Eutrophication Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
Related targets	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3	UZN1 UZN2 UZN3