Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D2 / Germany / Baltic 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 | D2 Non-indigenous species |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region/subregion | Baltic Sea |
| Reported by | Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit |
| Report date | 2020-02-17 |
| Report access | DE_ART8_GES.xml |
Deutsche Ostsee (BALDE_MS)
GES component |
D2
|
D2
|
D2
|
D2
|
D2
|
D2
|
D2
|
D2
|
D2
|
D2
|
D2
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
|
Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
|
Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
|
Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
|
Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
|
Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
|
Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
|
Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
|
Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
|
Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
|
Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
|
Element |
Antithamnionella ternifolia |
Diadumene lineata |
Dreissena bugensis |
Echinogammarus trichiatus |
Ficopomatus enigmaticus |
Grandidierella japonica |
Hemigrapsus takanoi |
Hypania invalida |
Paramysis lacustris |
Proasellus coxalis |
Sinelobus vanhaareni |
Element code |
163275 |
395099 |
505319 |
490139 |
130988 |
238740 |
389288 |
129797 |
120155 |
233891 |
798772 |
Element code source |
Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
|
Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
|
Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
|
Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
|
Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
|
Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
|
Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
|
Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
|
Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
|
Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
|
Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
|
Element 2 |
|||||||||||
Element 2 code |
|||||||||||
Element 2 code source |
|||||||||||
Element source |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D2C1
|
D2C1
|
D2C1
|
D2C1
|
D2C1
|
D2C1
|
D2C1
|
D2C1
|
D2C1
|
D2C1
|
D2C1
|
Parameter |
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
arrival rate of non-Community species
|
arrival rate of non-Community species
|
arrival rate of non-Community species
|
arrival rate of non-Community species
|
arrival rate of non-Community species
|
arrival rate of non-Community species
|
arrival rate of non-Community species
|
arrival rate of non-Community species
|
arrival rate of non-Community species
|
arrival rate of non-Community species
|
arrival rate of non-Community species
|
Threshold value upper |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
Threshold value lower |
|||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
|||||||||||
Threshold value source |
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Threshold value source other |
national, based on HELCOM.
|
national, based on HELCOM.
|
national, based on HELCOM.
|
national, based on HELCOM.
|
national, based on HELCOM.
|
national, based on HELCOM.
|
national, based on HELCOM.
|
national, based on HELCOM.
|
national, based on HELCOM.
|
national, based on HELCOM.
|
national, based on HELCOM.
|
Value achieved upper |
11.0 |
11.0 |
11.0 |
11.0 |
11.0 |
11.0 |
11.0 |
11.0 |
11.0 |
11.0 |
11.0 |
Value achieved lower |
|||||||||||
Value unit |
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
number of species in 6 years
|
number of species in 6 years
|
number of species in 6 years
|
number of species in 6 years
|
number of species in 6 years
|
number of species in 6 years
|
number of species in 6 years
|
number of species in 6 years
|
number of species in 6 years
|
number of species in 6 years
|
number of species in 6 years
|
Proportion threshold value |
|||||||||||
Proportion value achieved |
|||||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
|||||||||||
Trend |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Description parameter |
The calculation of the threshold is based on an entry rate of an average of 6 species per 6 years of reporting as established by continuous monitoring, and the assumption that good environmental status is achieved if less than a quarter (< 25 %) of previous entries of non-indigenous species occurs.
|
The calculation of the threshold is based on an entry rate of an average of 6 species per 6 years of reporting as established by continuous monitoring, and the assumption that good environmental status is achieved if less than a quarter (< 25 %) of previous entries of non-indigenous species occurs.
|
The calculation of the threshold is based on an entry rate of an average of 6 species per 6 years of reporting as established by continuous monitoring, and the assumption that good environmental status is achieved if less than a quarter (< 25 %) of previous entries of non-indigenous species occurs.
|
The calculation of the threshold is based on an entry rate of an average of 6 species per 6 years of reporting as established by continuous monitoring, and the assumption that good environmental status is achieved if less than a quarter (< 25 %) of previous entries of non-indigenous species occurs.
|
The calculation of the threshold is based on an entry rate of an average of 6 species per 6 years of reporting as established by continuous monitoring, and the assumption that good environmental status is achieved if less than a quarter (< 25 %) of previous entries of non-indigenous species occurs.
|
The calculation of the threshold is based on an entry rate of an average of 6 species per 6 years of reporting as established by continuous monitoring, and the assumption that good environmental status is achieved if less than a quarter (< 25 %) of previous entries of non-indigenous species occurs.
|
The calculation of the threshold is based on an entry rate of an average of 6 species per 6 years of reporting as established by continuous monitoring, and the assumption that good environmental status is achieved if less than a quarter (< 25 %) of previous entries of non-indigenous species occurs.
|
The calculation of the threshold is based on an entry rate of an average of 6 species per 6 years of reporting as established by continuous monitoring, and the assumption that good environmental status is achieved if less than a quarter (< 25 %) of previous entries of non-indigenous species occurs.
|
The calculation of the threshold is based on an entry rate of an average of 6 species per 6 years of reporting as established by continuous monitoring, and the assumption that good environmental status is achieved if less than a quarter (< 25 %) of previous entries of non-indigenous species occurs.
|
The calculation of the threshold is based on an entry rate of an average of 6 species per 6 years of reporting as established by continuous monitoring, and the assumption that good environmental status is achieved if less than a quarter (< 25 %) of previous entries of non-indigenous species occurs.
|
The calculation of the threshold is based on an entry rate of an average of 6 species per 6 years of reporting as established by continuous monitoring, and the assumption that good environmental status is achieved if less than a quarter (< 25 %) of previous entries of non-indigenous species occurs.
|
Related indicator |
|||||||||||
Criteria status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
The status of the criterion does not relate to one element but to the rate of entries of non-native species.
|
The status of the criterion does not relate to one element but to the rate of entries of non-native species.
|
The status of the criterion does not relate to one element but to the rate of entries of non-native species.
|
The status of the criterion does not relate to one element but to the rate of entries of non-native species.
|
The status of the criterion does not relate to one element but to the rate of entries of non-native species.
|
The status of the criterion does not relate to one element but to the rate of entries of non-native species.
|
The status of the criterion does not relate to one element but to the rate of entries of non-native species.
|
The status of the criterion does not relate to one element but to the rate of entries of non-native species.
|
The status of the criterion does not relate to one element but to the rate of entries of non-native species.
|
The status of the criterion does not relate to one element but to the rate of entries of non-native species.
|
The status of the criterion does not relate to one element but to the rate of entries of non-native species.
|
Element status |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description element |
The element-based reporting scheme does not fit the D2C1 criterion "Number of new non-indigenous species added". An assessment of the condition of the newly introduced species is not foreseen under the MSFD and has not be carried out and will not be carried out in the future (see "Element status": not assessed). Since these are new discoveries, the species can not be found on a list agreed beforehand (see "Element Source": national).
|
The element-based reporting scheme does not fit the D2C1 criterion "Number of new non-indigenous species added". An assessment of the condition of the newly introduced species is not foreseen under the MSFD and has not be carried out and will not be carried out in the future (see "Element status": not assessed). Since these are new discoveries, the species can not be found on a list agreed beforehand (see "Element Source": national).
|
The element-based reporting scheme does not fit the D2C1 criterion "Number of new non-indigenous species added". An assessment of the condition of the newly introduced species is not foreseen under the MSFD and has not be carried out and will not be carried out in the future (see "Element status": not assessed). Since these are new discoveries, the species can not be found on a list agreed beforehand (see "Element Source": national).
|
The element-based reporting scheme does not fit the D2C1 criterion "Number of new non-indigenous species added". An assessment of the condition of the newly introduced species is not foreseen under the MSFD and has not be carried out and will not be carried out in the future (see "Element status": not assessed). Since these are new discoveries, the species can not be found on a list agreed beforehand (see "Element Source": national).
|
The element-based reporting scheme does not fit the D2C1 criterion "Number of new non-indigenous species added". An assessment of the condition of the newly introduced species is not foreseen under the MSFD and has not be carried out and will not be carried out in the future (see "Element status": not assessed). Since these are new discoveries, the species can not be found on a list agreed beforehand (see "Element Source": national).
|
The element-based reporting scheme does not fit the D2C1 criterion "Number of new non-indigenous species added". An assessment of the condition of the newly introduced species is not foreseen under the MSFD and has not be carried out and will not be carried out in the future (see "Element status": not assessed). Since these are new discoveries, the species can not be found on a list agreed beforehand (see "Element Source": national).
|
The element-based reporting scheme does not fit the D2C1 criterion "Number of new non-indigenous species added". An assessment of the condition of the newly introduced species is not foreseen under the MSFD and has not be carried out and will not be carried out in the future (see "Element status": not assessed). Since these are new discoveries, the species can not be found on a list agreed beforehand (see "Element Source": national).
|
The element-based reporting scheme does not fit the D2C1 criterion "Number of new non-indigenous species added". An assessment of the condition of the newly introduced species is not foreseen under the MSFD and has not be carried out and will not be carried out in the future (see "Element status": not assessed). Since these are new discoveries, the species can not be found on a list agreed beforehand (see "Element Source": national).
|
The element-based reporting scheme does not fit the D2C1 criterion "Number of new non-indigenous species added". An assessment of the condition of the newly introduced species is not foreseen under the MSFD and has not be carried out and will not be carried out in the future (see "Element status": not assessed). Since these are new discoveries, the species can not be found on a list agreed beforehand (see "Element Source": national).
|
The element-based reporting scheme does not fit the D2C1 criterion "Number of new non-indigenous species added". An assessment of the condition of the newly introduced species is not foreseen under the MSFD and has not be carried out and will not be carried out in the future (see "Element status": not assessed). Since these are new discoveries, the species can not be found on a list agreed beforehand (see "Element Source": national).
|
The element-based reporting scheme does not fit the D2C1 criterion "Number of new non-indigenous species added". An assessment of the condition of the newly introduced species is not foreseen under the MSFD and has not be carried out and will not be carried out in the future (see "Element status": not assessed). Since these are new discoveries, the species can not be found on a list agreed beforehand (see "Element Source": national).
|
Integration rule type parameter |
|||||||||||
Integration rule description parameter |
|||||||||||
Integration rule type criteria |
|||||||||||
Integration rule description criteria |
|||||||||||
GES extent threshold |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
GES extent achieved |
|||||||||||
GES extent unit |
Number of newly-introduced species |
Number of newly-introduced species |
Number of newly-introduced species |
Number of newly-introduced species |
Number of newly-introduced species |
Number of newly-introduced species |
Number of newly-introduced species |
Number of newly-introduced species |
Number of newly-introduced species |
Number of newly-introduced species |
Number of newly-introduced species |
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 |
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 HELCOM status of the Baltic Sea report states that for the entire Baltic Sea, good environmental status for non-indigenous species has not been achieved. For the HELCOM evaluation, data were available only for some areas ("sub-basins"). Therefore, the data provided by Germany for the Kieler Bucht, Mecklenburger Bucht, the Arcona basin and the Bornholm Basin significantly determine the HELCOM assessment of the intake rate of non-native species.
As of 2016, a total of 58 non-indigenous species have been detected in German Baltic Sea waters (LLUR 2014, Neobiota Platform North and Baltic Sea 2017). This was 22 more than in the initial assessment in 2012. Half of the species are attributed to the existing data and not counted as new evidence. During the period under consideration from 2011 to 2016, 11 new species were actually detected in the German Baltic Sea waters for the first time), most of which can be traced back to human activities. The entry trail of newly documented species is dominated by unintentional introduction via shipping and aquaculture.
|
The HELCOM status of the Baltic Sea report states that for the entire Baltic Sea, good environmental status for non-indigenous species has not been achieved. For the HELCOM evaluation, data were available only for some areas ("sub-basins"). Therefore, the data provided by Germany for the Kieler Bucht, Mecklenburger Bucht, the Arcona basin and the Bornholm Basin significantly determine the HELCOM assessment of the intake rate of non-native species.
As of 2016, a total of 58 non-indigenous species have been detected in German Baltic Sea waters (LLUR 2014, Neobiota Platform North and Baltic Sea 2017). This was 22 more than in the initial assessment in 2012. Half of the species are attributed to the existing data and not counted as new evidence. During the period under consideration from 2011 to 2016, 11 new species were actually detected in the German Baltic Sea waters for the first time), most of which can be traced back to human activities. The entry trail of newly documented species is dominated by unintentional introduction via shipping and aquaculture.
|
The HELCOM status of the Baltic Sea report states that for the entire Baltic Sea, good environmental status for non-indigenous species has not been achieved. For the HELCOM evaluation, data were available only for some areas ("sub-basins"). Therefore, the data provided by Germany for the Kieler Bucht, Mecklenburger Bucht, the Arcona basin and the Bornholm Basin significantly determine the HELCOM assessment of the intake rate of non-native species.
As of 2016, a total of 58 non-indigenous species have been detected in German Baltic Sea waters (LLUR 2014, Neobiota Platform North and Baltic Sea 2017). This was 22 more than in the initial assessment in 2012. Half of the species are attributed to the existing data and not counted as new evidence. During the period under consideration from 2011 to 2016, 11 new species were actually detected in the German Baltic Sea waters for the first time), most of which can be traced back to human activities. The entry trail of newly documented species is dominated by unintentional introduction via shipping and aquaculture.
|
The HELCOM status of the Baltic Sea report states that for the entire Baltic Sea, good environmental status for non-indigenous species has not been achieved. For the HELCOM evaluation, data were available only for some areas ("sub-basins"). Therefore, the data provided by Germany for the Kieler Bucht, Mecklenburger Bucht, the Arcona basin and the Bornholm Basin significantly determine the HELCOM assessment of the intake rate of non-native species.
As of 2016, a total of 58 non-indigenous species have been detected in German Baltic Sea waters (LLUR 2014, Neobiota Platform North and Baltic Sea 2017). This was 22 more than in the initial assessment in 2012. Half of the species are attributed to the existing data and not counted as new evidence. During the period under consideration from 2011 to 2016, 11 new species were actually detected in the German Baltic Sea waters for the first time), most of which can be traced back to human activities. The entry trail of newly documented species is dominated by unintentional introduction via shipping and aquaculture.
|
The HELCOM status of the Baltic Sea report states that for the entire Baltic Sea, good environmental status for non-indigenous species has not been achieved. For the HELCOM evaluation, data were available only for some areas ("sub-basins"). Therefore, the data provided by Germany for the Kieler Bucht, Mecklenburger Bucht, the Arcona basin and the Bornholm Basin significantly determine the HELCOM assessment of the intake rate of non-native species.
As of 2016, a total of 58 non-indigenous species have been detected in German Baltic Sea waters (LLUR 2014, Neobiota Platform North and Baltic Sea 2017). This was 22 more than in the initial assessment in 2012. Half of the species are attributed to the existing data and not counted as new evidence. During the period under consideration from 2011 to 2016, 11 new species were actually detected in the German Baltic Sea waters for the first time), most of which can be traced back to human activities. The entry trail of newly documented species is dominated by unintentional introduction via shipping and aquaculture.
|
The HELCOM status of the Baltic Sea report states that for the entire Baltic Sea, good environmental status for non-indigenous species has not been achieved. For the HELCOM evaluation, data were available only for some areas ("sub-basins"). Therefore, the data provided by Germany for the Kieler Bucht, Mecklenburger Bucht, the Arcona basin and the Bornholm Basin significantly determine the HELCOM assessment of the intake rate of non-native species.
As of 2016, a total of 58 non-indigenous species have been detected in German Baltic Sea waters (LLUR 2014, Neobiota Platform North and Baltic Sea 2017). This was 22 more than in the initial assessment in 2012. Half of the species are attributed to the existing data and not counted as new evidence. During the period under consideration from 2011 to 2016, 11 new species were actually detected in the German Baltic Sea waters for the first time), most of which can be traced back to human activities. The entry trail of newly documented species is dominated by unintentional introduction via shipping and aquaculture.
|
The HELCOM status of the Baltic Sea report states that for the entire Baltic Sea, good environmental status for non-indigenous species has not been achieved. For the HELCOM evaluation, data were available only for some areas ("sub-basins"). Therefore, the data provided by Germany for the Kieler Bucht, Mecklenburger Bucht, the Arcona basin and the Bornholm Basin significantly determine the HELCOM assessment of the intake rate of non-native species.
As of 2016, a total of 58 non-indigenous species have been detected in German Baltic Sea waters (LLUR 2014, Neobiota Platform North and Baltic Sea 2017). This was 22 more than in the initial assessment in 2012. Half of the species are attributed to the existing data and not counted as new evidence. During the period under consideration from 2011 to 2016, 11 new species were actually detected in the German Baltic Sea waters for the first time), most of which can be traced back to human activities. The entry trail of newly documented species is dominated by unintentional introduction via shipping and aquaculture.
|
The HELCOM status of the Baltic Sea report states that for the entire Baltic Sea, good environmental status for non-indigenous species has not been achieved. For the HELCOM evaluation, data were available only for some areas ("sub-basins"). Therefore, the data provided by Germany for the Kieler Bucht, Mecklenburger Bucht, the Arcona basin and the Bornholm Basin significantly determine the HELCOM assessment of the intake rate of non-native species.
As of 2016, a total of 58 non-indigenous species have been detected in German Baltic Sea waters (LLUR 2014, Neobiota Platform North and Baltic Sea 2017). This was 22 more than in the initial assessment in 2012. Half of the species are attributed to the existing data and not counted as new evidence. During the period under consideration from 2011 to 2016, 11 new species were actually detected in the German Baltic Sea waters for the first time), most of which can be traced back to human activities. The entry trail of newly documented species is dominated by unintentional introduction via shipping and aquaculture.
|
The HELCOM status of the Baltic Sea report states that for the entire Baltic Sea, good environmental status for non-indigenous species has not been achieved. For the HELCOM evaluation, data were available only for some areas ("sub-basins"). Therefore, the data provided by Germany for the Kieler Bucht, Mecklenburger Bucht, the Arcona basin and the Bornholm Basin significantly determine the HELCOM assessment of the intake rate of non-native species.
As of 2016, a total of 58 non-indigenous species have been detected in German Baltic Sea waters (LLUR 2014, Neobiota Platform North and Baltic Sea 2017). This was 22 more than in the initial assessment in 2012. Half of the species are attributed to the existing data and not counted as new evidence. During the period under consideration from 2011 to 2016, 11 new species were actually detected in the German Baltic Sea waters for the first time), most of which can be traced back to human activities. The entry trail of newly documented species is dominated by unintentional introduction via shipping and aquaculture.
|
The HELCOM status of the Baltic Sea report states that for the entire Baltic Sea, good environmental status for non-indigenous species has not been achieved. For the HELCOM evaluation, data were available only for some areas ("sub-basins"). Therefore, the data provided by Germany for the Kieler Bucht, Mecklenburger Bucht, the Arcona basin and the Bornholm Basin significantly determine the HELCOM assessment of the intake rate of non-native species.
As of 2016, a total of 58 non-indigenous species have been detected in German Baltic Sea waters (LLUR 2014, Neobiota Platform North and Baltic Sea 2017). This was 22 more than in the initial assessment in 2012. Half of the species are attributed to the existing data and not counted as new evidence. During the period under consideration from 2011 to 2016, 11 new species were actually detected in the German Baltic Sea waters for the first time), most of which can be traced back to human activities. The entry trail of newly documented species is dominated by unintentional introduction via shipping and aquaculture.
|
The HELCOM status of the Baltic Sea report states that for the entire Baltic Sea, good environmental status for non-indigenous species has not been achieved. For the HELCOM evaluation, data were available only for some areas ("sub-basins"). Therefore, the data provided by Germany for the Kieler Bucht, Mecklenburger Bucht, the Arcona basin and the Bornholm Basin significantly determine the HELCOM assessment of the intake rate of non-native species.
As of 2016, a total of 58 non-indigenous species have been detected in German Baltic Sea waters (LLUR 2014, Neobiota Platform North and Baltic Sea 2017). This was 22 more than in the initial assessment in 2012. Half of the species are attributed to the existing data and not counted as new evidence. During the period under consideration from 2011 to 2016, 11 new species were actually detected in the German Baltic Sea waters for the first time), most of which can be traced back to human activities. The entry trail of newly documented species is dominated by unintentional introduction via shipping and aquaculture.
|
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|