DE_BAL: The GES is determined on the basis of the 11 qualitative descriptors set out in the MSFD, Annex I. Please note that according to M & A; In order to determine the characteristics f ür of good environmental status in a Marine Region or Sub-Region, Member States shall define all qualitative descriptors prüfen in order to identify the descriptors to be used for the determination of good environmental status f ür of the Marine Region or Sub-Region concerned. The German Baltic Sea is considered relevant for all 11 descriptors and is therefore described below. Moreover, the EU Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 (2010/477/EU) über sets out the criteria and methodological standards for establishing the good environmental status of marine waters (COM Decision) f&l;r for a more detailed analysis of the 11 descriptors, 29 criteria and 56 indicators. &criteria & quot; are in accordance with & & Annex I MSFD characteristic technical characteristics closely linked to qualitative descriptors. In addition, the European Commission has submitted a compilation of methodological standards which can be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011), which is also to be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011).The GES description in Germany refers to species, habitat types and, in part, to physico-chemical characteristics in accordance with Annex III. The answer to the check list on physical/chemical features, habitats, functional groups and pressures was answered in für D1, D4 and D6, with f&r species, habitats and, in some cases, pollution, the category &bergegrade;hle. Für the &brigen descriptors were primarily ticked on the check list. The physical/chemical and biological characteristics are derived from the indicators (COM Decision 2010/477/EU).Classification and assessmentsIn the light of the data available and the number of evaluation procedures already in place or the criteria and indicators already operationalised in the Commission Decision, it is not yet m &ouml in the present first GES report that all the criteria and indicators of the descriptors should describe the specific limits and thresholds or other quantifications f ür to the GES. For the purposes of the MSFD, we therefore consider that: Article 9 refers to existing status assessments. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats and Birds Directives (Habitats and Birds Directives) of the European Union provide important bases for this. In addition, the Regional Convention for the Protection of the Sea (Helsinki-Über Income) is used. As a first step, the existing data collections and evaluation procedures are assigned to the criteria and indicators proposed by the Commission Decision (2010/477/EU), with evaluation facilities and the scaling of the presentation of the results in terms of the structure of the MSFD being brought into a comprehensible and consistent order (Figure 1 of the Baltic Sea GES report). Ges has been reached or GES has not been reached. However, it does not specify how to deal with individual descriptors, criteria and indicators. If a 5-stage assessment system is used according to the WFD classification (see Figure 1? Baltic Sea Ges report), the status &nations from reporting cycle to reporting cycle are clearly visible. A multi-stage assessment system, in addition to the possibility of a pr äzier condition assessment, has the advantage of making &nation trends and thus the success of Ma & Rs easier to identify and communicate. Where assessments of other Directives are taken, their classification is also maintained in the MSFD (e.g. Habitats Directive 3-stage; WFD chemical status 2-stage, WFD &cological status 5-stage).Gem ä ß the requirements of the MSFD must be updated every 6 years (Article 17 of the MSFD). Germany’s task by 2018 is therefore to define the individual criteria and indicators, i.e. corresponding limit and threshold values or trends f&r, to the respective GES f ür, based on procedures to be developed and the extension of the data base, and in coordination with the marine region to be considered in each case. M&gliche Methods für can be found in Krause et al. (2011).Integrated &kological assessmentIn this report, aggregation and integrated assessment have not yet been carried out. The aim must be to increasingly meet the high requirements of the MSFD in the 2018 follow-up evaluation. This requires the correction of existing deficits, the development of missing procedures and the collection of necessary data. In addition, when updating the description of the GES, the &ndernden öcosystemar circumstances, such as climate change and its impact on marine &cosystems and the K&uuml Lifesr&ume, must also be taken into account.

DE_BAL: The GES is determined on the basis of the 11 qualitative descriptors set out in the MSFD, Annex I. Please note that according to M & A; In order to determine the characteristics f ür of good environmental status in a Marine Region or Sub-Region, Member States shall define all qualitative descriptors prüfen in order to identify the descriptors to be used for the determination of good environmental status f ür of the Marine Region or Sub-Region concerned. The German Baltic Sea is considered relevant for all 11 descriptors and is therefore described below. Moreover, the EU Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 (2010/477/EU) über sets out the criteria and methodological standards for establishing the good environmental status of marine waters (COM Decision) f&l;r for a more detailed analysis of the 11 descriptors, 29 criteria and 56 indicators. &criteria & quot; are in accordance with & & Annex I MSFD characteristic technical characteristics closely linked to qualitative descriptors. In addition, the European Commission has submitted a compilation of methodological standards which can be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011), which is also to be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011).The GES description in Germany refers to species, habitat types and, in part, to physico-chemical characteristics in accordance with Annex III. The answer to the check list on physical/chemical features, habitats, functional groups and pressures was answered in für D1, D4 and D6, with f&r species, habitats and, in some cases, pollution, the category &bergegrade;hle. Für the &brigen descriptors were primarily ticked on the check list. The physical/chemical and biological characteristics are derived from the indicators (COM Decision 2010/477/EU).Classification and assessmentsIn the light of the data available and the number of evaluation procedures already in place or the criteria and indicators already operationalised in the Commission Decision, it is not yet m &ouml in the present first GES report that all the criteria and indicators of the descriptors should describe the specific limits and thresholds or other quantifications f ür to the GES. For the purposes of the MSFD, we therefore consider that: Article 9 refers to existing status assessments. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats and Birds Directives (Habitats and Birds Directives) of the European Union provide important bases for this. In addition, the Regional Convention for the Protection of the Sea (Helsinki-Über Income) is used. As a first step, the existing data collections and evaluation procedures are assigned to the criteria and indicators proposed by the Commission Decision (2010/477/EU), with evaluation facilities and the scaling of the presentation of the results in terms of the structure of the MSFD being brought into a comprehensible and consistent order (Figure 1 of the Baltic Sea GES report). Ges has been reached or GES has not been reached. However, it does not specify how to deal with individual descriptors, criteria and indicators. If a 5-stage assessment system is used according to the WFD classification (see Figure 1? Baltic Sea Ges report), the status &nations from reporting cycle to reporting cycle are clearly visible. A multi-stage assessment system, in addition to the possibility of a pr äzier condition assessment, has the advantage of making &nation trends and thus the success of Ma & Rs easier to identify and communicate. Where assessments of other Directives are taken, their classification is also maintained in the MSFD (e.g. Habitats Directive 3-stage; WFD chemical status 2-stage, WFD &cological status 5-stage).Gem ä ß the requirements of the MSFD must be updated every 6 years (Article 17 of the MSFD). Germany’s task by 2018 is therefore to define the individual criteria and indicators, i.e. corresponding limit and threshold values or trends f&r, to the respective GES f ür, based on procedures to be developed and the extension of the data base, and in coordination with the marine region to be considered in each case. M&gliche Methods für can be found in Krause et al. (2011).Integrated &kological assessmentIn this report, aggregation and integrated assessment have not yet been carried out. The aim must be to increasingly meet the high requirements of the MSFD in the 2018 follow-up evaluation. This requires the correction of existing deficits, the development of missing procedures and the collection of necessary data. In addition, when updating the description of the GES, the &ndernden öcosystemar circumstances, such as climate change and its impact on marine &cosystems and the K&uuml Lifesr&ume, must also be taken into account.

DE_BAL: The GES is determined on the basis of the 11 qualitative descriptors set out in the MSFD, Annex I. Please note that according to M & A; In order to determine the characteristics f ür of good environmental status in a Marine Region or Sub-Region, Member States shall define all qualitative descriptors prüfen in order to identify the descriptors to be used for the determination of good environmental status f ür of the Marine Region or Sub-Region concerned. The German Baltic Sea is considered relevant for all 11 descriptors and is therefore described below. Moreover, the EU Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 (2010/477/EU) über sets out the criteria and methodological standards for establishing the good environmental status of marine waters (COM Decision) f&l;r for a more detailed analysis of the 11 descriptors, 29 criteria and 56 indicators. &criteria & quot; are in accordance with & & Annex I MSFD characteristic technical characteristics closely linked to qualitative descriptors. In addition, the European Commission has submitted a compilation of methodological standards which can be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011), which is also to be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011).The GES description in Germany refers to species, habitat types and, in part, to physico-chemical characteristics in accordance with Annex III. The answer to the check list on physical/chemical features, habitats, functional groups and pressures was answered in für D1, D4 and D6, with f&r species, habitats and, in some cases, pollution, the category &bergegrade;hle. Für the &brigen descriptors were primarily ticked on the check list. The physical/chemical and biological characteristics are derived from the indicators (COM Decision 2010/477/EU).Classification and assessmentsIn the light of the data available and the number of evaluation procedures already in place or the criteria and indicators already operationalised in the Commission Decision, it is not yet m &ouml in the present first GES report that all the criteria and indicators of the descriptors should describe the specific limits and thresholds or other quantifications f ür to the GES. For the purposes of the MSFD, we therefore consider that: Article 9 refers to existing status assessments. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats and Birds Directives (Habitats and Birds Directives) of the European Union provide important bases for this. In addition, the Regional Convention for the Protection of the Sea (Helsinki-Über Income) is used. As a first step, the existing data collections and evaluation procedures are assigned to the criteria and indicators proposed by the Commission Decision (2010/477/EU), with evaluation facilities and the scaling of the presentation of the results in terms of the structure of the MSFD being brought into a comprehensible and consistent order (Figure 1 of the Baltic Sea GES report). Ges has been reached or GES has not been reached. However, it does not specify how to deal with individual descriptors, criteria and indicators. If a 5-stage assessment system is used according to the WFD classification (see Figure 1? Baltic Sea Ges report), the status &nations from reporting cycle to reporting cycle are clearly visible. A multi-stage assessment system, in addition to the possibility of a pr äzier condition assessment, has the advantage of making &nation trends and thus the success of Ma & Rs easier to identify and communicate. Where assessments of other Directives are taken, their classification is also maintained in the MSFD (e.g. Habitats Directive 3-stage; WFD chemical status 2-stage, WFD &cological status 5-stage).Gem ä ß the requirements of the MSFD must be updated every 6 years (Article 17 of the MSFD). Germany’s task by 2018 is therefore to define the individual criteria and indicators, i.e. corresponding limit and threshold values or trends f&r, to the respective GES f ür, based on procedures to be developed and the extension of the data base, and in coordination with the marine region to be considered in each case. M&gliche Methods für can be found in Krause et al. (2011).Integrated &kological assessmentIn this report, aggregation and integrated assessment have not yet been carried out. The aim must be to increasingly meet the high requirements of the MSFD in the 2018 follow-up evaluation. This requires the correction of existing deficits, the development of missing procedures and the collection of necessary data. In addition, when updating the description of the GES, the &ndernden öcosystemar circumstances, such as climate change and its impact on marine &cosystems and the K&uuml Lifesr&ume, must also be taken into account.

DE_BAL: The GES is determined on the basis of the 11 qualitative descriptors set out in the MSFD, Annex I. Please note that according to M & A; In order to determine the characteristics f ür of good environmental status in a Marine Region or Sub-Region, Member States shall define all qualitative descriptors prüfen in order to identify the descriptors to be used for the determination of good environmental status f ür of the Marine Region or Sub-Region concerned. The German Baltic Sea is considered relevant for all 11 descriptors and is therefore described below. Moreover, the EU Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 (2010/477/EU) über sets out the criteria and methodological standards for establishing the good environmental status of marine waters (COM Decision) f&l;r for a more detailed analysis of the 11 descriptors, 29 criteria and 56 indicators. &criteria & quot; are in accordance with & & Annex I MSFD characteristic technical characteristics closely linked to qualitative descriptors. In addition, the European Commission has submitted a compilation of methodological standards which can be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011), which is also to be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011).The GES description in Germany refers to species, habitat types and, in part, to physico-chemical characteristics in accordance with Annex III. The answer to the check list on physical/chemical features, habitats, functional groups and pressures was answered in für D1, D4 and D6, with f&r species, habitats and, in some cases, pollution, the category &bergegrade;hle. Für the &brigen descriptors were primarily ticked on the check list. The physical/chemical and biological characteristics are derived from the indicators (COM Decision 2010/477/EU).Classification and assessmentsIn the light of the data available and the number of evaluation procedures already in place or the criteria and indicators already operationalised in the Commission Decision, it is not yet m &ouml in the present first GES report that all the criteria and indicators of the descriptors should describe the specific limits and thresholds or other quantifications f ür to the GES. For the purposes of the MSFD, we therefore consider that: Article 9 refers to existing status assessments. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats and Birds Directives (Habitats and Birds Directives) of the European Union provide important bases for this. In addition, the Regional Convention for the Protection of the Sea (Helsinki-Über Income) is used. As a first step, the existing data collections and evaluation procedures are assigned to the criteria and indicators proposed by the Commission Decision (2010/477/EU), with evaluation facilities and the scaling of the presentation of the results in terms of the structure of the MSFD being brought into a comprehensible and consistent order (Figure 1 of the Baltic Sea GES report). Ges has been reached or GES has not been reached. However, it does not specify how to deal with individual descriptors, criteria and indicators. If a 5-stage assessment system is used according to the WFD classification (see Figure 1? Baltic Sea Ges report), the status &nations from reporting cycle to reporting cycle are clearly visible. A multi-stage assessment system, in addition to the possibility of a pr äzier condition assessment, has the advantage of making &nation trends and thus the success of Ma & Rs easier to identify and communicate. Where assessments of other Directives are taken, their classification is also maintained in the MSFD (e.g. Habitats Directive 3-stage; WFD chemical status 2-stage, WFD &cological status 5-stage).Gem ä ß the requirements of the MSFD must be updated every 6 years (Article 17 of the MSFD). Germany’s task by 2018 is therefore to define the individual criteria and indicators, i.e. corresponding limit and threshold values or trends f&r, to the respective GES f ür, based on procedures to be developed and the extension of the data base, and in coordination with the marine region to be considered in each case. M&gliche Methods für can be found in Krause et al. (2011).Integrated &kological assessmentIn this report, aggregation and integrated assessment have not yet been carried out. The aim must be to increasingly meet the high requirements of the MSFD in the 2018 follow-up evaluation. This requires the correction of existing deficits, the development of missing procedures and the collection of necessary data. In addition, when updating the description of the GES, the &ndernden öcosystemar circumstances, such as climate change and its impact on marine &cosystems and the K&uuml Lifesr&ume, must also be taken into account.

DE_BAL: The GES is determined on the basis of the 11 qualitative descriptors set out in the MSFD, Annex I. Please note that according to M & A; In order to determine the characteristics f ür of good environmental status in a Marine Region or Sub-Region, Member States shall define all qualitative descriptors prüfen in order to identify the descriptors to be used for the determination of good environmental status f ür of the Marine Region or Sub-Region concerned. The German Baltic Sea is considered relevant for all 11 descriptors and is therefore described below. Moreover, the EU Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 (2010/477/EU) über sets out the criteria and methodological standards for establishing the good environmental status of marine waters (COM Decision) f&l;r for a more detailed analysis of the 11 descriptors, 29 criteria and 56 indicators. &criteria & quot; are in accordance with & & Annex I MSFD characteristic technical characteristics closely linked to qualitative descriptors. In addition, the European Commission has submitted a compilation of methodological standards which can be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011), which is also to be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011).The GES description in Germany refers to species, habitat types and, in part, to physico-chemical characteristics in accordance with Annex III. The answer to the check list on physical/chemical features, habitats, functional groups and pressures was answered in für D1, D4 and D6, with f&r species, habitats and, in some cases, pollution, the category &bergegrade;hle. Für the &brigen descriptors were primarily ticked on the check list. The physical/chemical and biological characteristics are derived from the indicators (COM Decision 2010/477/EU).Classification and assessmentsIn the light of the data available and the number of evaluation procedures already in place or the criteria and indicators already operationalised in the Commission Decision, it is not yet m &ouml in the present first GES report that all the criteria and indicators of the descriptors should describe the specific limits and thresholds or other quantifications f ür to the GES. For the purposes of the MSFD, we therefore consider that: Article 9 refers to existing status assessments. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats and Birds Directives (Habitats and Birds Directives) of the European Union provide important bases for this. In addition, the Regional Convention for the Protection of the Sea (Helsinki-Über Income) is used. As a first step, the existing data collections and evaluation procedures are assigned to the criteria and indicators proposed by the Commission Decision (2010/477/EU), with evaluation facilities and the scaling of the presentation of the results in terms of the structure of the MSFD being brought into a comprehensible and consistent order (Figure 1 of the Baltic Sea GES report). Ges has been reached or GES has not been reached. However, it does not specify how to deal with individual descriptors, criteria and indicators. If a 5-stage assessment system is used according to the WFD classification (see Figure 1? Baltic Sea Ges report), the status &nations from reporting cycle to reporting cycle are clearly visible. A multi-stage assessment system, in addition to the possibility of a pr äzier condition assessment, has the advantage of making &nation trends and thus the success of Ma & Rs easier to identify and communicate. Where assessments of other Directives are taken, their classification is also maintained in the MSFD (e.g. Habitats Directive 3-stage; WFD chemical status 2-stage, WFD &cological status 5-stage).Gem ä ß the requirements of the MSFD must be updated every 6 years (Article 17 of the MSFD). Germany’s task by 2018 is therefore to define the individual criteria and indicators, i.e. corresponding limit and threshold values or trends f&r, to the respective GES f ür, based on procedures to be developed and the extension of the data base, and in coordination with the marine region to be considered in each case. M&gliche Methods für can be found in Krause et al. (2011).Integrated &kological assessmentIn this report, aggregation and integrated assessment have not yet been carried out. The aim must be to increasingly meet the high requirements of the MSFD in the 2018 follow-up evaluation. This requires the correction of existing deficits, the development of missing procedures and the collection of necessary data. In addition, when updating the description of the GES, the &ndernden öcosystemar circumstances, such as climate change and its impact on marine &cosystems and the K&uuml Lifesr&ume, must also be taken into account.

DE_BAL: The GES is determined on the basis of the 11 qualitative descriptors set out in the MSFD, Annex I. Please note that according to M & A; In order to determine the characteristics f ür of good environmental status in a Marine Region or Sub-Region, Member States shall define all qualitative descriptors prüfen in order to identify the descriptors to be used for the determination of good environmental status f ür of the Marine Region or Sub-Region concerned. The German Baltic Sea is considered relevant for all 11 descriptors and is therefore described below. Moreover, the EU Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 (2010/477/EU) über sets out the criteria and methodological standards for establishing the good environmental status of marine waters (COM Decision) f&l;r for a more detailed analysis of the 11 descriptors, 29 criteria and 56 indicators. &criteria & quot; are in accordance with & & Annex I MSFD characteristic technical characteristics closely linked to qualitative descriptors. In addition, the European Commission has submitted a compilation of methodological standards which can be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011), which is also to be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011).The GES description in Germany refers to species, habitat types and, in part, to physico-chemical characteristics in accordance with Annex III. The answer to the check list on physical/chemical features, habitats, functional groups and pressures was answered in für D1, D4 and D6, with f&r species, habitats and, in some cases, pollution, the category &bergegrade;hle. Für the &brigen descriptors were primarily ticked on the check list. The physical/chemical and biological characteristics are derived from the indicators (COM Decision 2010/477/EU).Classification and assessmentsIn the light of the data available and the number of evaluation procedures already in place or the criteria and indicators already operationalised in the Commission Decision, it is not yet m &ouml in the present first GES report that all the criteria and indicators of the descriptors should describe the specific limits and thresholds or other quantifications f ür to the GES. For the purposes of the MSFD, we therefore consider that: Article 9 refers to existing status assessments. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats and Birds Directives (Habitats and Birds Directives) of the European Union provide important bases for this. In addition, the Regional Convention for the Protection of the Sea (Helsinki-Über Income) is used. As a first step, the existing data collections and evaluation procedures are assigned to the criteria and indicators proposed by the Commission Decision (2010/477/EU), with evaluation facilities and the scaling of the presentation of the results in terms of the structure of the MSFD being brought into a comprehensible and consistent order (Figure 1 of the Baltic Sea GES report). Ges has been reached or GES has not been reached. However, it does not specify how to deal with individual descriptors, criteria and indicators. If a 5-stage assessment system is used according to the WFD classification (see Figure 1? Baltic Sea Ges report), the status &nations from reporting cycle to reporting cycle are clearly visible. A multi-stage assessment system, in addition to the possibility of a pr äzier condition assessment, has the advantage of making &nation trends and thus the success of Ma & Rs easier to identify and communicate. Where assessments of other Directives are taken, their classification is also maintained in the MSFD (e.g. Habitats Directive 3-stage; WFD chemical status 2-stage, WFD &cological status 5-stage).Gem ä ß the requirements of the MSFD must be updated every 6 years (Article 17 of the MSFD). Germany’s task by 2018 is therefore to define the individual criteria and indicators, i.e. corresponding limit and threshold values or trends f&r, to the respective GES f ür, based on procedures to be developed and the extension of the data base, and in coordination with the marine region to be considered in each case. M&gliche Methods für can be found in Krause et al. (2011).Integrated &kological assessmentIn this report, aggregation and integrated assessment have not yet been carried out. The aim must be to increasingly meet the high requirements of the MSFD in the 2018 follow-up evaluation. This requires the correction of existing deficits, the development of missing procedures and the collection of necessary data. In addition, when updating the description of the GES, the &ndernden öcosystemar circumstances, such as climate change and its impact on marine &cosystems and the K&uuml Lifesr&ume, must also be taken into account.

DE_BAL: The GES is determined on the basis of the 11 qualitative descriptors set out in the MSFD, Annex I. Please note that according to M & A; In order to determine the characteristics f ür of good environmental status in a Marine Region or Sub-Region, Member States shall define all qualitative descriptors prüfen in order to identify the descriptors to be used for the determination of good environmental status f ür of the Marine Region or Sub-Region concerned. The German Baltic Sea is considered relevant for all 11 descriptors and is therefore described below. Moreover, the EU Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 (2010/477/EU) über sets out the criteria and methodological standards for establishing the good environmental status of marine waters (COM Decision) f&l;r for a more detailed analysis of the 11 descriptors, 29 criteria and 56 indicators. &criteria & quot; are in accordance with & & Annex I MSFD characteristic technical characteristics closely linked to qualitative descriptors. In addition, the European Commission has submitted a compilation of methodological standards which can be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011), which is also to be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011).The GES description in Germany refers to species, habitat types and, in part, to physico-chemical characteristics in accordance with Annex III. The answer to the check list on physical/chemical features, habitats, functional groups and pressures was answered in für D1, D4 and D6, with f&r species, habitats and, in some cases, pollution, the category &bergegrade;hle. Für the &brigen descriptors were primarily ticked on the check list. The physical/chemical and biological characteristics are derived from the indicators (COM Decision 2010/477/EU).Classification and assessmentsIn the light of the data available and the number of evaluation procedures already in place or the criteria and indicators already operationalised in the Commission Decision, it is not yet m &ouml in the present first GES report that all the criteria and indicators of the descriptors should describe the specific limits and thresholds or other quantifications f ür to the GES. For the purposes of the MSFD, we therefore consider that: Article 9 refers to existing status assessments. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats and Birds Directives (Habitats and Birds Directives) of the European Union provide important bases for this. In addition, the Regional Convention for the Protection of the Sea (Helsinki-Über Income) is used. As a first step, the existing data collections and evaluation procedures are assigned to the criteria and indicators proposed by the Commission Decision (2010/477/EU), with evaluation facilities and the scaling of the presentation of the results in terms of the structure of the MSFD being brought into a comprehensible and consistent order (Figure 1 of the Baltic Sea GES report). Ges has been reached or GES has not been reached. However, it does not specify how to deal with individual descriptors, criteria and indicators. If a 5-stage assessment system is used according to the WFD classification (see Figure 1? Baltic Sea Ges report), the status &nations from reporting cycle to reporting cycle are clearly visible. A multi-stage assessment system, in addition to the possibility of a pr äzier condition assessment, has the advantage of making &nation trends and thus the success of Ma & Rs easier to identify and communicate. Where assessments of other Directives are taken, their classification is also maintained in the MSFD (e.g. Habitats Directive 3-stage; WFD chemical status 2-stage, WFD &cological status 5-stage).Gem ä ß the requirements of the MSFD must be updated every 6 years (Article 17 of the MSFD). Germany’s task by 2018 is therefore to define the individual criteria and indicators, i.e. corresponding limit and threshold values or trends f&r, to the respective GES f ür, based on procedures to be developed and the extension of the data base, and in coordination with the marine region to be considered in each case. M&gliche Methods für can be found in Krause et al. (2011).Integrated &kological assessmentIn this report, aggregation and integrated assessment have not yet been carried out. The aim must be to increasingly meet the high requirements of the MSFD in the 2018 follow-up evaluation. This requires the correction of existing deficits, the development of missing procedures and the collection of necessary data. In addition, when updating the description of the GES, the &ndernden öcosystemar circumstances, such as climate change and its impact on marine &cosystems and the K&uuml Lifesr&ume, must also be taken into account.

DE_BAL: The GES is determined on the basis of the 11 qualitative descriptors set out in the MSFD, Annex I. Please note that according to M & A; In order to determine the characteristics f ür of good environmental status in a Marine Region or Sub-Region, Member States shall define all qualitative descriptors prüfen in order to identify the descriptors to be used for the determination of good environmental status f ür of the Marine Region or Sub-Region concerned. The German Baltic Sea is considered relevant for all 11 descriptors and is therefore described below. Moreover, the EU Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 (2010/477/EU) über sets out the criteria and methodological standards for establishing the good environmental status of marine waters (COM Decision) f&l;r for a more detailed analysis of the 11 descriptors, 29 criteria and 56 indicators. &criteria & quot; are in accordance with & & Annex I MSFD characteristic technical characteristics closely linked to qualitative descriptors. In addition, the European Commission has submitted a compilation of methodological standards which can be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011), which is also to be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011).The GES description in Germany refers to species, habitat types and, in part, to physico-chemical characteristics in accordance with Annex III. The answer to the check list on physical/chemical features, habitats, functional groups and pressures was answered in für D1, D4 and D6, with f&r species, habitats and, in some cases, pollution, the category &bergegrade;hle. Für the &brigen descriptors were primarily ticked on the check list. The physical/chemical and biological characteristics are derived from the indicators (COM Decision 2010/477/EU).Classification and assessmentsIn the light of the data available and the number of evaluation procedures already in place or the criteria and indicators already operationalised in the Commission Decision, it is not yet m &ouml in the present first GES report that all the criteria and indicators of the descriptors should describe the specific limits and thresholds or other quantifications f ür to the GES. For the purposes of the MSFD, we therefore consider that: Article 9 refers to existing status assessments. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats and Birds Directives (Habitats and Birds Directives) of the European Union provide important bases for this. In addition, the Regional Convention for the Protection of the Sea (Helsinki-Über Income) is used. As a first step, the existing data collections and evaluation procedures are assigned to the criteria and indicators proposed by the Commission Decision (2010/477/EU), with evaluation facilities and the scaling of the presentation of the results in terms of the structure of the MSFD being brought into a comprehensible and consistent order (Figure 1 of the Baltic Sea GES report). Ges has been reached or GES has not been reached. However, it does not specify how to deal with individual descriptors, criteria and indicators. If a 5-stage assessment system is used according to the WFD classification (see Figure 1? Baltic Sea Ges report), the status &nations from reporting cycle to reporting cycle are clearly visible. A multi-stage assessment system, in addition to the possibility of a pr äzier condition assessment, has the advantage of making &nation trends and thus the success of Ma & Rs easier to identify and communicate. Where assessments of other Directives are taken, their classification is also maintained in the MSFD (e.g. Habitats Directive 3-stage; WFD chemical status 2-stage, WFD &cological status 5-stage).Gem ä ß the requirements of the MSFD must be updated every 6 years (Article 17 of the MSFD). Germany’s task by 2018 is therefore to define the individual criteria and indicators, i.e. corresponding limit and threshold values or trends f&r, to the respective GES f ür, based on procedures to be developed and the extension of the data base, and in coordination with the marine region to be considered in each case. M&gliche Methods für can be found in Krause et al. (2011).Integrated &kological assessmentIn this report, aggregation and integrated assessment have not yet been carried out. The aim must be to increasingly meet the high requirements of the MSFD in the 2018 follow-up evaluation. This requires the correction of existing deficits, the development of missing procedures and the collection of necessary data. In addition, when updating the description of the GES, the &ndernden öcosystemar circumstances, such as climate change and its impact on marine &cosystems and the K&uuml Lifesr&ume, must also be taken into account.

DE_BAL: The GES is determined on the basis of the 11 qualitative descriptors set out in the MSFD, Annex I. Please note that according to M & A; In order to determine the characteristics f ür of good environmental status in a Marine Region or Sub-Region, Member States shall define all qualitative descriptors prüfen in order to identify the descriptors to be used for the determination of good environmental status f ür of the Marine Region or Sub-Region concerned. The German Baltic Sea is considered relevant for all 11 descriptors and is therefore described below. Moreover, the EU Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 (2010/477/EU) über sets out the criteria and methodological standards for establishing the good environmental status of marine waters (COM Decision) f&l;r for a more detailed analysis of the 11 descriptors, 29 criteria and 56 indicators. &criteria & quot; are in accordance with & & Annex I MSFD characteristic technical characteristics closely linked to qualitative descriptors. In addition, the European Commission has submitted a compilation of methodological standards which can be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011), which is also to be used as a basis for the description of the GES (Piha and Zampouhas, 2011).The GES description in Germany refers to species, habitat types and, in part, to physico-chemical characteristics in accordance with Annex III. The answer to the check list on physical/chemical features, habitats, functional groups and pressures was answered in für D1, D4 and D6, with f&r species, habitats and, in some cases, pollution, the category &bergegrade;hle. Für the &brigen descriptors were primarily ticked on the check list. The physical/chemical and biological characteristics are derived from the indicators (COM Decision 2010/477/EU).Classification and assessmentsIn the light of the data available and the number of evaluation procedures already in place or the criteria and indicators already operationalised in the Commission Decision, it is not yet m &ouml in the present first GES report that all the criteria and indicators of the descriptors should describe the specific limits and thresholds or other quantifications f ür to the GES. For the purposes of the MSFD, we therefore consider that: Article 9 refers to existing status assessments. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats and Birds Directives (Habitats and Birds Directives) of the European Union provide important bases for this. In addition, the Regional Convention for the Protection of the Sea (Helsinki-Über Income) is used. As a first step, the existing data collections and evaluation procedures are assigned to the criteria and indicators proposed by the Commission Decision (2010/477/EU), with evaluation facilities and the scaling of the presentation of the results in terms of the structure of the MSFD being brought into a comprehensible and consistent order (Figure 1 of the Baltic Sea GES report). Ges has been reached or GES has not been reached. However, it does not specify how to deal with individual descriptors, criteria and indicators. If a 5-stage assessment system is used according to the WFD classification (see Figure 1? Baltic Sea Ges report), the status &nations from reporting cycle to reporting cycle are clearly visible. A multi-stage assessment system, in addition to the possibility of a pr äzier condition assessment, has the advantage of making &nation trends and thus the success of Ma & Rs easier to identify and communicate. Where assessments of other Directives are taken, their classification is also maintained in the MSFD (e.g. Habitats Directive 3-stage; WFD chemical status 2-stage, WFD &cological status 5-stage).Gem ä ß the requirements of the MSFD must be updated every 6 years (Article 17 of the MSFD). Germany’s task by 2018 is therefore to define the individual criteria and indicators, i.e. corresponding limit and threshold values or trends f&r, to the respective GES f ür, based on procedures to be developed and the extension of the data base, and in coordination with the marine region to be considered in each case. M&gliche Methods für can be found in Krause et al. (2011).Integrated &kological assessmentIn this report, aggregation and integrated assessment have not yet been carried out. The aim must be to increasingly meet the high requirements of the MSFD in the 2018 follow-up evaluation. This requires the correction of existing deficits, the development of missing procedures and the collection of necessary data. In addition, when updating the description of the GES, the &ndernden öcosystemar circumstances, such as climate change and its impact on marine &cosystems and the K&uuml Lifesr&ume, must also be taken into account.

Der gute Umweltzustand für den Deskriptor "Zustand kommerzieller Fisch- und Schalentierbestände" ist erreicht, wenn für alle kommerziell befischten Fisch- und Schalentierpopulationen der Ostsee die fischereiliche Sterblichkeit nicht größer ist als der entsprechende Zielwert (Fmsy), die Laicherbiomasse (SSB) über BMSY-trigger liegt, und die Bestände befischter Arten eine Alters- und Größenstruktur aufweisen, in der alle Alters- und Größenklassen weiterhin und in Annäherung an natürliche Verhältnisse vertreten sind.Die bestehenden und auf die MSRL zu übertragenden Definitionen sind in Anlage 3 des GES Berichtes Ostsee den jeweiligen Kriterien und Indikatoren des KOM-Beschlusses zugeordnet.

Ein guter Umweltzustand ist erreicht, wenn für alle kommerziell befischten Fischbestände, die in deutschen Ostseegebieten vorkommen, die fischereiliche Sterblichkeit (F) geringer ist als der entsprechende Referenzwert (FMSY). Mögliche Grundlage zur Beschreibung des guten Umweltzustands ist der ICES Advice (http://www.ices.dk/advice/icesadvice.asp)Primärindikator zur Feststellung des Fischereidrucks ist die fischereiliche Sterblichkeit (F). Sie ist ein Maß für die fischereiliche Nutzung einer Population. FMSY ist der Zielwert für das Bestandsmanagement. Er soll eine nachhaltige Bewirtschaftung und Populationsentwicklung erlauben. Bei Einhaltung dieser Werte ist eine nachhaltige Bestandsentwicklung mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit gesichert.

Ein entsprechender F-Wert fehlt jedoch für einige kommerziell gefischte Arten z.B. aufgrund nicht verfügbarer analytischer Bestandsabschätzungen. Für diese Gruppe der kommerziell genutzten Arten (ohne Vorsorgereferenzwert & MSY für F) soll daher der Sekundärindikator Fang-Biomasse-Quotient, also das Verhältnis von Fangmenge zu Biomasse angewandt werden. Die für den sekundären Indikator fehlenden Referenzwerte werden derzeit entwickelt.

Der gute Umweltzustand ist dann erreicht, wenn die Laicherbiomasse über diesen Schwellenwert liegt (SSB > BMSY-trigger). Mögliche Grundlage zur Beschreibung des guten Umweltzustands ist der ICES Advice (http://www.ices.dk/advice/icesadvice.asp)Primärindikator für die Reproduktionskapazität des Bestandes ist die Biomasse des Laicherbestands (Spawning Stock Biomass, SSB). Der ICES entwickelt auch für die Laicherbiomasse Vorsorgereferenzwerte, so dass bei den Beständen, die nicht nach dem MSY-Ansatz genutzt werden, ein guter Umweltzustand erreicht ist, wenn die Laicherbiomasse (Spawning Stock Biomass, SSB) größer als der Vorsorge-Referenzwert für die Laicherbiomasse (Bpa) ist. Bei den Beständen, die nach dem MSY-Ansatz bewirtschaftet werden, wird kein Referenzwert für SSB festgelegt. Dieser wird durch einen Schwellenwert (BMSY-trigger) ersetzt.

For those stocks that lack analytical stock assessments to determine the SSB, a biomass index is proposed as a secondary indicator. The reference values missing for the biomass index are currently being developed.

Primärindikatoren für die Bestandsstruktur sind der Anteil von Fischen oberhalb der Durchschnittsgröße bei Eintritt der Geschlechtsreife, die durchschnittliche Höchstlänge aller auf Fischereiforschungsfahrten gefangenen Arten, sowie das 95 % Perzentil der bei Fischereiforschungsfahrten beobachteten Längenverteilung. Sekundärindikator (bei fehlendem Primärindikator aufgrund unzureichender Datenlage) ist die durchschnittliche Größe bei Eintritt der Geschlechtsreife. Ein guter Umweltzustand ist erreicht, wenn die Bestände eine breite Alters- und Größenstruktur aufweisen. Genauere Referenzwerte für die Indikatoren 3.3.1 bis 3.3.4 des KOM-Beschlusses sind artspezifisch und werden derzeit erarbeitet.

Primärindikatoren für die Bestandsstruktur sind der Anteil von Fischen oberhalb der Durchschnittsgröße bei Eintritt der Geschlechtsreife, die durchschnittliche Höchstlänge aller auf Fischereiforschungsfahrten gefangenen Arten, sowie das 95 % Perzentil der bei Fischereiforschungsfahrten beobachteten Längenverteilung. Sekundärindikator (bei fehlendem Primärindikator aufgrund unzureichender Datenlage) ist die durchschnittliche Größe bei Eintritt der Geschlechtsreife. Ein guter Umweltzustand ist erreicht, wenn die Bestände eine breite Alters- und Größenstruktur aufweisen. Genauere Referenzwerte für die Indikatoren 3.3.1 bis 3.3.4 des KOM-Beschlusses sind artspezifisch und werden derzeit erarbeitet.

Primärindikatoren für die Bestandsstruktur sind der Anteil von Fischen oberhalb der Durchschnittsgröße bei Eintritt der Geschlechtsreife, die durchschnittliche Höchstlänge aller auf Fischereiforschungsfahrten gefangenen Arten, sowie das 95 % Perzentil der bei Fischereiforschungsfahrten beobachteten Längenverteilung. Sekundärindikator (bei fehlendem Primärindikator aufgrund unzureichender Datenlage) ist die durchschnittliche Größe bei Eintritt der Geschlechtsreife. Ein guter Umweltzustand ist erreicht, wenn die Bestände eine breite Alters- und Größenstruktur aufweisen. Genauere Referenzwerte für die Indikatoren 3.3.1 bis 3.3.4 des KOM-Beschlusses sind artspezifisch und werden derzeit erarbeitet.

Primärindikatoren für die Bestandsstruktur sind der Anteil von Fischen oberhalb der Durchschnittsgröße bei Eintritt der Geschlechtsreife, die durchschnittliche Höchstlänge aller auf Fischereiforschungsfahrten gefangenen Arten, sowie das 95 % Perzentil der bei Fischereiforschungsfahrten beobachteten Längenverteilung. Sekundärindikator (bei fehlendem Primärindikator aufgrund unzureichender Datenlage) ist die durchschnittliche Größe bei Eintritt der Geschlechtsreife. Ein guter Umweltzustand ist erreicht, wenn die Bestände eine breite Alters- und Größenstruktur aufweisen. Genauere Referenzwerte für die Indikatoren 3.3.1 bis 3.3.4 des KOM-Beschlusses sind artspezifisch und werden derzeit erarbeitet.

S. Indicator level

Thresholds are currently being developed

Thresholds are currently being developed

Thresholds are currently being developed

Thresholds are currently being developed

Thresholds are currently being developed

Thresholds are currently being developed

S. Indicator level

None

Thresholds are currently being developed

None

Thresholds are currently being developed

Thresholds are currently being developed

Thresholds are currently being developed

Thresholds are currently being developed

Thresholds are currently being developed

Da in der Ostsee fast alle kommerziell genutzten Bestände sich über die Meeresgebiete mehrerer Mitgliedstaaten erstrecken und auch das Fischereimanagement international durch die Gemeinsame Fischereipolitik der EU (GFP) geregelt ist, existiert für die Ostsee auch ein international etabliertes Konzept für die Bewertung und Nutzung dieser Fischbestände. Die vom ICES durchgeführten Bewertungen liefern als Ergebnisse Angaben zur Bestandsbiomasse (SSB) und der fischereiinduzierten Mortalität (fischereiliche Sterblichkeit F). Für beide Indikatoren hat der ICES Referenzwerte festgelegt. Bis 2015 stellt der ICES das bisherige Konzept des Vorsorgeansatzes (PA) auf den Ansatz des maximalen Dauerertrags (MSY) um. Das MSY Konzept sieht vor, dass die Bewirtschaftung lebender Meeresressourcen so erfolgt, dass der Ertrag (hier also die Fangmenge) langfristig so optimiert wird, dass die Bestände auf einem möglichst hohen Niveau genutzt werden können, ohne die zukünftigen Ertragsmöglichkeiten und die Fortpflanzungsfähigkeit der Bestände zu gefährden. Während der Vorsorgeansatz einen "Sicherheitspuffer" für den Erhalt des Laicherbestands (Nachwuchsüberfischung) darstellt, strebt der MSY-Ansatz eine Nutzungsrate an, welche die Populationsgröße mit dem größten Nachwuchspotential sichert. Hierfür werden Zielreferenzwerte für die fischereiliche Sterblichkeit (Fmsy) basierend auf Biomassereferenzwerten (Bmsy-trigger) entwickelt. Bmsy-trigger stellt die untere Grenze des Schwankungsbereichs um Bmsy dar und dient als Auslöser ("trigger") für vorsorgendes Handeln, um die Bestände innerhalb sicherer biologischer Grenzen zu halten.Neben Angaben zur Laicherbiomasse und der fischereilichen Sterblichkeit müssen Erhebungen über die Alters- und Größenstruktur eines Bestands erfolgen, um die Bestände sichern zu können. Diese Erhebungen erfolgen auf regionaler und internationaler Ebene über die Datenerhebungsprogramme der EU (DFC Verordnung 199/2008). Die erfassten Daten werden dann von ICES-Arbeitsgruppen für das Assessment der Bestände und die Abgabe von Empfehlungen für Fangmengen genutzt, und an die EU weitergegeben. Auf der Basis dieses etablierten Konzepts können für einen Großteil der kommerziell genutzten Fischarten Sollwerte für Indikatoren festgelegt und damit der gute Umweltzustand nach MSRL beschrieben werden.

Die vom ICES durchgeführten Bewertungen liefern als Ergebnisse Angaben zur Bestandsbiomasse (SSB) und der fischereiinduzierten Mortalität (fischereiliche Sterblichkeit F). Für beide Indikatoren hat der ICES Referenzwerte festgelegt. Bis 2015 stellt der ICES das bisherige Konzept des Vorsorgeansatzes (PA) auf den Ansatz des maximalen Dauerertrags (MSY) um. Das MSY Konzept sieht vor, dass die Bewirtschaftung lebender Meeresressourcen so erfolgt, dass der Ertrag (hier also die Fangmenge) langfristig so optimiert wird, dass die Bestände auf einem möglichst hohen Niveau genutzt werden können, ohne die zukünftigen Ertragsmöglichkeiten und die Fortpflanzungsfähigkeit der Bestände zu gefährden. Während der Vorsorgeansatz einen "Sicherheitspuffer" für den Erhalt des Laicherbestands (Nachwuchsüberfischung) darstellt, strebt der MSY-Ansatz eine Nutzungsrate an, welche die Populationsgröße mit dem größten Nachwuchspotential sichert. Hierfür werden Zielreferenzwerte für die fischereiliche Sterblichkeit (FMSY) basierend auf Biomassereferenzwerten (BMSY-trigger) entwickelt. BMSY-trigger stellt die untere Grenze des Schwankungsbereichs um BMSY dar und dient als Auslöser ("trigger")für vorsorgendes Handeln, um die Bestände innerhalb sicherer biologischer Grenzen zu halten.

The reference values missing for the secondary indicator are currently being developed.

Die vom ICES durchgeführten Bewertungen liefern als Ergebnisse Angaben zur Bestandsbiomasse (SSB) und der fischereiinduzierten Mortalität (fischereiliche Sterblichkeit F). Für beide Indikatoren hat der ICES Referenzwerte festgelegt. Bis 2015 stellt der ICES das bisherige Konzept des Vorsorgeansatzes (PA) auf den Ansatz des maximalen Dauerertrags (MSY) um. Das MSY Konzept sieht vor, dass die Bewirtschaftung lebender Meeresressourcen so erfolgt, dass der Ertrag (hier also die Fangmenge) langfristig so optimiert wird, dass die Bestände auf einem möglichst hohen Niveau genutzt werden können, ohne die zukünftigen Ertragsmöglichkeiten und die Fortpflanzungsfähigkeit der Bestände zu gefährden. Während der Vorsorgeansatz einen "Sicherheitspuffer" für den Erhalt des Laicherbestands (Nachwuchsüberfischung) darstellt, strebt der MSY-Ansatz eine Nutzungsrate an, welche die Populationsgröße mit dem größten Nachwuchspotential sichert. Hierfür werden Zielreferenzwerte für die fischereiliche Sterblichkeit (FMSY) basierend auf Biomassereferenzwerten (BMSY-trigger) entwickelt. BMSY-trigger stellt die untere Grenze des Schwankungsbereichs um BMSY dar und dient als Auslöser ("trigger") für vorsorgendes Handeln, um die Bestände innerhalb sicherer biologischer Grenzen zu halten.

The reference values missing for the secondary indicator are currently being developed.

Precise reference values for indicators 3.3.1 to 3.3.4 of the COM decision are species-specific and are currently being developed.

Precise reference values for indicators 3.3.1 to 3.3.4 of the COM decision are species-specific and are currently being developed.

Precise reference values for indicators 3.3.1 to 3.3.4 of the COM decision are species-specific and are currently being developed.

Precise reference values for indicators 3.3.1 to 3.3.4 of the COM decision are species-specific and are currently being developed.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).Bis 2015 stellt der ICES das bisherige Konzept des Vorsorgeansatzes (PA) auf den Ansatz des maximalen Dauerertrags (MSY) um. Das MSY Konzept sieht vor, dass die Bewirtschaftung lebender Meeresressourcen so erfolgt, dass der Ertrag (hier also die Fangmenge) langfristig so optimiert wird, dass die Bestände auf einem möglichst hohen Niveau genutzt werden können, ohne die zukünftigen Ertragsmöglichkeiten und die Fortpflanzungsfähigkeit der Bestände zu gefährden. Während der Vorsorgeansatz einen "Sicherheitspuffer" für den Erhalt des Laicherbestands (Nachwuchsüberfischung) darstellt, strebt der MSY-Ansatz eine Nutzungsrate an, welche die Populationsgröße mit dem größten Nachwuchspotential sichert. Hierfür werden Zielreferenzwerte für die fischereiliche Sterblichkeit (FMSY) basierend auf Biomassereferenzwerten (Bmsy-trigger) entwickelt. Bmsy-trigger stellt die untere Grenze des Schwankungsbereichs um Bmsy dar und dient als Auslöser ("trigger") für vorsorgendes Handeln, um die Bestände innerhalb sicherer biologischer Grenzen zu halten.Es wird angestrebt, auf dem Weg hin zu den Monitoringprogrammen in 2014 und den Maßnahmenprogrammen in 2015 detaillierte Lückenanalysen, Konkretisierungen von Indikatoren und Quantifizierungen von Referenz- und Schwellenwerten sowie von Umweltzielen vorzunehmen und sonstige offene Aspekte wie z.B. zu Bewertungsverfahren zu bearbeiten, um den Anforderungen der MSRL ab dem nächsten Berichtszyklus zunehmend gerecht zu werden.

Indikator ist z.T. operationell (2012). Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018 if adopted).Bis 2015 stellt der ICES das bisherige Konzept des Vorsorgeansatzes (PA) auf den Ansatz des maximalen Dauerertrags (MSY) um. Das MSY Konzept sieht vor, dass die Bewirtschaftung lebender Meeresressourcen so erfolgt, dass der Ertrag (hier also die Fangmenge) langfristig so optimiert wird, dass die Bestände auf einem möglichst hohen Niveau genutzt werden können, ohne die zukünftigen Ertragsmöglichkeiten und die Fortpflanzungsfähigkeit der Bestände zu gefährden. Während der Vorsorgeansatz einen "Sicherheitspuffer" für den Erhalt des Laicherbestands (Nachwuchsüberfischung) darstellt, strebt der MSY-Ansatz eine Nutzungsrate an, welche die Populationsgröße mit dem größten Nachwuchspotential sichert. Hierfür werden Zielreferenzwerte für die fischereiliche Sterblichkeit (FMSY) basierend auf Biomassereferenzwerten (BMSY-trigger) entwickelt. BMSY-trigger stellt die untere Grenze des Schwankungsbereichs um BMSY dar und dient als Auslöser ("trigger") für vorsorgendes Handeln, um die Bestände innerhalb sicherer biologischer Grenzen zu halten.Ein entsprechender F-Wert fehlt jedoch für einige kommerziell gefischte Arten z.B. aufgrund nicht verfügbarer analytischer Bestandsabschätzungen. Für diese Gruppe der kommerziell genutzten Arten (ohne Vorsorgereferenzwert & MSY für F) soll daher der Sekundärindikator Fang-Biomasse-Quotient, also das Verhältnis von Fangmenge zu Biomasse angewandt werden. Die für den sekundären Indikator fehlenden Referenzwerte werden derzeit entwickelt. Es wird angestrebt, auf dem Weg hin zu den Monitoringprogrammen in 2014 und den Maßnahmenprogrammen in 2015 detaillierte Lückenanalysen, Konkretisierungen von Indikatoren und Quantifizierungen von Referenz- und Schwellenwerten sowie von Umweltzielen vorzunehmen und sonstige offene Aspekte wie z.B. zu Bewertungsverfahren zu bearbeiten, um den Anforderungen der MSRL ab dem nächsten Berichtszyklus zunehmend gerecht zu werden.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).Die für den sekundären Indikator fehlenden Referenzwerte werden derzeit entwickelt. Mögliche Grundlage zur Beschreibung des guten Umweltzustands sind Internationale Anlandungen sowie Gesamtentnahme für einzelne Bestände (ICES Advice; http://www.ices.dk/advice/icesadvice.asp; Daten zu Beifängen aus Daten des EU-Datensammelprogrammes (DCF), Council Regulation, 2008), Baltic International Trawl Survey (Deutsche Forschungsschiffe erfassen Abundanz und Gewicht aller gefangenen Arten, ICES, 2010a); Baltic International Acoustic Survey (Clupeidae; ICES, 2010b)Mögliche GES Definitionen finden sich in Anlage 3 des GES-Berichts Ostsee, z.B. Trend des Fang/Biomasse Quotienten aus kommerziellen Anlande- und Surveydaten in EntwicklungEs wird angestrebt, auf dem Weg hin zu den Monitoringprogrammen in 2014 und den Maßnahmenprogrammen in 2015 detaillierte Lückenanalysen, Konkretisierungen von Indikatoren und Quantifizierungen von Referenz- und Schwellenwerten sowie von Umweltzielen vorzunehmen und sonstige offene Aspekte wie z.B. zu Bewertungsverfahren zu bearbeiten, um den Anforderungen der MSRL ab dem nächsten Berichtszyklus zunehmend gerecht zu werden.

The indicator is partly operational (2012). Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018 if adopted). By 2015, ICES will convert the previous concept of the precautionary approach (PA) to the maximum permanent income (MSY) approach. The MSY concept stipulates that the management of living marine resources is carried out in such a way that the yield (here the catch quantity) is optimized in the long term so that the stocks can be used at the highest possible level without increasing the future yield opportunities and the reproductive capacity of the stocks compromise. While the precautionary approach represents a "safety buffer" for the preservation of the spawning stock (young fish overfishing), the MSY approach aims at a usage rate that secures the population size with the greatest young potential. For this purpose, target reference values ​​for fishing mortality (FMSY) are developed based on biomass reference values ​​(BMSY trigger). BMSY-trigger represents the lower limit of the fluctuation range around BMSY and serves as a trigger for precautionary action in order to keep the stocks within safe biological limits. The aim is to move towards the monitoring programs in 2014 and the Measures programs in 2015 to carry out detailed gap analyzes, concretization of indicators and quantifications of reference and threshold values ​​as well as environmental goals and other open aspects such as to work on assessment procedures in order to increasingly meet the requirements of the MSFD from the next reporting cycle.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).Die für den sekundären Indikator fehlenden Referenzwerte werden derzeit entwickelt. Mögliche Grundlage zur Beschreibung des guten Umweltzustands sind ICES Assessement (ICES, 2010c); Daten des EU-Datensammelprogrammes (DCF), Council Regulation, 2008), Baltic International Trawl Survey (Deutsche Forschungsschiffe erfassen Abundanz und Gewicht aller gefangenen Arten, ICES, 2010a); Baltic International Acoustic Survey (Clupeidae; ICES, 2010b)Mögliche GES Definitionen finden sich in Anlage 3 des GES-Berichts Ostsee, z.B. Trendberechnungen von Biomassedaten aus SurveysEs wird angestrebt, auf dem Weg hin zu den Monitoringprogrammen in 2014 und den Maßnahmenprogrammen in 2015 detaillierte Lückenanalysen, Konkretisierungen von Indikatoren und Quantifizierungen von Referenz- und Schwellenwerten sowie von Umweltzielen vorzunehmen und sonstige offene Aspekte wie z.B. zu Bewertungsverfahren zu bearbeiten, um den Anforderungen der MSRL ab dem nächsten Berichtszyklus zunehmend gerecht zu werden.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018 if adopted).Genaue Referenzwerte für die Indikatoren 3.3.1 bis 3.3.4 des KOM-Beschlusses sind artspezifisch und werden derzeit erarbeitet. Die vorgeschlagenen Indikatoren des KOM Beschlusses werden derzeit auf wissenschaftliche Gültigkeit überprüft, ggf. werden neue aussagekräftige größenbasierte Indikatoren anhand von Surveydaten entwickelt.Mögliche Grundlage zur Beschreibung des guten Umweltzustands sind das ICES Assessement (ICES, 2010c); Daten des EU-Datensammelprogrammes (DCF), Council Regulation, 2008); Baltic International Trawl Survey (Deutsche Forschungsschiffe erfassen Abundanz und Gewicht aller gefangenen Arten, ICES, 2010a); Baltic International Acoustic Survey (Clupeidae; ICES, 2010b)Es wird angestrebt, auf dem Weg hin zu den Monitoringprogrammen in 2014 und den Maßnahmenprogrammen in 2015 detaillierte Lückenanalysen, Konkretisierungen von Indikatoren und Quantifizierungen von Referenz- und Schwellenwerten sowie von Umweltzielen vorzunehmen und sonstige offene Aspekte wie z.B. zu Bewertungsverfahren zu bearbeiten, um den Anforderungen der MSRL ab dem nächsten Berichtszyklus zunehmend gerecht zu werden.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).Genaue Referenzwerte für die Indikatoren 3.3.1 bis 3.3.4 des KOM-Beschlusses sind artspezifisch und werden derzeit erarbeitet. Die vorgeschlagenen Indikatoren des KOM Beschlusses werden derzeit auf wissenschaftliche Gültigkeit überprüft, ggf. werden neue aussagekräftige größenbasierte Indikatoren anhand von Surveydaten entwickelt.Mögliche Grundlage zur Beschreibung des guten Umweltzustands sind das ICES Assessement (ICES, 2010c); Daten des EU-Datensammelprogrammes (DCF), Council Regulation, 2008), Baltic International Trawl Survey (Deutsche Forschungsschiffe erfassen Abundanz und Gewicht aller gefangenen Arten, ICES, 2010a); Baltic International Acoustic Survey (Clupeidae; ICES, 2010b)Es wird angestrebt, auf dem Weg hin zu den Monitoringprogrammen in 2014 und den Maßnahmenprogrammen in 2015 detaillierte Lückenanalysen, Konkretisierungen von Indikatoren und Quantifizierungen von Referenz- und Schwellenwerten sowie von Umweltzielen vorzunehmen und sonstige offene Aspekte wie z.B. zu Bewertungsverfahren zu bearbeiten, um den Anforderungen der MSRL ab dem nächsten Berichtszyklus zunehmend gerecht zu werden.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).Genaue Referenzwerte für die Indikatoren 3.3.1 bis 3.3.4 des KOM-Beschlusses sind artspezifisch und werden derzeit erarbeitet. Die vorgeschlagenen Indikatoren des KOM Beschlusses werden derzeit auf wissenschaftliche Gültigkeit überprüft, ggf. werden neue aussagekräftige größenbasierte Indikatoren anhand von Surveydaten entwickelt.Mögliche Grundlage zur Beschreibung des guten Umweltzustands sind das ICES Assessement (ICES, 2010c); Daten des EU-Datensammelprogrammes (DCF), Council Regulation, 2008), Baltic International Trawl Survey (Deutsche Forschungsschiffe erfassen Abundanz und Gewicht aller gefangenen Arten, ICES, 2010a); Baltic International Acoustic Survey (Clupeidae; ICES, 2010b)Es wird angestrebt, auf dem Weg hin zu den Monitoringprogrammen in 2014 und den Maßnahmenprogrammen in 2015 detaillierte Lückenanalysen, Konkretisierungen von Indikatoren und Quantifizierungen von Referenz- und Schwellenwerten sowie von Umweltzielen vorzunehmen und sonstige offene Aspekte wie z.B. zu Bewertungsverfahren zu bearbeiten, um den Anforderungen der MSRL ab dem nächsten Berichtszyklus zunehmend gerecht zu werden.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).Genaue Referenzwerte für die Indikatoren 3.3.1 bis 3.3.4 des KOM-Beschlusses sind artspezifisch und werden derzeit erarbeitet. Die vorgeschlagenen Indikatoren des KOM Beschlusses werden derzeit auf wissenschaftliche Gültigkeit überprüft, ggf. werden neue aussagekräftige größenbasierte Indikatoren anhand von Surveydaten entwickelt.Mögliche Grundlage zur Beschreibung des guten Umweltzustands sind das ICES Assessement (ICES, 2010c); Daten des EU-Datensammelprogrammes (DCF), Council Regulation, 2008); Baltic International Trawl Survey (Deutsche Forschungsschiffe erfassen Abundanz und Gewicht aller gefangenen Arten, ICES, 2010a); Baltic International Acoustic Survey (Clupeidae; ICES, 2010b)Es wird angestrebt, auf dem Weg hin zu den Monitoringprogrammen in 2014 und den Maßnahmenprogrammen in 2015 detaillierte Lückenanalysen, Konkretisierungen von Indikatoren und Quantifizierungen von Referenz- und Schwellenwerten sowie von Umweltzielen vorzunehmen und sonstige offene Aspekte wie z.B. zu Bewertungsverfahren zu bearbeiten, um den Anforderungen der MSRL ab dem nächsten Berichtszyklus zunehmend gerecht zu werden.