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.

The good environmental status for the descriptor "eutrophication" is achieved if the "good ecological status" according to the WFD is achieved and if the eutrophication status according to the integrated HELCOM eutrophication assessment HEAT is at least good. However, a further comparison of the assessment procedures and results for the MSFD is still necessary. Harmonized assessment procedures are available for the scope of the WFD and for HELCOM for the entire Baltic Sea. It developed ecological quality goals, defined indicators and set threshold values ​​for the condition assessment. According to Article 3 No. 1b) MSRL, the assessment procedures according to the WFD exist in the overlapping scope of the MSFD and the WFD (i.e. 1 nautical mile, based on the ecological status assessment according to the WFD). The HELCOM eutrophication assessment tool (HEAT, HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool) will be used for the Baltic Sea beyond 1 nautical mile for the assessment of the state of eutrophication in accordance with MSRL. In line with the need for regional coordination in accordance with Article 5 paragraph 2 MSFD, Germany will strive to make detailed stipulations with the other HELCOM contracting states. As long as detailed stipulations with regionally coordinated class boundaries do not exist within a marine region, assessment procedures analogous to those of the WFD are used. It should be noted that there is a descriptor eutrophication under the MSFD which is based on its own criteria. Under the WFD, eutrophication is not assessed separately, but is considered as part of the ecological status assessment.

WFD: Normative definition according to RL 2000/60 / EG: "The nutrient concentrations are not above the values at which the functionality of the ecosystem and compliance with the values described above for the biological quality components are guaranteed." HELCOM: The ecological quality goal of the BSAP in terms of nutrients is nutrient concentrations close to the natural concentration.

WFD: Normative definition according to RL 2000/60 / EG: "The nutrient concentrations are not above the values at which the functionality of the ecosystem and compliance with the values for biological quality components described above are guaranteed." HELCOM: Ecological quality target according to BSAP: " Nutrient concentrations close to natural concentrations "The ratio of the nutrients to each other has not been evaluated as a separate criterion.

WFD: Normative definition according to RL 2000/60 / EG: "The composition and abundance of phytoplankton taxa show minor signs of malfunction. The biomass deviates slightly from the type-specific conditions. These deviations do not indicate an accelerated growth of algae that the balance of the organisms in the water or the physico-chemical quality of the water in an undesirable manner. There may be a slight increase in the frequency and intensity of the type-specific plankton flowers. " HELCOM: The chlorophyll a concentrations ensure compliance with the following ecological quality goals of the BSAP: "Algae blooms occur naturally" and "clear water".

However, WFD only uses depth of vision in ecological assessment as an accompanying parameter: Normative definition according to RL 2000/60 / EG: "The values for temperature, oxygen balance and depth of vision do not go beyond the range within which the functionality of the ecosystem and the Compliance with the values for the biological quality components described above are guaranteed. The nutrient concentrations are not higher than the values at which the functionality of the ecosystem and the compliance with the values described above are guaranteed for the biological quality components. "HELCOM: ecological quality objective according to BSAP is" clear water "

WFD: Normative definition according to RL 2000/60 / EG: "Most disturbance-sensitive large algae and angiosperm taxa, which can be found in the absence of disturbing influences, are present. The values for the large algae thickness and for the abundance of the angiosperms show signs of malfunction." HELCOM ecological quality goals BSAP: "Plants show a natural occurrence and distribution pattern" and "clear water"

WFD: Normative definition according to RL 2000/60 / EG: "The composition and abundance of the phytoplankton taxa show minor signs of malfunction. The biomass deviates slightly from the type-specific conditions. These deviations do not indicate an accelerated growth of algae, which affects the balance of the organisms in the water or the physico-chemical quality of the water would undesirably disrupt. There may be a slight increase in the frequency and intensity of the type-specific plankton flowers. "HELCOM ecological quality goal of the BSAP:" Algae flowers occur only in natural dimensions " and "natural occurrence and distribution pattern of plants and animals"

WFD: Normative definition according to RL 2000/60 / EG: "Most disturbance-sensitive large algae and angiosperm taxa, which can be found in the absence of disturbing influences, are available. The values for the large algae thickness and for the abundance of the angiosperms show signs of malfunction." HELCOM: ecological quality target of the BSAP is "natural occurrence and distribution pattern of plants"

WFD: Normative definition according to RL 2000/60 / EG: "The values for temperature, oxygen balance and depth of vision do not go beyond the range within which the functionality of the ecosystem and compliance with the values for biological quality components described above are guaranteed The nutrient concentrations are not above the values at which the functionality of the ecosystem and compliance with the values described above for the biological quality components are guaranteed. " HELCOM: The BSAP's ecological quality target with regard to oxygen is "natural oxygen concentrations"

S. Indicator level

µmol/l, mg/l

Not applicable (dimensionless ratio)

μg/lμmol/lmm3/l

Metre

Depth spread, species inventory, degrees of coverage

Not applicable

Depth spread, species inventory, degrees of coverage

Saturation% or mg/l

Quantitative thresholds for good environmental status were defined only at indicator level (see there).

To baseline + 1 nautical mile: WFD uses nutrient concentrations only as an accompanying parameter; Reference conditions (natural background concentrations) see OGewVSeeward of which: In HELCOM HEAT, the class limits are well/moderately defined for nutrient concentrations in area-specific terms as natural background concentrations (reference conditions) plus a 50 % acceptable deviation from these background concentrations.

Nutrient conditions are not assessed under the WFD and HELCOM HEAT

Up to 1 nautical mile from the baseline: WFD see Sagert, p.; Selig, U.; Schubert, H. 2008: Phytoplankton indicators on the ecological classification of the German coastal waters of the Baltic Sea. Rostocker marine articles 20, pages 45-69> 1 nautical mile from baseline: In HELCOM HEAT, the class limits were defined well/moderately for chlorophyllconine concentrations in area-specific terms as natural background concentrations (reference conditions) plus a 50 % acceptable deviation from these background concentrations. The HEAT procedure is currently being revised.

WFD: For type-specific reference conditions and class limits, good/moderate for depth of vision, see Sagert et al. (2008). However, the WFD uses the depth of vision in the ecological assessment only as an accompanying parameter. HELCOM: for depth of vision, area-specific guidance values were derived on the basis of historical background concentrations plus an acceptable deviation from these background concentrations of 25 % (HELCOM Eutro PRO) and represent the class limit well/moderately in the HEAT assessment.

Up to 1 nautical mile from the baseline: WFD ELBO, BALCOSIS> 1 nautical mile from baseline: Indicator not rated

Not applicable

Up to 1 nautical mile from the baseline: WFD ELBO, BALCOSIS> 1 nautical mile from baseline: Indicator not assessed; Indicator relevance to be examined

Up to 1 nautical mile from the baseline: WFD uses oxygen only as an accompanying parameter;> 1 nautical mile from baseline: Oxygen is currently not assessed at HELCOM HEAT.

Further comparison of assessment procedures and results for the MSFD is still required. According to the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, good environmental status with regard to eutrophication is achieved when nutrient concentrations are close to natural concentrations, if water is clear, algal blooms occur only naturally, plants and animals show a natural occurrence and distribution pattern, and natural oxygen concentrations predominate. HELCOM uses the HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool (HEAT) to determine the eutrophication state (HELCOM, 2006; Andersen et al., 2010). Heat looks at primary and secondary eutrophication effects. Primary effects are physicochemical parameters and phytoplankton, while secondary effects include macrophytes and benthic invertebrates. Heat therefore only covers status indicators. An indicator of nutrient inputs is under development. Nutrient inputs are not assessed. The four quality elements reflect HELCOM’s environmental objectives for eutrophication. Each of the four quality elements is associated with one or more indicators. For each indicator, an ‘Ecological Quality Ratio’ (EQR) is formed by dividing the reference conditions by the current measured state (EQR =RefCon/AcStat; for parameters that decrease with increasing nutrient inputs, e.g. depth of vision, EQR = AcStat/RefCon). The assessment is carried out by analogy with the WFD in five classes. Within a quality element, a weighted average of the EQRS may be formed, with expert opinion deciding on appropriate weighting factors. In a final step, the EQRS of the quality elements are grouped into an overall assessment in accordance with the ‘one-out all-out’ principle. In principle, HEAT covers all the indicators required by the Commission Decision.The WFD does not directly assess eutrophication, but records its effects through the biological and general physico-chemical quality elements. The latter play a supporting role in the assessment of ecological status. For an overview of the normative definitions of good ecological status for the quality elements phytoplankton, macrophytes, big algae and angiosperms and benthic invertebrate fauna relevant for descriptor D5, see Directive 2000/60/EC.

WFD: National methods of environmental status assessment. Under the WFD, nutrient concentrations are not assessed, but only used as accompanying parameters. HELCOM: Heat Eutrophication Assessment Tool (Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 104, 2006 and 115B (2009). The HEAT procedure is currently being revised. Further comparison of the evaluation procedures and results for the MSFD is still necessary.

Nutrient conditions are not assessed under the WFD and HELCOM HEAT

WFD: Assessment of the concentration of chlorophyll as a sub-component of the biological quality element ‘phytoplankton’ (see Sagert et al. 2008 and EU Intercalibration 2008 and its update 2012/2013.HELCOM HEAT: Evaluation of chlorophyll concentrations as a sub-component of the integrated eutrophication assessment. The HEAT procedure is currently being revised.

WFD: National methods of ecological status assessment (in particular assessment of the biological quality elements ‘large algae and angiosperms’ and ‘phytoplankton’). WFD uses depth of visibility in the ecological status assessment only as an accompanying parameter.HELCOM: HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool (HEAT, under revision)

Under WFD calculation of indices: internal coastal waters ELBO (lower distribution boundary Characeen and spermatophytes; Failure of Characeene, spermophytes), Selig et al. 2008; external coastal waters BALCOSIS (deep limit seagrass; Biomass fraction of opportunists; Depth limit Fucus; Hard substrate/phytal – share of opportunists in total biomass, species reduction of significant species/groups, share of furcellaria in total biomass), Fürhaupter et al. 2009

So far, there is no assessment under WFD or HELCOMBisher for HELCOM only one indicator fact sheet on cyanobacteria (see http://helcom.navigo.fi/environment/indicators2004/cyanobacterialblooms/en_GB/cyanobacteria/).

Under WFD calculation of indices: internal coastal waters ELBO (lower distribution boundary Characeen and spermatophytes; Failure of Characeene, spermatophytes, Selig et al. 2008; external coastal waters BALCOSIS (deep limit seagrass; Biomass fraction of opportunists; Depth limit Fucus; Hard substrate/phytal, share of opportunists in total biomass, species reduction of significant species/groups, share of furcellaria in total biomass), Fürhaupter et al. 2009 No targeted assessment of abundance (ind./m² or level of cover) of perennial macroalgae and seagrass is carried out in either ELBO or BALCOSIS.

Under the WFD, oxygen concentrations are not assessed, but only used as an accompanying parameter. According to the WFD’s philosophy, the oxygen balance is in good status if the biological quality elements are assessed as ‘good’ or better using the national assessment procedures. For HELCOM HEAT, oxygen concentrations are currently not evaluated.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).The indicators used under the WFD and HELCOM HEAT are already operational (2012). However, further cross-checking, in particular, of the assessment procedures and results of the WFD and HELCOM HEAT for the MSFD is still necessary. The existing gaps can only be filled gradually until the start of the second reporting cycle in 2018. The aim is to provide detailed gap analysis, specification of indicators and quantifications of reference and threshold values and environmental objectives, as well as other open aspects, such as evaluation procedures, towards the monitoring programmes in 2014 and the programmes of measures in 2015, in order to increasingly meet the requirements of the MSFD from the next reporting cycle onwards.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018 if adopted). Under HELCOM HEAT, the indicator is already operational. Under the WFD, nutrient concentrations are not assessed, but only used as accompanying parameters. Further reconciliation of the procedure under the WFD/HELCOM for the MSFD is still necessary. Harmonisation of the thresholds for good status is still pending.In accordance with Article 3(1)(b) MSFD, in the overlapping scope of the MSFD and the WFD (i.e. 1 nautical mile in relation to the environmental status assessment under the WFD), the assessment procedures under the WFD have the stock assessment procedures. In future, the HELCOM eutrophication assessment procedure (HEAT, HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool) will be used for the assessment of eutrophication status under the MSFD for the Baltic Sea beyond 1 nautical mile. In line with the need for regional coordination in accordance with Article 5(2) MSFD, Germany will endeavour to make detailed arrangements with the other HELCOM Contracting States. As long as detailed definitions with regionally agreed class boundaries do not exist within a marine region, assessment procedures are applied by analogy to those of the WFD, bearing in mind that there is a descriptor eutrophication under the MSFD, backed by its own criteria. Under the WFD, eutrophication is not assessed separately, but considered as part of the assessment of ecological status. A further comparison of the evaluation procedures and results for the MSFD is therefore still necessary.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).There are no nutrient conditions assessed under the WFD or HELCOM HEAT. Whether it is useful and feasible in future to establish an assessment system for this indicator also for the Baltic Sea still needs to be discussed in technical terms.In accordance with Article 3(1)(b) MSFD, in the overlapping scope of the MSFD and the WFD (i.e. 1 nautical mile in relation to the ecological status assessment under the WFD), the assessment procedures under the WFD have the stock assessment procedures. In future, the HELCOM eutrophication assessment procedure (HEAT, HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool) will be used for the assessment of eutrophication status under the MSFD for the Baltic Sea beyond 1 nautical mile. In line with the need for regional coordination in accordance with Article 5(2) MSFD, Germany will endeavour to make detailed arrangements with the other HELCOM Contracting States. As long as detailed definitions with regionally agreed class boundaries do not exist within a marine region, assessment procedures are applied by analogy to those of the WFD, bearing in mind that there is a descriptor eutrophication under the MSFD, backed by its own criteria. Under the WFD, eutrophication is not assessed separately, but considered as part of the assessment of ecological status. A further comparison of the evaluation procedures and results for the MSFD is therefore still necessary.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).The indicator is already operational under the WFD and HELCOM HEAT, but the methods for good status are still to be harmonised. In accordance with Article 3(1b) MSFD, in the overlapping scope of the MSFD and WFD (i.e. 1 nautical mile in relation to the WFD ecological status assessment), the assessment procedures under the WFD have stock. In future, the HELCOM eutrophication assessment procedure (HEAT, HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool) will be used for the assessment of eutrophication status under the MSFD for the Baltic Sea beyond 1 nautical mile. In line with the need for regional coordination in accordance with Article 5(2) MSFD, Germany will endeavour to make detailed arrangements with the other HELCOM Contracting States. As long as detailed definitions with regionally agreed class boundaries do not exist within a marine region, assessment procedures are applied by analogy to those of the WFD, bearing in mind that there is a descriptor eutrophication under the MSFD, backed by its own criteria. Under the WFD, eutrophication is not assessed separately, but considered as part of the assessment of ecological status. A further comparison of the evaluation procedures and results for the MSFD is therefore still necessary.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).The indicator is already operational under HELCOM. Under the WFD, the level of visibility is not assessed, but only used as an accompanying parameter. Further reconciliation of the procedure under the WFD/HELCOM for the MSFD is still necessary. In accordance with Article 3(1b) MSFD, in the overlapping scope of the MSFD and WFD (i.e. 1 nautical mile in relation to the WFD ecological status assessment), the assessment procedures under the WFD have stock. In future, the HELCOM eutrophication assessment procedure (HEAT, HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool) will be used for the assessment of eutrophication status under the MSFD for the Baltic Sea beyond 1 nautical mile. In line with the need for regional coordination in accordance with Article 5(2) MSFD, Germany will endeavour to make detailed arrangements with the other HELCOM Contracting States. As long as detailed definitions with regionally agreed class boundaries do not exist within a marine region, assessment procedures are applied by analogy to those of the WFD, bearing in mind that there is a descriptor eutrophication under the MSFD, backed by its own criteria. Under the WFD, eutrophication is not assessed separately, but considered as part of the assessment of ecological status. A further comparison of the evaluation procedures and results for the MSFD is therefore still necessary.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).The indicator is already applied within the 1 nautical mile zone. It is still to be examined whether > 1 nautical mile of relevant macrophyte stocks occur and whether the assessment procedures ELBO and BALCOSIS apply accordingly beyond the 1 nautical mile.In accordance with Article 3(1)(b) MSFD, the assessment procedures under the WFD have the stock in the overlapping scope of the MSFD and WFD (i.e. 1 nautical mile in relation to the environmental status assessment under the WFD). In future, the HELCOM eutrophication assessment procedure (HEAT, HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool) will be used for the assessment of eutrophication status under the MSFD for the Baltic Sea beyond 1 nautical mile. In line with the need for regional coordination in accordance with Article 5(2) MSFD, Germany will endeavour to make detailed arrangements with the other HELCOM Contracting States. As long as detailed definitions with regionally agreed class boundaries do not exist within a marine region, assessment procedures are applied by analogy to those of the WFD, bearing in mind that there is a descriptor eutrophication under the MSFD, backed by its own criteria. Under the WFD, eutrophication is not assessed separately, but considered as part of the assessment of ecological status. A further comparison of the evaluation procedures and results for the MSFD is therefore still necessary.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).Neither the WFD nor HELCOM have an operational indicator.Bisher only exists in HELCOM with an indicator fact sheet on cyanobacteria based on satellite data (see http://helcom.navigo.fi/environment/indicators2004/cyanobacterialblooms/en_GB/cyanobacteria/). The efforts of the HELCOM Phytoplankton Expert Group (PEG) to develop a suitable indicator for algal blooms have so far not been successful. An operational indicator of ‘species shifts’ lacks sufficient monitoring data and/or scientifically established GES thresholds. In accordance with Article 3(1b) MSFD, in the overlapping scope of the MSFD and WFD (i.e. 1 nautical mile in relation to the WFD ecological status assessment), the assessment procedures under the WFD have stock. In future, the HELCOM eutrophication assessment procedure (HEAT, HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool) will be used for the assessment of eutrophication status under the MSFD for the Baltic Sea beyond 1 nautical mile. In line with the need for regional coordination in accordance with Article 5(2) MSFD, Germany will endeavour to make detailed arrangements with the other HELCOM Contracting States. As long as detailed definitions with regionally agreed class boundaries do not exist within a marine region, assessment procedures are applied by analogy to those of the WFD, bearing in mind that there is a descriptor eutrophication under the MSFD, backed by its own criteria. Under the WFD, eutrophication is not assessed separately, but considered as part of the assessment of ecological status. A further comparison of the evaluation procedures and results for the MSFD is therefore still necessary.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).The ELBO and BALCOSIS procedures are already applied within the 1 nautical mile zone. However, no targeted assessment of the abundance (ind./m² or level of cover) of perennial macroalgae and seagrass is carried out in either ELBO or BALCOSIS. The indicator is therefore not yet operational. It must be examined whether the existing indices under these procedures are sufficient or need to be further developed to meet the requirements of the MSFD. It is also necessary to check whether > 1 nautical mile of relevant macrophyte stocks occur and whether the assessment procedures ELBO and BALCOSIS apply accordingly beyond the 1 nautical mile. According to Article 3(1)(b) MSFD, in the overlapping scope of the MSFD and WFD (i.e. 1 nautical mile in relation to the environmental status assessment under the WFD), the assessment procedures under the WFD have the stock assessment procedures. In future, the HELCOM eutrophication assessment procedure (HEAT, HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool) will be used for the assessment of eutrophication status under the MSFD for the Baltic Sea beyond 1 nautical mile. In line with the need for regional coordination in accordance with Article 5(2) MSFD, Germany will endeavour to make detailed arrangements with the other HELCOM Contracting States. As long as detailed definitions with regionally agreed class boundaries do not exist within a marine region, assessment procedures are applied by analogy to those of the WFD, bearing in mind that there is a descriptor eutrophication under the MSFD, backed by its own criteria. Under the WFD, eutrophication is not assessed separately, but considered as part of the assessment of ecological status. A further comparison of the evaluation procedures and results for the MSFD is therefore still necessary.

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).The indicator is currently not operational under the WFD or under HELCOM HEAT. HELCOM is currently working to operationalise the indicator both for the open Baltic basins and near the coast. In accordance with Article 3(1b) MSFD, in the overlapping scope of the MSFD and WFD (i.e. 1 nautical mile in relation to the WFD ecological status assessment), the assessment procedures under the WFD have stock. In future, the HELCOM eutrophication assessment procedure (HEAT, HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool) will be used for the assessment of eutrophication status under the MSFD for the Baltic Sea beyond 1 nautical mile. In line with the need for regional coordination in accordance with Article 5(2) MSFD, Germany will endeavour to make detailed arrangements with the other HELCOM Contracting States. As long as detailed definitions with regionally agreed class limits do not exist within a marine region, assessment procedures are applied by analogy with those of the WFD. It should be noted that under the MSFD there is a descriptor eutrophication, supported by its own criteria. Under the WFD, eutrophication is not assessed separately, but considered as part of the assessment of ecological status. A further comparison of the evaluation procedures and results for the MSFD is therefore still necessary.