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.

It can be said that good environmental status for D6 as a whole cannot yet be determined, but the minimum requirement is that... the coastal waters are in good ecological status in accordance with the WFD and that the whole territorial sea is in good chemical status. ... the habitat types listed in Annex I (LRT 11xx) to the Habitats Directive which are relevant to the marine environment of the Baltic Sea are in a favourable conservation status... the species listed in Annex II to the Habitats Directive which are relevant to the marine environment of the Baltic Sea, as well as the species listed in the Birds Directive which are relevant to the marine environment of the Baltic Sea are in a favourable conservation status... the objectives of individual species- or group-specific conventions (e.g. the GESPlan, the biological effects are the biological effects of the status, the biological effects of the environment). The list has been completed accordingly

Not yet fully defined. See field for development status

Not yet fully defined. See field for development status

Not yet fully defined. See field for development status

Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018if adopted).Definitionen von natürlichen, oder unter Berücksichtigung menschlicher Nutzungsinteressen als "gut" definierte Zustände von Lebensräumen wurden im Rahmen der Umsetzung der regionalen Meeresschutzübereinkommen (für die Ostsee durch das Übereinkommen zum Schutz der Meeresumwelt des Ostseegebiets (Helsinki-Übereinkommen;), der europarechtlich für die deutsche Ostsee verbindlichen Vogelschutz-Richtlinie (2009/147/EG, VRL), der Fauna-Flora- Habitat-Richtlinie (1992/43/EWG, FFH-RL) und der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie (2000/60/EG, WRRL) entwickelt.Für einige biologische Merkmale nach MSRL (Anhang III Tabelle 1) existieren bereits Bewertungsansätze mit entsprechenden Indikatoren zur Beschreibung ihres guten Zustands (Verfahren der WRRL, FFH-RL, HELCOM; vgl. Tabelle 6 oben). Diese wurden im Kapitel "Deskriptor Biologische Vielfalt (D1)" vorgestellt. Ihre mögliche Verwendung zur Beschreibung des guten Zustands des Meeresgrundes wird hier dargestellt. In Bezug auf die Anforderungen der MSRL muss ihr Anpassungsbedarf jedoch noch weiter geprüft werden eine Weiterentwicklung ist erforderlich.Anlage 5 des GES Berichtes Ostsee ordnet die bestehenden GES-Definitionen den durch den KOM-Beschluss vorgegebenen Kriterien und Indikatoren des Deskriptors 6 zu. Um den guten Zustand der biologischen Vielfalt in der deutschen Ostsee definieren zu können, sind bestehende Lücken systematisch zu analysieren und sukzessive zu schließen. Für Teilbereiche des Meeresgrundes ist der gute Umweltzustand bereits definiert und es liegen Bewertungsverfahren vor. Dies ist bisher nur für die nach FFH-RL definierten Lebensraumtypen der Fall. Für die weitaus größeren bislang noch nicht abgedeckten Bereiche, insbesondere die vorherrschenden Biotoptypen, ist dies noch nachzuholen.