MS/Art8/2018/D1-M/Denmark/Baltic Sea

Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D1-M / Denmark / Baltic Sea

Report type	Member State report to Commission
MSFD Article	Art. 8 Initial assessment (and Art. 17 updates)
Report due	2018-10-15
GES Descriptor	D1 Mammals
Member State	Denmark
Region/subregion	Baltic Sea
Reported by	Danish Environmental Protection Agency
Report date	2019-08-30
Report access	DK_ART8_GES_Merge_20190829.xml

Total Danish part of HELCOM areas from coastline to EEZ (BAL-DK-HELCOM-TOTAL)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M
Feature	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Seals	Seals	Seals	Seals	Seals	Seals	Seals	Seals
Element	Phocoena phocoena	Phocoena phocoena	Phocoena phocoena	Phocoena phocoena	Halichoerus grypus	Halichoerus grypus	Halichoerus grypus	Halichoerus grypus	Phoca vitulina	Phoca vitulina	Phoca vitulina	Phoca vitulina
Element code	137117	137117	137117	137117	137080	137080	137080	137080	137084	137084	137084	137084
Element code source	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	HELCOM	HELCOM	HELCOM	HELCOM	HELCOM	HELCOM	HELCOM	HELCOM	HELCOM	HELCOM	HELCOM	HELCOM
Criterion	D1C1	D1C2	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C4	D1C5
Parameter	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Abundance	Distribution (range)	Habitat condition	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Abundance	Distribution (range)	Habitat condition	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Abundance	Distribution (range)	Habitat condition
Parameter other
Threshold value upper	1.7	22000.0				10000.0				10000.0
Threshold value lower	1.7	22000.0				10000.0				10000.0
Threshold qualitative
Threshold value source	Other (specify)	Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)				Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)				Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)
Threshold value source other	Ascobans
Value achieved upper	1.0	22127.0	45000.0			400.0	35000.0			1800.0	35000.0
Value achieved lower	1.0	13600.0	45000.0			100.0	35000.0			1400.0	35000.0
Value unit	Other	(number of) individuals	Other		Other	(number of) individuals	Other		Other	(number of) individuals	Other
Value unit other	Percentage of population		square km		Percentage of population		square km		Percentage of population		square km
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	Stable	Unknown	Stable	Stable	Unknown	Improving	Stable	Stable	Unknown	Improving	Stable	Stable
Parameter achieved	Unknown	No	Yes	Unknown	Unknown	No	Yes	Yes	Unknown	Yes	Yes	Yes
Description parameter	HELCOM estimates that the actual by-catch is presumably higher, since many more by-catches have been registered in previous years. HELCOM believes that the data uncertainty is too high for it to be assessed whether their preliminary threshold for the Belt Sea population of 1 has been reached.	The two population has been deemed between 13600-22127. Favourable reference population is 22000. Unfavourable conservation status is mainly ascribed to the Baltic Proper population. Since the article 17 assessment further monitoring and studies of the harbour porpoise populations have taken place. Data show that the abundance of porpoises in the Sound has increased. In 2016 the abundance of whales were estimated through the SCANS III project in the european Atlantic Ocean, Kattegat and the Belt Sea. The study found that the the Belt Sea population has been stable over a period of 22 years. The SCANS III project estimated the Belt Sea population (western Baltic) to be 42000 individuals (this population spans two MRUs as it is found in the Belt Sea and Kattegat). The Baltic proper population was estimated through the SAMBAH project, this population is critically low with a population estimate of app. 500 individuals.	Favourable reference range is ffound to be the same as the observed range.			The population has been deemed between 100 and 400 individuals in Danish waters. Favourable reference population is 10000, however, this covers the entire Marine Baltic Region, and not just individuals found in Danish waters. The population is increasing. Since the article 17 assessment monitoring of abundance and pup production show that grey seal abundance in Danish waters have been increasing over the past 10 years. In 2017 730 grey seals were counted in the Danish part of the Baltic Sea and a total of 15 pubs were counted in Danish waters.	Favourable reference range is found to be the same as the observed range.			The population has been deemed between 1400 and 1800 individuals in Danish waters. Favourable reference population is 10000, however, this covers the entire Marine Baltic Region, and not just individuals found in Danish waters. Since the article 17 assessment monitoring annual monitoring of harbour seal abundance and pup production show further development in the harbour seal population. Growth rates for harbour seal suggests that the species is close to the environmental carrying capacity. In 2017 the number of harbour seals in Danish waters were approximately 17000 individuals.	Favourable reference range is found to be the same as the observed range.
Related indicator	Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear	BEVARINGSSTATUS FOR NATURTYPER OG ARTER Habitatdirektivets Artikel 17 rapportering Estimates of cetacean abundance in European waters in summer 2016 from the SCANS-III aerial and shipboard surveys Marine områder 2017 - NOVANA Static Acoustic Monitoring of the Baltic Sea Harbour Porpoise SAMBAH	DK-HABDIRART17b	BEVARINGSSTATUS FOR NATURTYPER OG ARTER Habitatdirektivets Artikel 17 rapportering	Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear	BEVARINGSSTATUS FOR NATURTYPER OG ARTER Habitatdirektivets Artikel 17 rapportering Marine områder 2017 - NOVANA	BEVARINGSSTATUS FOR NATURTYPER OG ARTER Habitatdirektivets Artikel 17 rapportering	BEVARINGSSTATUS FOR NATURTYPER OG ARTER Habitatdirektivets Artikel 17 rapportering	Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear	BEVARINGSSTATUS FOR NATURTYPER OG ARTER Habitatdirektivets Artikel 17 rapportering Marine områder 2017 - NOVANA	BEVARINGSSTATUS FOR NATURTYPER OG ARTER Habitatdirektivets Artikel 17 rapportering	BEVARINGSSTATUS FOR NATURTYPER OG ARTER Habitatdirektivets Artikel 17 rapportering
Criteria status	Good	Not good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Not good	Good	Good	Unknown	Good	Good	Good
Description criteria		Data comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. The Baltic area includes two populations of porpoises, it is deemed not good overall, however mainly due to the Baltic proper population being in very poor status, whereas the Belt Sea (Baltic Proper) population is deemed stable.	Data comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. The Baltic area includes two populations of porpoises. Collectively, their range is considered to match favourable reference range.	Data comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013 for habitat quality.	There are insufficient data to assess gray seal by-catch.	Data comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. Favourable reference population covers the whole baltic, whilst the population estimates covers only the parts of the population in Danish waters.	Data comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. The species is range was found to match favourable reference range.	Data comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013 for habitat quality.	There is insufficient data to assess by-catch of the spotted seal.	Data comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. Favourable reference population covers the whole baltic, whilst the population estimates covers only the parts of the population in Danish waters.	Data comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. The species is range was found to match favourable reference range.	Data comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013 for habitat quality.
Element status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good
Description element	Status of the species is not assessed at descriptor level. The overall evaluation is based on three of the five criteria, and comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. In this report D1 and D3 is not specifically evaluated. The Baltic area includes two populations of harbour porpoises. The overall status, is deemed not good. However this is mainly due to the Baltic proper population being in very poor status, whereas the Belt Sea (westerns Baltic) population is stable (parts of this population is found in Kattegat, which is a separate MRU). The overall status for the species was found to be not good using a one out all out integration rule.	Status of the species is not assessed at descriptor level. The overall evaluation is based on three of the five criteria, and comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. In this report D1 and D3 is not specifically evaluated. The Baltic area includes two populations of harbour porpoises. The overall status, is deemed not good. However this is mainly due to the Baltic proper population being in very poor status, whereas the Belt Sea (westerns Baltic) population is stable (parts of this population is found in Kattegat, which is a separate MRU). The overall status for the species was found to be not good using a one out all out integration rule.	Status of the species is not assessed at descriptor level. The overall evaluation is based on three of the five criteria, and comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. In this report D1 and D3 is not specifically evaluated. The Baltic area includes two populations of harbour porpoises. The overall status, is deemed not good. However this is mainly due to the Baltic proper population being in very poor status, whereas the Belt Sea (westerns Baltic) population is stable (parts of this population is found in Kattegat, which is a separate MRU). The overall status for the species was found to be not good using a one out all out integration rule.	Status of the species is not assessed at descriptor level. The overall evaluation is based on three of the five criteria, and comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. In this report D1 and D3 is not specifically evaluated. The Baltic area includes two populations of harbour porpoises. The overall status, is deemed not good. However this is mainly due to the Baltic proper population being in very poor status, whereas the Belt Sea (westerns Baltic) population is stable (parts of this population is found in Kattegat, which is a separate MRU). The overall status for the species was found to be not good using a one out all out integration rule.	Status of the species is not assessed at descriptor level. The overall evaluation is based on three of the five criteria, and comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. In this D1 and D3 is not specifically evaluated. When concluding on the overall conservation status the species was found to be in unfavourable conservation status. A one out all out principle was used. Population size was found to be unfavourable.	Status of the species is not assessed at descriptor level. The overall evaluation is based on three of the five criteria, and comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. In this D1 and D3 is not specifically evaluated. When concluding on the overall conservation status the species was found to be in unfavourable conservation status. A one out all out principle was used. Population size was found to be unfavourable.	Status of the species is not assessed at descriptor level. The overall evaluation is based on three of the five criteria, and comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. In this D1 and D3 is not specifically evaluated. When concluding on the overall conservation status the species was found to be in unfavourable conservation status. A one out all out principle was used. Population size was found to be unfavourable.	Status of the species is not assessed at descriptor level. The overall evaluation is based on three of the five criteria, and comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. In this D1 and D3 is not specifically evaluated. When concluding on the overall conservation status the species was found to be in unfavourable conservation status. A one out all out principle was used. Population size was found to be unfavourable.	Status of the species is not assessed at descriptor level. The overall evaluation is based on three of the five criteria, and comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. In this D1 and D3 is not specifically evaluated. When concluding on the overall conservation status the species was found to be in favourable conservation status. A one out all out principle was used. However all three parameters evaluated - range, population and habitat quality was found to be favourable	Status of the species is not assessed at descriptor level. The overall evaluation is based on three of the five criteria, and comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. In this D1 and D3 is not specifically evaluated. When concluding on the overall conservation status the species was found to be in favourable conservation status. A one out all out principle was used. However all three parameters evaluated - range, population and habitat quality was found to be favourable	Status of the species is not assessed at descriptor level. The overall evaluation is based on three of the five criteria, and comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. In this D1 and D3 is not specifically evaluated. When concluding on the overall conservation status the species was found to be in favourable conservation status. A one out all out principle was used. However all three parameters evaluated - range, population and habitat quality was found to be favourable	Status of the species is not assessed at descriptor level. The overall evaluation is based on three of the five criteria, and comes from article 17 reporting under the habitats directive in 2013. In this D1 and D3 is not specifically evaluated. When concluding on the overall conservation status the species was found to be in favourable conservation status. A one out all out principle was used. However all three parameters evaluated - range, population and habitat quality was found to be favourable
Integration rule type parameter	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant
Integration rule description parameter	Only one species has been studied within this GES component. It has not been possible to make integration across other species.	Only one species has been studied within this GES component. It has not been possible to make integration across other species.	Only one species has been studied within this GES component. It has not been possible to make integration across other species.	Only one species has been studied within this GES component. It has not been possible to make integration across other species.	It has not been possible to do cross-species integration.	It has not been possible to do cross-species integration.	It has not been possible to do cross-species integration.	It has not been possible to do cross-species integration.	It has not been possible to do cross-species integration.	It has not been possible to do cross-species integration.	It has not been possible to do cross-species integration.	It has not been possible to do cross-species integration.
Integration rule type criteria	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO
Integration rule description criteria	It has only been possible to integrate across D2, D4 and D5 for one species. It has not been possible to make an integration for D1 and D3.	It has only been possible to integrate across D2, D4 and D5 for one species. It has not been possible to make an integration for D1 and D3.	It has only been possible to integrate across D2, D4 and D5 for one species. It has not been possible to make an integration for D1 and D3.	It has only been possible to integrate across D2, D4 and D5 for one species. It has not been possible to make an integration for D1 and D3.	It has only been possible to integrate across D2, D4 and D5 for one species. It has not been possible to make an integration for D1 and D3.	It has only been possible to integrate across D2, D4 and D5 for one species. It has not been possible to make an integration for D1 and D3.	It has only been possible to integrate across D2, D4 and D5 for one species. It has not been possible to make an integration for D1 and D3.	It has only been possible to integrate across D2, D4 and D5 for one species. It has not been possible to make an integration for D1 and D3.	It has only been possible to integrate across D2, D4 and D5 for one species. It has not been possible to make an integration for D1 and D3.	It has only been possible to integrate across D2, D4 and D5 for one species. It has not been possible to make an integration for D1 and D3.	It has only been possible to integrate across D2, D4 and D5 for one species. It has not been possible to make an integration for D1 and D3.	It has only been possible to integrate across D2, D4 and D5 for one species. It has not been possible to make an integration for D1 and D3.
GES extent threshold
GES extent achieved
GES extent unit
GES achieved	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Description overall status	Assessment period vary depending on the underlying criteria. Additional pressures may apply. Assessments shown below for D1C2, D1C4 and D1C5 are from the habitats directive article 17 assessment from 2013. The results are shown to be in compliance with the 2017 GES decision, which states that regionally set threshold values should be in compliance with values from the habitats directive.	Assessment period vary depending on the underlying criteria. Additional pressures may apply. Assessments shown below for D1C2, D1C4 and D1C5 are from the habitats directive article 17 assessment from 2013. The results are shown to be in compliance with the 2017 GES decision, which states that regionally set threshold values should be in compliance with values from the habitats directive.	Assessment period vary depending on the underlying criteria. Additional pressures may apply. Assessments shown below for D1C2, D1C4 and D1C5 are from the habitats directive article 17 assessment from 2013. The results are shown to be in compliance with the 2017 GES decision, which states that regionally set threshold values should be in compliance with values from the habitats directive.	Assessment period vary depending on the underlying criteria. Additional pressures may apply. Assessments shown below for D1C2, D1C4 and D1C5 are from the habitats directive article 17 assessment from 2013. The results are shown to be in compliance with the 2017 GES decision, which states that regionally set threshold values should be in compliance with values from the habitats directive.	Assessment period vary depending on the underlying criteria. Additional pressures may apply. Assessments shown below for D1C2, D1C4 and D1C5 are from the habitats directive article 17 assessment from 2013. The results are shown to be in compliance with the 2017 GES decision, which states that regionally set threshold values should be in compliance with values from the habitats directive.	Assessment period vary depending on the underlying criteria. Additional pressures may apply. Assessments shown below for D1C2, D1C4 and D1C5 are from the habitats directive article 17 assessment from 2013. The results are shown to be in compliance with the 2017 GES decision, which states that regionally set threshold values should be in compliance with values from the habitats directive.	Assessment period vary depending on the underlying criteria. Additional pressures may apply. Assessments shown below for D1C2, D1C4 and D1C5 are from the habitats directive article 17 assessment from 2013. The results are shown to be in compliance with the 2017 GES decision, which states that regionally set threshold values should be in compliance with values from the habitats directive.	Assessment period vary depending on the underlying criteria. Additional pressures may apply. Assessments shown below for D1C2, D1C4 and D1C5 are from the habitats directive article 17 assessment from 2013. The results are shown to be in compliance with the 2017 GES decision, which states that regionally set threshold values should be in compliance with values from the habitats directive.	Assessment period vary depending on the underlying criteria. Additional pressures may apply. Assessments shown below for D1C2, D1C4 and D1C5 are from the habitats directive article 17 assessment from 2013. The results are shown to be in compliance with the 2017 GES decision, which states that regionally set threshold values should be in compliance with values from the habitats directive.	Assessment period vary depending on the underlying criteria. Additional pressures may apply. Assessments shown below for D1C2, D1C4 and D1C5 are from the habitats directive article 17 assessment from 2013. The results are shown to be in compliance with the 2017 GES decision, which states that regionally set threshold values should be in compliance with values from the habitats directive.	Assessment period vary depending on the underlying criteria. Additional pressures may apply. Assessments shown below for D1C2, D1C4 and D1C5 are from the habitats directive article 17 assessment from 2013. The results are shown to be in compliance with the 2017 GES decision, which states that regionally set threshold values should be in compliance with values from the habitats directive.	Assessment period vary depending on the underlying criteria. Additional pressures may apply. Assessments shown below for D1C2, D1C4 and D1C5 are from the habitats directive article 17 assessment from 2013. The results are shown to be in compliance with the 2017 GES decision, which states that regionally set threshold values should be in compliance with values from the habitats directive.
Assessments period	2006-2016	2006-2016	2006-2016	2006-2016	2006-2017	2006-2017	2006-2017	2006-2017	2006-2017	2006-2017	2006-2017	2006-2017
Related pressures	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Input of anthropogenic sound (impulsive, continuous)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Input of anthropogenic sound (impulsive, continuous)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Input of anthropogenic sound (impulsive, continuous)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Input of anthropogenic sound (impulsive, continuous)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
Related targets	DK-T1.10 DK-T1.3 DK-T1.6 DK-T1.8 DK-T1.9	DK-T1.10 DK-T1.3 DK-T1.6 DK-T1.8 DK-T1.9	DK-T1.10 DK-T1.3 DK-T1.6 DK-T1.8 DK-T1.9	DK-T1.10 DK-T1.3 DK-T1.6 DK-T1.8 DK-T1.9	DK-T1.10 DK-T1.3 DK-T1.7 DK-T1.8	DK-T1.10 DK-T1.3 DK-T1.7 DK-T1.8	DK-T1.10 DK-T1.3 DK-T1.7 DK-T1.8	DK-T1.10 DK-T1.3 DK-T1.7 DK-T1.8	DK-T1.10 DK-T1.3 DK-T1.7 DK-T1.8	DK-T1.10 DK-T1.3 DK-T1.7 DK-T1.8	DK-T1.10 DK-T1.3 DK-T1.7 DK-T1.8	DK-T1.10 DK-T1.3 DK-T1.7 DK-T1.8