Member State report / Art8-2024 / 2024 / D1-M / Finland / Baltic Sea
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art8 |
| Report due | 2024-10-15 |
| GES Descriptor | D1 Mammals |
| Member State | Finland |
| Region/subregion | Baltic Sea |
| Report date | 2025-01-30 09:01:21 |
BAL-FI-AA-AS
Regional assessment area |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
|||||||
GES component |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
Feature |
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Element |
Phocoena phocoena |
Phocoena phocoena |
Phocoena phocoena |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Element extent |
|||||||
Trend element |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Element 2 |
|||||||
Element source |
|||||||
Criterion |
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
Distribution (range)
|
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Fecundity rate
|
Distribution (range)
|
THICK-BLU
|
Threshold value upper |
1.0 |
10000.0 |
90.0 |
49.0 |
|||
Threshold value lower |
|||||||
Threshold value operator |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
Threshold qualitative |
Porpoise population is viable
|
A stable population in the MRU
|
A stable population in the MRU
|
Threshold for hunted seals is 49 mm, but threshold for bycaught seals is lower and unknown. |
|||
Threshold value source |
ICES
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
|||
Value achieved upper |
15.0 |
0.46 |
250.0 |
||||
Value achieved lower |
|||||||
Value unit |
individuals
|
individuals
|
ratio
|
individuals
|
percentage
|
individuals
|
millimetre
|
Proportion threshold value |
|||||||
Proportion value achieved |
|||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
|||||||
Trend parameter |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Unknown |
No |
Unknown |
Description parameter |
Found occassionally from the MRU; but too small population. |
State of prey species determines the habitat quality |
Too small population for sampling.
|
The population is too small in this MRU.
|
Too small population for sampling.
|
||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criteria status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Description criteria |
|||||||
Element status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
|||||||
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type A |
Type A |
Type A |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Trend feature |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Integration rule type criteria |
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
Integration rule description criteria |
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
GES extent threshold |
0.60 |
0.60 |
0.60 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
GES extent achieved |
0.20 |
0.20 |
0.20 |
50.00 |
50.00 |
50.00 |
50.00 |
GES extent unit |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
GES achieved |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES achieved by 2012 |
GES achieved by 2012 |
GES achieved by 2012 |
GES achieved by 2012 |
Description overall status |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
|||
Assessments period |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test TV |
NA |
NA |
No |
No |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Test results |
False |
False |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
BAL-FI-AA-BB
Regional assessment area |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
|||||||
GES component |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
Feature |
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Element |
Phocoena phocoena |
Phocoena phocoena |
Phocoena phocoena |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Element extent |
|||||||
Trend element |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Improving |
Improving |
Improving |
Improving |
Element 2 |
|||||||
Element source |
|||||||
Criterion |
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
Distribution (range)
|
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Fecundity rate
|
Distribution (range)
|
THICK-BLU
|
Threshold value upper |
10000.0 |
90.0 |
49.0 |
||||
Threshold value lower |
|||||||
Threshold value operator |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
Threshold qualitative |
A stable population in the MRU
|
Threshold for hunted seals is 49 mm, but threshold for bycaught seals is lower and unknown. |
|||||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
||||
Value achieved upper |
20000.0 |
85.0 |
33.0 |
||||
Value achieved lower |
|||||||
Value unit |
individuals
|
individuals
|
percentage
|
individuals
|
millimetre
|
||
Proportion threshold value |
|||||||
Proportion value achieved |
|||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
|||||||
Trend parameter |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Improving |
Stable |
Improving |
Deteriorating |
Parameter achieved |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
Yes, based on low risk |
Yes |
Yes, based on low risk |
Description parameter |
Does not exist in this MRU
|
Does not exist in this MRU
|
The reproductive rate used to reflect the contamination of the seals but is currently depending on prey availability and prey condition. Moreover; near carrying capacity the reproductive rate decreases. The threshold and the assessment protocol may require adjustment. Finland's assessement uses the HELCOM threshold but interprets that the population is near carryuing capacity (see https://indicators.helcom.fi/indicator/seal-reproduction/). |
The population size is sufficient in this MRU.
|
As the data is from both bycaught and hunted seals; the observed value exceeds the threshold. |
||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criteria status |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Good |
Good |
Good, based on low risk |
Good, based on low risk |
Description criteria |
|||||||
Element status |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Description element |
No population in this MRU.
|
No population in this MRU.
|
No population in this MRU.
|
||||
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type A |
Type A |
Type A |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Trend feature |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Improving |
Improving |
Improving |
Improving |
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Integration rule type criteria |
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
Integration rule description criteria |
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
GES extent threshold |
0.60 |
0.60 |
0.60 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
GES extent achieved |
0.20 |
0.20 |
0.20 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
GES extent unit |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
GES achieved |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES achieved by 2012 |
GES achieved by 2012 |
GES achieved by 2012 |
GES achieved by 2012 |
Description overall status |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
|||
Assessments period |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test TV |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Yes |
No |
NA |
No |
Test results |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
False |
False |
BAL-FI-AA-BS
Regional assessment area |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
|||||||
GES component |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
Feature |
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Element |
Phocoena phocoena |
Phocoena phocoena |
Phocoena phocoena |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Element extent |
|||||||
Trend element |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Improving |
Improving |
Improving |
Improving |
Element 2 |
|||||||
Element source |
|||||||
Criterion |
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
Distribution (range)
|
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Fecundity rate
|
Distribution (range)
|
THICK-BLU
|
Threshold value upper |
10000.0 |
90.0 |
49.0 |
||||
Threshold value lower |
|||||||
Threshold value operator |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
Threshold qualitative |
A stable population in the MRU
|
A stable population in the MRU
|
Threshold for hunted seals is 49 mm, but threshold for bycaught seals is lower and unknown. |
||||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
||||
Value achieved upper |
20000.0 |
85.0 |
33.0 |
||||
Value achieved lower |
|||||||
Value unit |
individuals
|
individuals
|
percentage
|
individuals
|
millimetre
|
||
Proportion threshold value |
|||||||
Proportion value achieved |
|||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
|||||||
Trend parameter |
Not relevant |
Unknown |
Not relevant |
Improving |
Stable |
Improving |
Deteriorating |
Parameter achieved |
Unknown |
No |
Unknown |
Yes |
Yes, based on low risk |
Yes |
Yes, based on low risk |
Description parameter |
Found occassionally from the MRU; but too small population. |
Does not exist in this MRU
|
The reproductive rate used to reflect the contamination of the seals but is currently depending on prey availability and prey condition. Moreover; near carrying capacity the reproductive rate decreases. The threshold and the assessment protocol may require adjustment. Finland's assessement uses the HELCOM threshold but interprets that the population is near carryuing capacity (see https://indicators.helcom.fi/indicator/seal-reproduction/). |
The population size is sufficient in this MRU.
|
As the data is from both bycaught and hunted seals; the observed value exceeds the threshold. |
||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criteria status |
Not relevant |
Not good |
Not relevant |
Good |
Good |
Good, based on low risk |
Good, based on low risk |
Description criteria |
|||||||
Element status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Description element |
|||||||
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type A |
Type A |
Type A |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Trend feature |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Improving |
Improving |
Improving |
Improving |
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Integration rule type criteria |
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
Integration rule description criteria |
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
GES extent threshold |
0.60 |
0.60 |
0.60 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
GES extent achieved |
0.20 |
0.20 |
0.20 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
GES extent unit |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
GES achieved |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES achieved by 2012 |
GES achieved by 2012 |
GES achieved by 2012 |
GES achieved by 2012 |
Description overall status |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
|||
Assessments period |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test TV |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Yes |
No |
NA |
No |
Test results |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
False |
False |
BAL-FI-AA-GF
Regional assessment area |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
|||||||
GES component |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
Feature |
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Element |
Phocoena phocoena |
Phocoena phocoena |
Phocoena phocoena |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Element extent |
|||||||
Trend element |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Deteriorating |
Deteriorating |
Deteriorating |
Deteriorating |
Element 2 |
|||||||
Element source |
|||||||
Criterion |
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
Distribution (range)
|
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Fecundity rate
|
Distribution (range)
|
THICK-BLU
|
Threshold value upper |
1.0 |
10000.0 |
90.0 |
49.0 |
|||
Threshold value lower |
|||||||
Threshold value operator |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
Threshold qualitative |
Porpoise population is viable
|
A stable population in the MRU
|
A stable population in the MRU
|
Threshold for hunted seals is 49 mm, but threshold for bycaught seals is lower and unknown. |
|||
Threshold value source |
ICES
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
|||
Value achieved upper |
15.0 |
0.46 |
10.0 |
||||
Value achieved lower |
|||||||
Value unit |
individuals
|
individuals
|
ratio
|
individuals
|
percentage
|
individuals
|
millimetre
|
Proportion threshold value |
|||||||
Proportion value achieved |
|||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
|||||||
Trend parameter |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Deteriorating |
Unknown |
Deteriorating |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Unknown |
No |
Unknown |
Description parameter |
Found occassionally from the MRU; but too small population. |
State of prey species determines the habitat quality |
Too small population for sampling.
|
The population is too small in this MRU.
|
Too small population for sampling.
|
||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criteria status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Description criteria |
|||||||
Element status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
|||||||
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type A |
Type A |
Type A |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Trend feature |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Integration rule type criteria |
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
Integration rule description criteria |
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
GES extent threshold |
0.60 |
0.60 |
0.60 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
GES extent achieved |
0.20 |
0.20 |
0.20 |
50.00 |
50.00 |
50.00 |
50.00 |
GES extent unit |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
GES achieved |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
Description overall status |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
|||
Assessments period |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test TV |
NA |
NA |
No |
No |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Test results |
False |
False |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
BAL-FI-AA-NB
Regional assessment area |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
|||||||
GES component |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
Feature |
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Element |
Phocoena phocoena |
Phocoena phocoena |
Phocoena phocoena |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Element extent |
|||||||
Trend element |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Element 2 |
|||||||
Element source |
|||||||
Criterion |
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
Distribution (range)
|
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Fecundity rate
|
Distribution (range)
|
THICK-BLU
|
Threshold value upper |
1.0 |
10000.0 |
90.0 |
49.0 |
|||
Threshold value lower |
|||||||
Threshold value operator |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
Threshold qualitative |
Porpoise population is viable
|
A stable population in the MRU
|
A stable population in the MRU
|
Threshold for hunted seals is 49 mm, but threshold for bycaught seals is lower and unknown. |
|||
Threshold value source |
ICES
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
|||
Value achieved upper |
15.0 |
0.46 |
|||||
Value achieved lower |
|||||||
Value unit |
individuals
|
individuals
|
ratio
|
individuals
|
percentage
|
individuals
|
millimetre
|
Proportion threshold value |
|||||||
Proportion value achieved |
|||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
|||||||
Trend parameter |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
No |
No |
No |
Unknown |
Unknown |
No |
Unknown |
Description parameter |
Found occassionally from the MRU; but too small population. |
State of prey species determines the habitat quality |
Too small population for sampling.
|
The population is too small in this MRU.
|
Too small population for sampling.
|
||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criteria status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Description criteria |
|||||||
Element status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
|||||||
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type A |
Type A |
Type A |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Trend feature |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Integration rule type criteria |
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
Integration rule description criteria |
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
GES extent threshold |
0.60 |
0.60 |
0.60 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
GES extent achieved |
0.20 |
0.20 |
0.20 |
50.00 |
50.00 |
50.00 |
50.00 |
GES extent unit |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
GES achieved |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
Description overall status |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
|||
Assessments period |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test TV |
NA |
NA |
No |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Test results |
False |
False |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
BAL-FI-AA-QK
Regional assessment area |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
|||||||
GES component |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
D1M |
Feature |
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Element |
Phocoena phocoena |
Phocoena phocoena |
Phocoena phocoena |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Pusa hispida |
Element extent |
|||||||
Trend element |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Improving |
Improving |
Improving |
Improving |
Element 2 |
|||||||
Element source |
|||||||
Criterion |
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
Distribution (range)
|
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Fecundity rate
|
Distribution (range)
|
THICK-BLU
|
Threshold value upper |
10000.0 |
90.0 |
49.0 |
||||
Threshold value lower |
|||||||
Threshold value operator |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
Threshold qualitative |
Porpoise population is viable
|
A stable population in the MRU
|
Threshold for hunted seals is 49 mm, but threshold for bycaught seals is lower and unknown. |
||||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
||||
Value achieved upper |
20000.0 |
85.0 |
33.0 |
||||
Value achieved lower |
|||||||
Value unit |
individuals
|
individuals
|
individuals
|
percentage
|
individuals
|
millimetre
|
|
Proportion threshold value |
|||||||
Proportion value achieved |
|||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
|||||||
Trend parameter |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Improving |
Stable |
Improving |
Deteriorating |
Parameter achieved |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
Yes, based on low risk |
Yes |
Yes, based on low risk |
Description parameter |
Does not exist in this MRU
|
Does not exist in this MRU
|
The reproductive rate used to reflect the contamination of the seals but is currently depending on prey availability and prey condition. Moreover; near carrying capacity the reproductive rate decreases. The threshold and the assessment protocol may require adjustment. Finland's assessement uses the HELCOM threshold but interprets that the population is near carryuing capacity (see https://indicators.helcom.fi/indicator/seal-reproduction/). |
The population size is sufficient in this MRU.
|
As the data is from both bycaught and hunted seals; the observed value exceeds the threshold. |
||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criteria status |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Good |
Good |
Good, based on low risk |
Good, based on low risk |
Description criteria |
|||||||
Element status |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Description element |
No population in this MRU.
|
No population in this MRU.
|
No population in this MRU.
|
||||
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type A |
Type A |
Type A |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Trend feature |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Improving |
Improving |
Improving |
Improving |
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Only one parameter
|
Integration rule type criteria |
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
Integration rule description criteria |
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool
|
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
HELCOM BEAT-tool; reported as % of species being in good state (Threshold 100%). |
GES extent threshold |
0.60 |
0.60 |
0.60 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
GES extent achieved |
0.20 |
0.20 |
0.20 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
GES extent unit |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
Proportion of species in good status within species group |
GES achieved |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionReported |
GES achieved by 2012 |
GES achieved by 2012 |
GES achieved by 2012 |
GES achieved by 2012 |
Description overall status |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
Grey seal assessment deviates from the HELCOM assessment; as the focus is in Finland's marine area and not the whole Baltic Sea. |
|||
Assessments period |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test TV |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Yes |
No |
NA |
No |
Test results |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
False |
False |