Member State report / Art8-2024 / 2024 / D1-P / Finland / Baltic Sea
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art8 |
| Report due | 2024-10-15 |
| GES Descriptor | D1 Pelagic habitats |
| Member State | Finland |
| Region/subregion | Baltic Sea |
| Report date | 2025-01-30 09:01:21 |
BAL-FI-AA-NB
Regional assessment area |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
|||||||
GES component |
D1P |
D1P |
D1P |
D1P |
D1P |
D1P |
D1P |
Feature |
Pelagic broad habitats
|
Pelagic broad habitats
|
Pelagic broad habitats
|
Pelagic broad habitats
|
Pelagic broad habitats
|
Pelagic broad habitats
|
Pelagic broad habitats
|
Element |
Shelf pelagic habitat |
Shelf pelagic habitat |
Shelf pelagic habitat |
Shelf pelagic habitat |
Shelf pelagic habitat |
Shelf pelagic habitat |
Shelf pelagic habitat |
Element extent |
|||||||
Trend element |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Element 2 |
|||||||
Element source |
|||||||
Criterion |
D1C6
|
D1C6
|
D1C6
|
D1C6
|
D1C6
|
D1C6
|
D1C6
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
CONC-W-Summer
|
Cyanobacterial bloom
|
Seasonal succession
|
Size distribution
|
SPP-C
|
Transparency in water
|
Threshold value upper |
123.0 |
1.65 |
0.82 |
0.7 |
9.8 |
7.1 |
|
Threshold value lower |
|||||||
Threshold value operator |
> |
< |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
Threshold qualitative |
|||||||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
National
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Value achieved upper |
244.0 |
3.78 |
0.27 |
0.57 |
6.3 |
5.1 |
|
Value achieved lower |
|||||||
Value unit |
mg/m3 ww
|
microgram per litre
|
Ratio-EQR
|
ratio
|
ug/individual ww
|
metre
|
|
Proportion threshold value |
|||||||
Proportion value achieved |
|||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
|||||||
Trend parameter |
Stable |
Stable |
Deteriorating |
Stable |
Deteriorating |
Stable |
Deteriorating |
Parameter achieved |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Description parameter |
Phytoplankton community composition -food web indicator. |
||||||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criteria status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
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 C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Trend feature |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Integration rule type parameter |
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
Integration rule description parameter |
|||||||
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
|||||||
GES extent threshold |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
GES extent achieved |
|||||||
GES extent unit |
Proportion of habitats in good status |
Proportion of habitats in good status |
Proportion of habitats in good status |
Proportion of habitats in good status |
Proportion of habitats in good status |
Proportion of habitats in good status |
Proportion of habitats in good status |
GES achieved |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
Description overall status |
FI uses extra phytoplankton indicators as well as state of bathing waters; and hence deviate from the HELCOM assessment. Two habitats were assessed. |
FI uses extra phytoplankton indicators as well as state of bathing waters; and hence deviate from the HELCOM assessment. Two habitats were assessed. |
FI uses extra phytoplankton indicators as well as state of bathing waters; and hence deviate from the HELCOM assessment. Two habitats were assessed. |
FI uses extra phytoplankton indicators as well as state of bathing waters; and hence deviate from the HELCOM assessment. Two habitats were assessed. |
FI uses extra phytoplankton indicators as well as state of bathing waters; and hence deviate from the HELCOM assessment. Two habitats were assessed. |
FI uses extra phytoplankton indicators as well as state of bathing waters; and hence deviate from the HELCOM assessment. Two habitats were assessed. |
FI uses extra phytoplankton indicators as well as state of bathing waters; and hence deviate from the HELCOM assessment. Two habitats were assessed. |
Assessments period |
2017-2022 |
2017-2022 |
2017-2022 |
2017-2022 |
2017-2022 |
2017-2022 |
2017-2022 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test TV |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
NA |
No |
Test results |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
Correct |