Member State report / Art10 / 2012 / D5 / Poland / Baltic Sea
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art. 10 Environmental targets (and Art. 17 updates) |
| Report due | 2012-10-15 |
| GES Descriptor | D5 Eutrophication |
| Member State | Poland |
| Region/subregion | Baltic Sea |
| Reported by | National Water Management Authority |
| Report date | 2015-11-20 |
| Report access | MSFD10TI_20160226_150132.xml |
BAL-PL-AA-27, BAL-PL-AA-33, BAL-PL-AA-35, BAL-PL-AA-35A, BAL-PL-AA-36, BAL-PL-AA-38, BAL-PL-AA-38A, BAL-PL-AA-62, BAL-PL-MS-001
Feature [Target or Indicator code] |
D5 |
5.1 |
5.1.1 |
5.2 |
5.2.1 |
5.2.2 |
5.2.3 |
5.3 |
5.3.1 |
5.3.2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GES descriptor, criterion or indicator [GEScomponent] |
D5
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
5.2
|
D5C2
|
D5C4
|
D5C6
|
5.3
|
D5C7
|
D5C5
|
MarineUnitID |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Method used |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
Description [Targets] |
Nutrient concentrations in water column: phosphate and inorganic nitrogen - winter or annual mean concentrations, total nitrogen and total phosphorus - summer mean or annual mean concentrations. |
|||||||||
Threshold value [TargetValue] |
||||||||||
Reference point type |
LimitReferencePoint |
LimitReferencePoint |
LimitReferencePoint |
LimitReferencePoint |
LimitReferencePoint |
LimitReferencePoint |
LimitReferencePoint |
LimitReferencePoint |
LimitReferencePoint |
LimitReferencePoint |
Baseline |
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
Not applicable
|
Proportion |
-9999 |
-9999 |
-9999 |
-9999 |
-9999 |
-9999 |
-9999 |
-9999 |
-9999 |
-9999 |
Assessment method |
Current level of indicator is compared with reference value and the result is classified in a 5-class scale; GES = target level is equal to 3/5 of the scale (corresponding to G/M according to WFD) |
Current level of indicator is compared with reference value and the result is classified in a 5-class scale; GES = target level is equal to 3/5 of the scale (corresponding to G/M according to WFD) |
Current level of indicator is compared with reference value and the result is classified in a 5-class scale; GES = target level is equal to 3/5 of the scale (corresponding to G/M according to WFD) |
Current level of indicator is compared with reference value and the result is classified in a 5-class scale; GES = target level is equal to 3/5 of the scale (corresponding to G/M according to WFD) |
Current level of indicator is compared with reference value and the result is classified in a 5-class scale; GES = target level is equal to 3/5 of the scale (corresponding to G/M according to WFD) |
Current level of indicator is compared with reference value and the result is classified in a 5-class scale; GES = target level is equal to 3/5 of the scale (corresponding to G/M according to WFD) |
Current level of SM1 index is compared with reference value and the result is classified in a 5-class scale; GES = target level is equal to 3/5 of the scale (corresponding to G/M according to WFD) |
Current level of indicator is compared with reference value and the result is classified in a 5-class scale; GES = target level is equal to 3/5 of the scale (corresponding to G/M according to WFD) |
Current level of SM1 index is compared with reference value and the result is classified in a 5-class scale; GES = target level is equal to 3/5 of the scale (corresponding to G/M according to WFD) |
Current level of indicator is compared with reference value and the result is classified in a 5-class scale; GES = target level is equal to 3/5 of the scale (corresponding to G/M according to WFD) |
Development status |
Fully operational (in 2012) |
Fully operational (in 2012) |
Fully operational (in 2012) |
Fully operational (in 2012) |
Fully operational (in 2012) |
Fully operational (in 2012) |
Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018 if adopted) |
Fully operational (in 2012) |
Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018 if adopted) |
Fully operational (in 2012) |
Type of target/indicator |
Pressure |
Pressure |
Pressure |
Pressure |
Pressure |
Pressure |
State |
Pressure |
State |
Pressure |
Timescale |
2020-12 |
|||||||||
Interim or GES target |
GES |
|||||||||
Compatibility with existing targets/indicators |
Targets are compatible with all objectives to which Poland is committed in the frame of national, regional and international agreements. In areas BAL-PL-AA-27, BAL-PL-AA-33 and BAL-PL-AA-36 compatible with targets developed by HELCOM. |
Targets are compatible with all objectives to which Poland is committed in the frame of national, regional and international agreements. In areas BAL-PL-AA-27, BAL-PL-AA-33 and BAL-PL-AA-36 compatible with targets developed by HELCOM. |
Targets are compatible with all objectives to which Poland is committed in the frame of national, regional and international agreements. In areas BAL-PL-AA-27, BAL-PL-AA-33 and BAL-PL-AA-36 compatible with targets developed by HELCOM. |
Targets are compatible with all objectives to which Poland is committed in the frame of national, regional and international agreements. In areas BAL-PL-AA-27, BAL-PL-AA-33 and BAL-PL-AA-36 compatible with targets developed by HELCOM. |
Targets are compatible with all objectives to which Poland is committed in the frame of national, regional and international agreements. In areas BAL-PL-AA-27, BAL-PL-AA-33 and BAL-PL-AA-36 compatible with targets developed by HELCOM. |
Targets are compatible with all objectives to which Poland is committed in the frame of national, regional and international agreements. In areas BAL-PL-AA-27, BAL-PL-AA-33 and BAL-PL-AA-36 compatible with targets developed by HELCOM. |
Compatible with national and international (intercalibration) WFD targets. |
Targets are compatible with all objectives to which Poland is committed in the frame of national, regional and international agreements. In areas BAL-PL-AA-27, BAL-PL-AA-33 and BAL-PL-AA-36 compatible with targets developed by HELCOM. |
Compatible with national and international (intercalibration) WFD targets. |
Targets are compatible with all objectives to which Poland is committed in the frame of national, regional and international agreements. In areas BAL-PL-AA-27, BAL-PL-AA-33 and BAL-PL-AA-36 compatible with targets developed by HELCOM. |
Physical/chemical features |
||||||||||
Predominant habitats |
||||||||||
Functional group |
||||||||||
Pressures |