Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D5 / Poland / 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 | D5 Eutrophication |
Member State | Poland |
Region/subregion | Baltic Sea |
Reported by | Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection |
Report date | 2020-01-28 |
Report access | ART8_GES_PL_kor_URL.xml |
Polish part of Opensea Bornholm Basin (L2-SEA-007-POL)
GES component |
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Element |
DIN |
DIP |
TN |
TP |
Chlorophyll-a |
Cyanobacterial bloom index: Cyanobacterial biomass+cyanobacteria surface accumulations |
Photic limit |
Dissolved oxygen |
Benthic habitats - macrobenthic communities |
Element code |
TDIN |
PHOS |
NTOT |
PTOT |
EEA_3164-01-0 |
Combined_E |
EEA_3111-01-1 |
EEA_3132-01-2 |
QE1-3 |
Element code source |
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Undefined
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Element 2 |
|||||||||
Element 2 code |
|||||||||
Element 2 code source |
|||||||||
Element source |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
Other |
Criterion |
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C2
|
D5C3
|
D5C4
|
D5C5
|
D5C8
|
Parameter |
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Transparency in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
Cyanobacteria bloom index
|
B-index
|
|||||||
Threshold value upper |
2.5 |
0.3 |
14.43 |
0.61 |
1.8 |
0.89 |
7.1 |
6.37 |
3.18 |
Threshold value lower |
|||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
|||||||||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
National
|
National
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Threshold value source other |
|||||||||
Value achieved upper |
5.37 |
0.48 |
26.4 |
0.84 |
3.281 |
0.8 |
6.9 |
8.1 |
2.7 |
Value achieved lower |
|||||||||
Value unit |
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
microgram per litre
|
Other
|
metre
|
milligram per litre
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
Index
|
index
|
|||||||
Proportion threshold value |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
||
Proportion value achieved |
|||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
||
Trend |
Stable |
Improving |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Parameter achieved |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Description parameter |
|||||||||
Related indicator |
|||||||||
Criteria status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Description criteria |
The criterion was assessed based on oxygen debt indicator. |
||||||||
Element status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
|||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
GES extent threshold |
|||||||||
GES extent achieved |
|||||||||
GES extent unit |
|||||||||
GES achieved |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
Description overall status |
|||||||||
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polish part of Opensea Gdansk Basin (L2-SEA-008-POL)
GES component |
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Element |
DIN |
DIP |
TN |
TP |
Chlorophyll-a |
Cyanobacterial bloom index: Cyanobacterial biomass+cyanobacteria surface accumulations |
Photic limit |
Dissolved oxygen |
Benthic habitats - macrobenthic communities |
Element code |
TDIN |
PHOS |
NTOT |
PTOT |
EEA_3164-01-0 |
Combined_E |
EEA_3111-01-1 |
EEA_3132-01-2 |
QE1-3 |
Element code source |
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Undefined
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Element 2 |
|||||||||
Element 2 code |
|||||||||
Element 2 code source |
|||||||||
Element source |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
Criterion |
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C2
|
D5C3
|
D5C4
|
D5C5
|
D5C8
|
Parameter |
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Transparency in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
Cyanobacteria bloom index
|
B-index
|
|||||||
Threshold value upper |
4.2 |
0.36 |
18.8 |
0.6 |
2.2 |
0.98 |
6.5 |
8.66 |
3.18 |
Threshold value lower |
|||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
|||||||||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Threshold value source other |
|||||||||
Value achieved upper |
5.24 |
0.51 |
27.64 |
0.82 |
4.1 |
0.83 |
5.62 |
10.85 |
1.33 |
Value achieved lower |
|||||||||
Value unit |
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
microgram per litre
|
Other
|
metre
|
milligram per litre
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
Index
|
index
|
|||||||
Proportion threshold value |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Proportion value achieved |
|||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
|
Trend |
Improving |
Improving |
Stable |
Stable |
Improving |
Improving |
Stable |
Stable |
Deteriorating |
Parameter achieved |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Description parameter |
|||||||||
Related indicator |
|||||||||
Criteria status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
The criterion was assessed based on oxygen debt indicator. |
||||||||
Element status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
|||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
GES extent threshold |
|||||||||
GES extent achieved |
|||||||||
GES extent unit |
|||||||||
GES achieved |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
Description overall status |
|||||||||
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polish part of Opensea Eastern Gotland Basin (L2-SEA-009-POL)
GES component |
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Element |
DIN |
DIP |
TN |
TP |
Chlorophyll-a |
Cyanobacterial bloom index: Cyanobacterial biomass+cyanobacteria surface accumulations |
Photic limit |
Dissolved oxygen |
Benthic habitats - macrobenthic communities |
Element code |
TDIN |
PHOS |
NTOT |
PTOT |
EEA_3164-01-0 |
Combined_E |
EEA_3111-01-1 |
EEA_3132-01-2 |
QE1-3 |
Element code source |
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Undefined
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Element 2 |
|||||||||
Element 2 code |
|||||||||
Element 2 code source |
|||||||||
Element source |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
Criterion |
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C2
|
D5C3
|
D5C4
|
D5C5
|
D5C8
|
Parameter |
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Transparency in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
Cyanobacteria bloom index
|
B-index
|
|||||||
Threshold value upper |
2.6 |
0.29 |
16.5 |
0.68 |
1.9 |
0.84 |
7.6 |
8.66 |
3.18 |
Threshold value lower |
|||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
|||||||||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
National
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
|
Threshold value source other |
|||||||||
Value achieved upper |
4.55 |
0.49 |
24.33 |
0.82 |
2.77 |
0.76 |
7.4 |
10.85 |
2.86 |
Value achieved lower |
|||||||||
Value unit |
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
microgram per litre
|
Other
|
metre
|
milligram per litre
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
Index
|
index
|
|||||||
Proportion threshold value |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|||
Proportion value achieved |
|||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
|||
Trend |
Deteriorating |
Improving |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Parameter achieved |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Description parameter |
|||||||||
Related indicator |
|||||||||
Criteria status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
The criterion was assessed based on oxygen debt indicator. |
||||||||
Element status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
|||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
GES extent threshold |
|||||||||
GES extent achieved |
|||||||||
GES extent unit |
|||||||||
GES achieved |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
Description overall status |
|||||||||
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bornholm Basin - PL TW I WB 9 very sheltered, fully mixed, substratum: silt/sandy silt/silty sand; ice cover >90 days, water rwesidence time 52 days (L4-POL-001)
GES component |
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Element |
DIN |
DIP |
TN |
TP |
Chlorophyll-a |
Photic limit |
Dissolved oxygen |
Benthic habitats - opportunistic macroalgae |
Benthic habitats - macrophyte communities |
Benthic habitats - macrobenthic communities |
Element code |
TDIN |
PHOS |
NTOT |
PTOT |
EEA_3164-01-0 |
EEA_3111-01-1 |
EEA_3132-01-2 |
QE1-2-1 |
QE1-2-2 |
QE1-3 |
Element code source |
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Element 2 |
||||||||||
Element 2 code |
||||||||||
Element 2 code source |
||||||||||
Element source |
National |
HELCOM |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C2
|
D5C4
|
D5C5
|
D5C6
|
D5C7
|
D5C8
|
Parameter |
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Transparency in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
Index
|
Index
|
B-index
|
|||||||
Threshold value upper |
75.0 |
1.45 |
135.65 |
4.84 |
20.0 |
1.9 |
4.2 |
0.027 |
0.027 |
3.18 |
Threshold value lower |
||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||||
Threshold value source |
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
National
|
National
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Threshold value source other |
||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
25.64 |
0.74 |
109.23 |
4.13 |
27.43 |
1.1 |
5.4 |
4.55 |
4.55 |
2.52 |
Value achieved lower |
||||||||||
Value unit |
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
microgram per litre
|
metre
|
milligram per litre
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
Index
|
Index
|
index
|
|||||||
Proportion threshold value |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Proportion value achieved |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
|
Trend |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
Description parameter |
||||||||||
Related indicator |
||||||||||
Criteria status |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
Assessment is made based on the minimal bottom oxygen concentration in summer. |
|||||||||
Element status |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
||||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
GES extent threshold |
||||||||||
GES extent achieved |
||||||||||
GES extent unit |
||||||||||
GES achieved |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
Description overall status |
||||||||||
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bornholm Basin - PL TW I WB 8 very sheltered, fully mixed, substratum: silt/sandy silt/silty sand; ice cover >90 days, water rwesidence time 52 days (L4-POL-002)
GES component |
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Element |
DIN |
DIP |
TN |
TP |
Chlorophyll-a |
Photic limit |
Dissolved oxygen |
Benthic habitats - opportunistic macroalgae |
Benthic habitats - macrophyte communities |
Benthic habitats - macrobenthic communities |
Element code |
TDIN |
PHOS |
NTOT |
PTOT |
EEA_3164-01-0 |
EEA_3111-01-1 |
EEA_3132-01-2 |
QE1-2-1 |
QE1-2-2 |
QE1-3 |
Element code source |
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Element 2 |
||||||||||
Element 2 code |
||||||||||
Element 2 code source |
||||||||||
Element source |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C2
|
D5C4
|
D5C5
|
D5C6
|
D5C7
|
D5C8
|
Parameter |
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Transparency in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
Index
|
Index
|
B-index
|
|||||||
Threshold value upper |
75.0 |
1.45 |
135.65 |
4.84 |
20.0 |
1.9 |
4.2 |
0.036 |
0.036 |
3.18 |
Threshold value lower |
||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||||
Threshold value source |
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
National
|
National
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Threshold value source other |
||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
31.56 |
0.68 |
118.52 |
4.39 |
34.16 |
1.1 |
4.4 |
1.92 |
1.92 |
2.25 |
Value achieved lower |
||||||||||
Value unit |
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
microgram per litre
|
metre
|
milligram per litre
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
index
|
index
|
index
|
|||||||
Proportion threshold value |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Proportion value achieved |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
Trend |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
Description parameter |
||||||||||
Related indicator |
||||||||||
Criteria status |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
Assessment is made based on the minimal bottom oxygen concentration in summer. |
|||||||||
Element status |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
||||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
GES extent threshold |
||||||||||
GES extent achieved |
||||||||||
GES extent unit |
||||||||||
GES achieved |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
Description overall status |
||||||||||
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gdansk Basin - PL TW I WB 1 very sheltered, fully mixed, substratum: silt/sandy silt/silty sand; ice cover >90 days, water rwesidence time 52 days (L4-POL-003)
GES component |
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Element |
DIN |
DIP |
TN |
TP |
Chlorophyll-a |
Photic limit |
Dissolved oxygen |
Benthic habitats - opportunistic macroalgae |
Benthic habitats - macrophyte communities |
Benthic habitats - macrobenthic communities |
Element code |
TDIN |
PHOS |
NTOT |
PTOT |
EEA_3164-01-0 |
EEA_3111-01-1 |
EEA_3132-01-2 |
QE1-2-1 |
QE1-2-2 |
QE1-3 |
Element code source |
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Element 2 |
||||||||||
Element 2 code |
||||||||||
Element 2 code source |
||||||||||
Element source |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C2
|
D5C4
|
D5C5
|
D5C6
|
D5C7
|
D5C8
|
Parameter |
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Transparency in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
index
|
index
|
B-index
|
|||||||
Threshold value upper |
27.13 |
1.13 |
70.0 |
3.87 |
23.2 |
0.75 |
4.2 |
0.029 |
0.029 |
3.18 |
Threshold value lower |
||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||||
Threshold value source |
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
National
|
National
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Threshold value source other |
||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
7.35 |
0.32 |
64.29 |
2.0 |
51.49 |
0.6 |
2.9 |
2.86 |
2.86 |
1.15 |
Value achieved lower |
||||||||||
Value unit |
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
microgram per litre
|
metre
|
milligram per litre
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
index
|
index
|
index
|
|||||||
Proportion threshold value |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Proportion value achieved |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
Trend |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Description parameter |
||||||||||
Related indicator |
||||||||||
Criteria status |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
Assessment is made based on the minimal bottom oxygen concentration in summer. |
|||||||||
Element status |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
||||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
GES extent threshold |
||||||||||
GES extent achieved |
||||||||||
GES extent unit |
||||||||||
GES achieved |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
Description overall status |
||||||||||
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gdansk Basin - PL TW II WB 2 very sheltered, fully mixed, substratum: lagoonal fine snd medium grained sand/silty sand; residence time 138 day, ice cover >90 days (L4-POL-004)
GES component |
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Element |
DIN |
DIP |
TN |
TP |
Chlorophyll-a |
Photic limit |
Dissolved oxygen |
Benthic habitats - opportunistic macroalgae |
Benthic habitats - macrophyte communities |
Benthic habitats - macrobenthic communities |
Element code |
TDIN |
PHOS |
NTOT |
PTOT |
EEA_3164-01-0 |
EEA_3111-01-1 |
EEA_3132-01-2 |
QE1-2-1 |
QE1-2-2 |
QE1-3 |
Element code source |
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Element 2 |
||||||||||
Element 2 code |
||||||||||
Element 2 code source |
||||||||||
Element source |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C2
|
D5C4
|
D5C5
|
D5C6
|
D5C7
|
D5C8
|
Parameter |
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Transparency in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
index
|
index
|
B-index
|
|||||||
Threshold value upper |
1.86 |
2.9 |
21.43 |
0.97 |
2.0 |
3.4 |
4.2 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
3.18 |
Threshold value lower |
||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||||
Threshold value source |
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Threshold value source other |
||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
2.57 |
2.0 |
29.29 |
1.06 |
5.14 |
4.2 |
5.8 |
0.69 |
0.69 |
2.92 |
Value achieved lower |
||||||||||
Value unit |
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
microgram per litre
|
metre
|
milligram per litre
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
index
|
index
|
index
|
|||||||
Proportion threshold value |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Proportion value achieved |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
Trend |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
Description parameter |
||||||||||
Related indicator |
||||||||||
Criteria status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
Assessment is made based on the minimal bottom oxygen concentration in summer. |
|||||||||
Element status |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
||||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
GES extent threshold |
||||||||||
GES extent achieved |
||||||||||
GES extent unit |
||||||||||
GES achieved |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
Description overall status |
||||||||||
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gdansk Basin - PL TW III WB 3 partly protected, partly stratified, substratum: medium grained sand/pebbles/marine silty sand; ice-incidental (L4-POL-005)
GES component |
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Element |
DIN |
DIP |
TN |
TP |
Chlorophyll-a |
Photic limit |
Dissolved oxygen |
Benthic habitats - opportunistic macroalgae |
Benthic habitats - macrophyte communities |
Benthic habitats - macrobenthic communities |
Element code |
TDIN |
PHOS |
NTOT |
PTOT |
EEA_3164-01-0 |
EEA_3111-01-1 |
EEA_3132-01-2 |
QE1-2-1 |
QE1-2-2 |
QE1-3 |
Element code source |
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Element 2 |
||||||||||
Element 2 code |
||||||||||
Element 2 code source |
||||||||||
Element source |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C2
|
D5C4
|
D5C5
|
D5C6
|
D5C7
|
D5C8
|
Parameter |
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Transparency in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
index
|
index
|
B-index
|
|||||||
Threshold value upper |
10.71 |
0.58 |
28.57 |
1.13 |
3.76 |
4.5 |
4.2 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
3.18 |
Threshold value lower |
||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||||
Threshold value source |
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Threshold value source other |
||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
8.86 |
1.48 |
34.71 |
2.58 |
3.67 |
4.2 |
3.7 |
0.74 |
0.74 |
2.69 |
Value achieved lower |
||||||||||
Value unit |
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
microgram per litre
|
metre
|
milligram per litre
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
index
|
index
|
index
|
|||||||
Proportion threshold value |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Proportion value achieved |
100.0 |
|||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
Trend |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Description parameter |
||||||||||
Related indicator |
||||||||||
Criteria status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
Assessment is made based on the minimal bottom oxygen concentration in summer. |
|||||||||
Element status |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
||||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
GES extent threshold |
||||||||||
GES extent achieved |
||||||||||
GES extent unit |
||||||||||
GES achieved |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
Description overall status |
||||||||||
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gdansk Basin - PL TW IV WB 4 partly stratified, moderately exposed, substratum: sand/silt; ice - incidental (L4-POL-006)
GES component |
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Element |
DIN |
DIP |
TN |
TP |
Chlorophyll-a |
Photic limit |
Dissolved oxygen |
Benthic habitats - macrobenthic communities |
Element code |
TDIN |
PHOS |
NTOT |
PTOT |
EEA_3164-01-0 |
EEA_3111-01-1 |
EEA_3132-01-2 |
QE1-3 |
Element code source |
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Element 2 |
||||||||
Element 2 code |
||||||||
Element 2 code source |
||||||||
Element source |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C2
|
D5C4
|
D5C5
|
D5C8
|
Parameter |
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Transparency in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
B-index
|
|||||||
Threshold value upper |
10.71 |
0.58 |
28.57 |
1.13 |
3.76 |
4.5 |
4.2 |
3.18 |
Threshold value lower |
||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||
Threshold value source |
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Threshold value source other |
||||||||
Value achieved upper |
6.93 |
0.77 |
25.21 |
1.1 |
4.25 |
4.7 |
3.5 |
2.6 |
Value achieved lower |
||||||||
Value unit |
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
microgram per litre
|
metre
|
milligram per litre
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
index
|
|||||||
Proportion threshold value |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Proportion value achieved |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
Trend |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
Description parameter |
||||||||
Related indicator |
||||||||
Criteria status |
Good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
Assessment is made based on the minimal bottom oxygen concentration in summer. |
|||||||
Element status |
Good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
GES extent threshold |
||||||||
GES extent achieved |
||||||||
GES extent unit |
||||||||
GES achieved |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
Description overall status |
||||||||
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bornholm Basin - PL TW V WB 6 river mouth, partly stratified, partly sheltered, substratum: medium grained sand/silty sand (L4-POL-007)
GES component |
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Element |
DIN |
DIP |
TN |
TP |
Chlorophyll-a |
Photic limit |
Dissolved oxygen |
Benthic habitats - macrobenthic communities |
Element code |
TDIN |
PHOS |
NTOT |
PTOT |
EEA_3164-01-0 |
EEA_3111-01-1 |
EEA_3132-01-2 |
QE1-3 |
Element code source |
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Element 2 |
||||||||
Element 2 code |
||||||||
Element 2 code source |
||||||||
Element source |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C2
|
D5C4
|
D5C5
|
D5C8
|
Parameter |
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Transparency in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
B-index
|
|||||||
Threshold value upper |
12.85 |
1.13 |
19.28 |
1.35 |
3.8 |
4.5 |
4.2 |
3.18 |
Threshold value lower |
||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||
Threshold value source |
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Threshold value source other |
||||||||
Value achieved upper |
22.13 |
0.68 |
55.04 |
2.0 |
10.32 |
1.9 |
5.8 |
2.59 |
Value achieved lower |
||||||||
Value unit |
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
microgram per litre
|
metre
|
milligram per litre
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
index
|
|||||||
Proportion threshold value |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Proportion value achieved |
100.0 |
100.0 |
||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
Trend |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
Description parameter |
||||||||
Related indicator |
||||||||
Criteria status |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
Assessment is made based on the minimal bottom oxygen concentration in summer. |
|||||||
Element status |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Description element |
||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
GES extent threshold |
||||||||
GES extent achieved |
||||||||
GES extent unit |
||||||||
GES achieved |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
Description overall status |
||||||||
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gdansk Basin - PL TW V WB 5 river mouth, partly stratified, partly sheltered, substratum: medium grained sand/silty sand (L4-POL-008)
GES component |
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Element |
DIN |
DIP |
TN |
TP |
Chlorophyll-a |
Photic limit |
Dissolved oxygen |
Benthic habitats - macrobenthic communities |
Element code |
TDIN |
PHOS |
NTOT |
PTOT |
EEA_3164-01-0 |
EEA_3111-01-1 |
EEA_3132-01-2 |
QE1-3 |
Element code source |
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Element 2 |
||||||||
Element 2 code |
||||||||
Element 2 code source |
||||||||
Element source |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C2
|
D5C4
|
D5C5
|
D5C8
|
Parameter |
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Transparency in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
B-index
|
|||||||
Threshold value upper |
16.06 |
1.13 |
28.56 |
1.45 |
5.5 |
3.0 |
4.2 |
3.18 |
Threshold value lower |
||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||
Threshold value source |
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Threshold value source other |
||||||||
Value achieved upper |
57.54 |
2.61 |
46.12 |
2.9 |
10.73 |
1.9 |
3.4 |
2.32 |
Value achieved lower |
||||||||
Value unit |
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
microgram per litre
|
metre
|
milligram per litre
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
index
|
|||||||
Proportion threshold value |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Proportion value achieved |
||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
Trend |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Description parameter |
||||||||
Related indicator |
||||||||
Criteria status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
Assessment is made based on the minimal bottom oxygen concentration in summer. |
|||||||
Element status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
GES extent threshold |
||||||||
GES extent achieved |
||||||||
GES extent unit |
||||||||
GES achieved |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
Description overall status |
||||||||
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bornholm Basin - PL TW V WB 7 river mouth, partly stratified, partly sheltered, substratum: medium grained sand/silty sand (L4-POL-009)
GES component |
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
D5
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Eutrophication
|
Element |
DIN |
DIP |
TN |
TP |
Chlorophyll-a |
Photic limit |
Dissolved oxygen |
Benthic habitats - macrobenthic communities |
Element code |
TDIN |
PHOS |
NTOT |
PTOT |
EEA_3164-01-0 |
EEA_3111-01-1 |
EEA_3132-01-2 |
QE1-3 |
Element code source |
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Contaminants (D8-D9) http://vocab.ices.dk/?ref=37
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5)(EQRs) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedPropertyBiologyEQR/view
|
Element 2 |
||||||||
Element 2 code |
||||||||
Element 2 code source |
||||||||
Element source |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C1
|
D5C2
|
D5C4
|
D5C5
|
D5C8
|
Parameter |
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Transparency in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
B-index
|
|||||||
Threshold value upper |
22.86 |
1.13 |
37.84 |
1.45 |
7.5 |
3.75 |
4.2 |
3.18 |
Threshold value lower |
||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||
Threshold value source |
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Threshold value source other |
||||||||
Value achieved upper |
35.64 |
0.81 |
59.61 |
2.39 |
11.09 |
1.7 |
5.3 |
3.11 |
Value achieved lower |
||||||||
Value unit |
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
micromole per litre
|
microgram per litre
|
metre
|
milligram per litre
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
index
|
|||||||
Proportion threshold value |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Proportion value achieved |
100.0 |
100.0 |
||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
Trend |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
Description parameter |
||||||||
Related indicator |
||||||||
Criteria status |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
Assessment is made based on the minimal bottom oxygen concentration in summer. |
|||||||
Element status |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Not good |
Description element |
||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
HIE_WEI
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
OOAO_HIE
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
GES extent threshold |
||||||||
GES extent achieved |
||||||||
GES extent unit |
||||||||
GES achieved |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
GES expected to be achieved by 2020 |
Description overall status |
||||||||
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|