Member State report / Art10 / 2012 / D6 / Poland / Baltic Sea
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art. 10 Environmental targets (and Art. 17 updates) |
| Report due | 2012-10-15 |
| GES Descriptor | D6 Sea-floor integrity/D1 Benthic habitats |
| Member State | Poland |
| Region/subregion | Baltic Sea |
| Reported by | National Water Management Authority |
| Report date | 2015-11-20 |
| Report access | MSFD10TI_20160226_150132.xml |
BAL-PL-AA-27, BAL-PL-AA-33, BAL-PL-AA-35, BAL-PL-AA-35A, BAL-PL-AA-36, BAL-PL-AA-38, BAL-PL-AA-38A, BAL-PL-AA-62, BAL-PL-MS-001
Feature [Target or Indicator code] |
D6 |
1.4 |
1.5 |
1.6 |
6.1 |
6.2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GES descriptor, criterion or indicator [GEScomponent] |
D6
|
D6C4
|
D6C4
|
D1C6
|
D6C1
|
D6C5
|
MarineUnitID |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Method used |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
In all sub-basins the same approach for setting targets was applied. For all indicators 5-class classification scales were developed, similarly to FWD approach of high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. The target=GES border was set at the border between Good and Moderate status. Indicators are set in Commission Decision. |
Description [Targets] |
The target is to achieve the level of seafloor integrity where the protection of ecosystem structure and functioning is assured and no adverse anthropogenic effects on the bottom ecosystems are observed |
|||||
Threshold value [TargetValue] |
||||||
Reference point type |
Not applicable |
TargetReferencePoint |
TargetReferencePoint |
TargetReferencePoint |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Baseline |
Methods of determining the value depends on the nature of the substance and for each pollutant baseline may be different |
Background levels
|
Background levels
|
Background levels
|
Not determined
|
Not determined
|
Proportion |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
-9999 |
-9999 |
Assessment method |
Current level of indicator is compared with reference value and the result is classified in a 2-class scale – GES – subGES |
Current level of indicator is compared with reference value and the result is classified in a 2-class scale – GES – subGES |
Current level of indicator is compared with reference value and the result is classified in a 2-class scale – GES – subGES |
Current level of indicator is compared with reference value and the result is classified in a 2-class scale – GES – subGES |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Development status |
Further development needed |
Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018 if adopted) |
Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018 if adopted) |
Further development needed (expected to be operational by 2018 if adopted) |
Further development needed |
Further development needed |
Type of target/indicator |
State |
State |
State |
State |
State |
State |
Timescale |
2020-12 |
|||||
Interim or GES target |
GES |
|||||
Compatibility with existing targets/indicators |
Targets are compatible with all objectives to which Poland is committed in the frame of national, regional and international agreements |
Targets are compatible with all objectives to which Poland is committed in the frame of national, regional and international agreements |
Targets are compatible with all objectives to which Poland is committed in the frame of national, regional and international agreements |
Targets are compatible with all objectives to which Poland is committed in the frame of national, regional and international agreements |
Targets are compatible with all objectives to which Poland is committed in the frame of national, regional and international agreements |
Targets are compatible with all objectives to which Poland is committed in the frame of national, regional and international agreements |
Physical/chemical features |
||||||
Predominant habitats |
||||||
Functional group |
||||||
Pressures |