In OSPAR, which for D5 includes the Danish marine areas in the North Sea including the Skagerrak, no thresholds have been set yet.


In relation to eutrophication in coastal waters (within 1 nautical mile from the baseline), good environmental status corresponding to good ecological status is determined based on a number of quality elements according to the Water Framework Directive.

Good environmental status (GES) in relation to eutrophication is achieved when 'the good environmental status is achieved in accordance with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and when the integrated eutrophication assessment in accordance with OSPAR has achieved the status of 'non-problem area'.

For the purpose of assessing GES for D5, the following criteria are used for coastal waters < 1 nautical mile according to Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848: D5C1, D5C2, D5C3, D5C5, D5C6, D5C7, D5C8. For the purpose of assessing GES for D5, the following criteria are used for the open seas > 1 nautical mile, as defined in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848: D5C1, D5C2, D5C3, D5C4 and D5C5. Secondary criterion D5C8 is under development.

Explanation: Germany does not update the general description of good environmental status (GES) from 2012 at descriptor level in this reporting exercise. Over the reporting period, Germany has worked with the North Seas countries in the framework of the EU's MSFD process and in OSPAR to develop methodological standards (indicators, evaluation procedures). Specific aspects of criteria and indicators that contribute to a quantitative assessment of good environmental status are reported in the reporting scheme Art. 8_GES. For the assessment of the criteria set out in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848, the relevant assessments under other EU directives shall be taken into account under Article 8_GES, taking into account, as far as possible, the regional assessments that have been coordinated so far and, on a case-by-case basis, supplemented by national assessments.

Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algal blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters.

Human-induced eutrophication, in particular with regard to its adverse effects, such as loss of biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, toxic algal blooms and deoxygenation of bottom waters, is minimised (Directive 2008/56/EC).

FOR GES: For coastal waters, when the values defined as good/moderate status limit are not exceeded and are included in the management plans published in 2016 (2015/2021 hydrological planning cycle).
For areas beyond coastal areas, they shall be considered as achieving GES when no significant increasing trends are detected in the period 2011-2016 and no concentrations above baseline values are recorded beyond statistically expected.

Chlorophyll a concentrations do not reach levels that indicate negative effects as a result of nutrient enrichment.


GES not determined at sub-regional level as laid down in Article 3 (5) (b) of the MSFD.
The assessment under Article 8 was based on the level of risk, considering that if the level of risk is low, given the absence of anthropogenic activities, GES is achieved.


GES not determined at sub-regional level as laid down in Article 3 (5) (b) of the MSFD. In the assessment under Art. 8 it was considered that if the data of Chlorophyll (D5C2) do not exceed the thresholds defined in the 2012 valuation and the risk of eutrophication due to anthropogenic pressures is low, GES is achieved.


GES not determined at sub-regional level as laid down in Article 3 (5) (b) of the MSFD. In the assessment under Article 8, it was considered that if the values of the parameters analysed for the assessment of criteria D5C1, D5C2 and D5C5 do not exceed the thresholds set out in the applicable legislation and in the 2012 assessment or the size of the area where the thresholds were exceeded is reduced (based on expert judgment)


Nutrient concentrations are not at levels that indicate adverse eutrophication effects.


The Good Environmental State has been found to have been met since the values of the analysed parameters do not exceed the thresholds set out in the applicable legislation. The values that may have exceeded those same limits relate to very one-off and not significant sampling and events.


The concentration of dissolved oxygen is not reduced, due to nutrient enrichment, to levels that indicate adverse effects on benthic habitats (including on associated biota and mobile species) or other eutrophication effects.


The photic limit (transparency) of the water column is not reduced (due to increased algal suspension) to a level that indicates negative effects of nutrient enrichment.

Nutrient concentrations in winter meet the OSPAR assessment values.


Nutrient concentrations in winter meet the standards of the WFD in coastal waters.

Nutrient concentrations are not at levels that indicate adverse eutrophication effects. The threshold values are as follows: (a) in coastal waters the values laid down in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC

Nutrient concentrations are not at levels indicating adverse effects related to eutrophication (Decision 2017/848/EU).

The Good Environmental State has been found to have been met since the values of the analysed parameters do not exceed the thresholds set out in the applicable legislation. The values that may have exceeded those same limits relate to very one-off and not significant sampling and events.

Algal biomass (established from Chlorophyll measurements) in offshore waters meets the OSPAR assessment values.


Coastal waters: Algal biomass (determined from chlorophyll measurements) in coastal waters is not
higher than the good status according to the WFD for the relevant coastal water types.

The concentration of chlorophyll a concentration is not at a level indicating the harmful effects of enrichment with nutrients. The threshold values are as follows: (a) in coastal waters the values laid down in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC

Concentrations of chlorophyll a are not at levels indicating adverse effects (Decision 2017/848/EU).

The Good Environmental State has been found to have been met since the values of the analysed parameters do not exceed the thresholds set out in the applicable legislation. The values that may have exceeded those same limits relate to very one-off and not significant sampling and events.

D5C3 The number, spatial extent and duration of harmful algal bloom events are not at levels that indicate adverse effects of nutrient enrichment. GES:See D5C1

The number, spatial extent and duration of harmful algal bloom events are not at levels that indicate adverse effects of nutrient enrichment.

The photic limit (transparency) of the water column is not reduced, due to increases in suspended algae, to a level that indicates adverse effects of nutrient enrichment. The threshold values are as follows: (a) in coastal waters the values laid down in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC

The photic limit of the water column is not reduced by an increase in the amount of suspended algae to a level indicating adverse effects (Decision 2017/848/EU).

Coastal waters: The lower water layer (stratified waters) and the surface layer of mixed waters is saturated with at least 60% oxygen.
Offshore waters: In offshore waters at least 6 mg / l oxygen is found in the lower water layer (stratified waters) and in the surface layer of mixed waters.

The concentration of dissolved oxygen is not reduced, due to nutrient enrichment, to levels that indicate adverse effects on benthic habitats (including on associated biota and mobile species) or other eutrophication effects. The threshold values are as follows: (a) in coastal waters the values laid down in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC

The concentration of dissolved oxygen is not reduced to levels indicating adverse effects on benthic habitats (Decision 2017/848/EU).

The Good Environmental State has been found to have been met since the values of the analysed parameters do not exceed the thresholds set out in the applicable legislation. The values that may have exceeded those same limits relate to very one-off and not significant sampling and events.

The abundance of opportunistic macroalgae is not at levels that indicate adverse effects of nutrient enrichment. The threshold values are as follows: (a) in coastal waters the values laid down in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC

The abundance of opportunistic macroscopic algae is not at a level indicating adverse effects (Decision 2017/848/EU).

Species composition and relative density or depth distribution of macrophyte communities shall reach values that indicate that there is no adverse effects through nutrient enrichment, including those resulting from less transparent water.

The species composition and relative abundance or depth distribution of macrophyte communities reach values indicating absence of adverse effects (Decision 2017/848/EU).

D5: In the coastal waters < 1 nautical mile, criterion D5C4 is not applied, as the sight depth is not an appropriate parameter to assess the effects of eutrophication due to high natural turbidity. In the open North Sea > 1 nautical mile criteria D5C6 and D5C7 do not apply because there are no significant stocks of Macrophytes there due to its depth.

D5C3: Phaeocystis is used in eutrophication assessments in both KRM, OSPAR and WFD. As the nutrient supply decreases, both the chlorophyll concentrations and the frequency and intensity of Phaeocystis blooms have decreased over the years. Recently, the assessment based on Chlorophyll is often positive, while for Phaeocystis it does not meet the assessment criteria. Analysis of data and progressive insight shows that at the current nutrient levels the relationship between nutrients and Phaeocystis flowering is overshadowed by other factors that influence the flowering of Phaeocystis. The Netherlands will indicate to OSPAR that Phaeocystis will no longer be used in the COMP assessment in the future. The Netherlands intends to initiate limited monitoring of the composition of phytoplankton, which can be used to monitor both Phaeocystis and other algae, including toxic species. This also provides for an information requirement from D4.

D5C4: The boundary of the photic zone in Belgian waters is not relevant for the establishment of a diagnosis of eutrophication. It is therefore not used, in line with the evaluation under the Water Framework Directive and OSPAR.
Satellite observations provide a synoptic view of the quantity of matter in suspension and of the turbidity in the Belgian area as a whole. The concentration of matter in suspension and, consequently, the turbidity appears in the Belgian coastal zone. It should be noted that the low depth in the coastal zone is mainly due to sediments placed in suspension by tidal currents. Eutrophication and chlorophyll a concentration play only a marginal role in the luminosity compared to the tidal processes put into suspension, except in the area of the open sea where the matter in suspension is mainly organic.


D5C5: The dissolved oxygen indicator in Belgian waters is not relevant for the preparation of a diagnosis of eutrophication (not used in OSPAR). The measurements of dissolved oxygen available for the reference period are not below the 6 mg/l threshold and the concentration of dissolved oxygen remains for the greater part of the time close to saturation. Mainly data from sampling close to the surface and in the soil. From the measurements we have and on the basis of the current state of knowledge, we can conclude that there is no known undesirable effect on biotopes which would be linked to a hypoxia phenomenon. The concentration of dissolved oxygen does not pose a problem in Belgian waters, although other eutrophication indicators (nutrients and chlorophyll a) suggest that the good status has not yet been reached in the coastal zone and territorial area.


D5C6: The mechanism usually referred to to explain the decline of whose nutrient word waters are to be explained by less light as a result of the stimulation of large algae biomass as epiptes and macroalgae in shallow coastal waters or phytoplankton in deeper coastal waters. In the Belgian area, the natural conditions do not allow the development of macrophytes or macroalgae. In particular, light penetration in the water column is, by its nature, low due to sediments put into suspension by the operation of the tides (cf. D5C4). Compared with those astronomical and geological factors, eutrophication and the proliferation of phytoplankton are likely to play only a marginal role in suppressing the development of benthic macrophytes and macroalgae. Consequently, the absence of macrophytes and macroalgae in the Belgian area is by no means an adequate indicator to determine whether eutrophication is increasing or decreasing.


D5C7: Not relevant (see criterion 6)

D5: For MRRU ABI-A-CONT_D5A1, D5B1, D5C1, D5A2, D5B2 and D5C2, the data are insufficient to assess D5C1 and D5C5.

D5: Good environmental status for the individual criteria is set by threshold values ​​set in the regional sea conventions OSPAR and HELCOM. Currently, regionally-coordinated thresholds are set for several criteria under the HELCOM indicators for the Baltic Sea basins including the Belt Sea and the Kattegat. In OSPAR, which includes the Danish sea areas in the North Sea including the Skagerrak, threshold values ​​have not yet been set. In relation to eutrophication in coastal waters (within 1 nautical mile from the baseline), good ecological status is determined based on a number of quality elements according to the Water Framework Directive.

D5: Germany does not update the general description of good environmental status (GES) from 2012 at descriptor level in this reporting exercise. Over the reporting period, Germany has worked with the North Seas countries in the framework of the EU's MSFD process and OSPAR to develop methodological standards (indicators, evaluation procedures). Specific aspects of criteria and indicators that contribute to a quantitative assessment of good environmental status are reported in the reporting scheme Art. 8_GES. For the assessment of the criteria set out in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848, the relevant assessments under other EU directives are taken into account under Article 8_GES, taking into account, as far as possible, the regional assessments that have been coordinated so far and are, on a case-by-case basis, supplemented by national assessments.

D5C3: The abundance of P. globosa is considered as a redundant indicator as long as the Chl P90 indicator remains above its threshold.

D5: For descriptor D5, no criteria could be evaluated due to the absence of an aggregation rule (threshold) at the level of each parameter evaluated. Indeed, the assessment of the status of each parameter is carried out at the level of the basic unit of assessment, i.e. the WFD water body or the grid box according to the MRU considered, without aggregation at the scale of the MRU. However, the assessment allows the identification of criteria and problem areas to guide the actions that must be implemented for a return to or maintenance of good status. The methodological standards relating to the criteria of Descriptor 5 will be specified following additional studies, as provided for in Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.



D5C1: Criterion D5C1 could not be filled in for this assessment in the coastal zone of the Western Mediterranean Marine Sub-Region. Indeed, the lack of data (collection effort being mainly concentrated in lagoon areas more prone to eutrophication problems) and of consensus to define a threshold in this MRU did not allow a relevant evaluation of this criterion. The methodological standards relating to criterion D5C1 will be specified following further studies, as provided for in Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.


D5C1: For descriptor D5, no criteria could be evaluated due to the absence of an aggregation rule (threshold) at the level of each parameter evaluated. Indeed, the assessment of the status of each parameter is carried out at the level of the basic unit of assessment, i.e. the WFD water body or the grid box according to the MRU considered, without aggregation at the scale of the MRU. However, the assessment allows the identification of criteria and problem areas to guide the actions that must be implemented for a return to or maintenance of good status. The methodological standards relating to the criteria of Descriptor 5 will be specified following additional studies, as provided for in Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.



D5C2: For descriptor D5, no criteria could be evaluated due to the absence of an aggregation rule (threshold) at the level of each parameter evaluated. Indeed, the assessment of the status of each parameter is carried out at the level of the basic unit of assessment, i.e. the WFD water body or the grid box according to the MRU considered, without aggregation at the scale of the MRU. However, the assessment allows the identification of criteria and problem areas to guide the actions that must be implemented for a return to or maintenance of good status. The methodological standards relating to the criteria of Descriptor 5 will be specified following additional studies, as provided for in Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.



D5C4: For descriptor D5, no criteria could be evaluated due to the absence of an aggregation rule (threshold) at the level of each parameter evaluated. Indeed, the assessment of the status of each parameter is carried out at the level of the basic unit of assessment, i.e. the WFD water body or the grid box according to the MRU considered, without aggregation at the scale of the MRU. However, the assessment allows the identification of criteria and problem areas to guide the actions that must be implemented for a return to or maintenance of good status. The methodological standards relating to the criteria of Descriptor 5 will be specified following additional studies, as provided for in Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.



D5C5: For descriptor D5, no criteria could be evaluated due to the absence of an aggregation rule (threshold) at the level of each parameter evaluated. Indeed, the assessment of the status of each parameter is carried out at the level of the basic unit of assessment, i.e. the WFD water body or the grid box according to the MRU considered, without aggregation at the scale of the MRU. However, the assessment allows the identification of criteria and problem areas to guide the actions that must be implemented for a return to or maintenance of good status. The methodological standards relating to the criteria of Descriptor 5 will be specified following additional studies, as provided for in Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.



D5C6: For descriptor D5, no criteria could be evaluated due to the absence of an aggregation rule (threshold) at the level of each parameter evaluated. Indeed, the assessment of the status of each parameter is carried out at the level of the basic unit of assessment, i.e. the WFD water body or the grid box according to the MRU considered, without aggregation at the scale of the MRU. However, the assessment allows the identification of criteria and problem areas to guide the actions that must be implemented for a return to or maintenance of good status. The methodological standards relating to the criteria of Descriptor 5 will be specified following additional studies, as provided for in Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.



D5C7: For descriptor D5, no criteria could be evaluated due to the absence of an aggregation rule (threshold) at the level of each parameter evaluated. Indeed, the assessment of the status of each parameter is carried out at the level of the basic unit of assessment, i.e. the WFD water body or the grid box according to the MRU considered, without aggregation at the scale of the MRU. However, the assessment allows the identification of criteria and problem areas to guide the actions that must be implemented for a return to or maintenance of good status. The methodological standards relating to the criteria of Descriptor 5 will be specified following additional studies, as provided for in Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.

D5: Decision (EU) 2017/848 does not change the definition of the GES for the three criteria assessed. therefore, the same definition has been maintained for the first cycle of the Member States, which reflected the requirement set out in the Decision to accept the threshold values used in Directive 2000/60/EC.

D5: For the MUR ABI-A-CONT_D5A1, D5B1, D5C1, D5A2, D5B2 and D5C2, the assessment methods are not determined at the level of the European Union or the (sub) region: Coordination with Spain and France in progress.