Member State report / Art9 / 2018 / D1-B / Baltic
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art. 9 Determination of GES (and Art. 17 updates) |
| Report due | 2018-10-15 |
| GES Descriptor | D1 Birds |
| Region/subregion | Baltic |
| Reported by | Member state |
| Member state | Finland |
Estonia |
Latvia |
Lithuania |
Poland |
Germany |
Denmark |
Sweden |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Member state report | |||||||||
| Marine reporting units | MRUs used |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Structure, functions and processes of marine ecosystems: Species | All birds |
|
|
||||||
| Structure, functions and processes of marine ecosystems: Species | Benthic-feeding birds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
| Structure, functions and processes of marine ecosystems: Species | Grazing birds |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
| Structure, functions and processes of marine ecosystems: Species | Pelagic-feeding birds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
| Structure, functions and processes of marine ecosystems: Species | Surface-feeding birds |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
| Structure, functions and processes of marine ecosystems: Species | Wading birds |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
| GES description | D1 Birds | D1C2 Species abundance |
The population abundance of the species is not adversely affected due to anthropogenic pressures, such that its long-term viability is ensured. Threshold values established on regional level (HELCOM) |
The good environmental status for D1 is defined, among other things, by the fact that: "... the coastal waters are in good ecological status and the entire coastal marine area is in good chemical status in accordance with the WFD, ... the habitat types of Annex I (LRT 11xx) of the Habitats Directive relevant for the marine area of the Baltic Sea are in a favorable conservation status, ... the species of Annex II of the Habitats Directive relevant for the marine area of the Baltic Sea, as well as species of the Birds Directive relevant for the marine area of the Baltic Sea, are in a favorable conservation state due to the quality of its food habitat, ... the goals of individual species or species group-specific conventions (e.g. ASCOBANS, Jastarnia plan) have been achieved, ... according to HELCOM.
According to Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848, the following criteria are used to assess the good environmental status with regard to D1 birds: D1C1, D1C2, D1C3, D1C4, D1C5. At the moment, an evaluation was only possible for criterion D1C2. Explanation: Germany does not update the general description of the good environmental status of 2012 at descriptor level in this reporting round. During the reporting period, Germany worked with the countries bordering the Baltic Sea as part of the EU's MSFD-CIS process and in HELCOM to develop methodological standards (indicators, evaluation methods). Specific details of criteria and indicators that contribute to a quantitative assessment of good environmental status are reported in the reporting schema Art.8_GES. For the evaluation of the criteria of the Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848, the evaluations according to other EU directives, where relevant, are included under Art.8_GES schema, as far as possible the previously coordinated regional evaluations are taken into account and in individual cases supplemented by national evaluations. |
|||||
| GES description | D1C1 Mortality rate from incidental by-catch |
The mortality of each species due to incidental by-catches is lower than the level that would endanger the species, thus ensuring its long-term viability. The criterion is described by the indicator “By-catches of seabirds in commercial fishing gear”, the GES value is determined - by-catches of wintering seabirds in fishing gear during the observation period are less than 1% of the natural mortality of each adult bird (assessed separately for each species). The status of the indicator was not assessed due to lack of data.
|
Mortality per species from by-catch is below levels that threaten the species in the long term.
|
||||||
| GES description | D1C2 Population abundance (1.2, 1.2.1) |
For more than 75% of breeding seabird species, population size does not fall >30% from the 1991-2000 average. Seabirds are estimated as the average of two indicators.
For more than 75% of wintering seabird species, population size does not fall >30% from the 1991-2000 average. Seabirds are estimated as the average of two indicators. |
Species level: GES is achieved if the abundance of bird species is at least 70% from the baseline value. Species group level: GES is achieved if 75% of the bird species inside the species group have achieved GES. |
Anthropogenic pressures do not adversely affect the population abundance of the species, thus ensuring its long-term viability. The abundance of wintering seabird populations is assessed separately for: 1) water-feeding (pelagic) birds and 2) benthic-feeding birds. Benthic-feeding birds: Bucephala clangula, Melanitta fusca, Clangula hyemalis, Melanitta nigra, Somateria mollissima, Polysticta stelleri. GES values were determined for each type of functional group. When assessing the status of functional groups of seabird species, the proportion (%) of species in the group that were assessed as good was determined. A group of functional seabird species shall be considered to be in good condition if at least 75% of the individual species assessed for that species have been assessed as good.
Anthropogenic pressures do not adversely affect the population abundance of the species, thus ensuring its long-term viability. The abundance of wintering seabird populations is assessed separately for: 1) water-feeding (pelagic) birds and 2) benthic-feeding birds. Pelagic-feeding birds: brown-necked / black-necked diver (Gavia sp.), Eared plover (Podiceps cristatus), great crested grebe (Mergus merganser), medium-backed grebe (Mergus serrator), small grebe (Mergellus albus) GES values were determined for each type of functional group. When assessing the status of functional groups of seabird species, the proportion (%) of species in the group that were assessed as good was determined. A group of functional seabird species shall be considered to be in good condition if at least 75% of the individual species assessed for that species have been assessed as good. |
The population abundance of the species is not adversely affected due to anthropogenic pressures, such that its long-term viability is ensured. Threshold values established on regional level (HELCOM). |
In relation to the population abundance of bird species, the criterion is assessed in good environmental condition, corresponding to a positive assessment of population size under the Article 12 report of the Birds Directive from 2013.
|
D1C2 Populationer av arter av fåglar, däggdjur och fiskar är inte negativt påverkade av belastning från mänsklig verksamhet, och deras långsiktiga överlevnad är säkerställd. God miljöstatus: Fåglar: God miljöstatus: När minst 75 % av arterna inom en artgrupp klarar sina artspecifika tröskelvärden. För varje art bedöms om tröskelvärdet följs. Arterna bedöms inom var och en av de fem artgrupperna (ytfödosök, pelagiskt födosök, bentiskt födosök, betande födosök och vadare). Sälar: God miljöstatus: När tröskelvärdena för alla indikatorer för respektive art under alla relevanta kriterier klaras i bedömningsområdet. Varje art bedöms utifrån det kriterium av D1C2, D1C3 och D1C4 som visar sämst status. Fisk: God miljöstatus: Kustfisk uppnår god miljöstatus när minst 90 % av bedömningsområdena uppnår de artspecifika tröskelvärdena. Demersala och pelagiska arter uppnår god miljöstatus när minst 90 % av arterna i respektive artgrupp uppnår sina artspecifika tröskelvärden. Status bedöms separat för de tre artgrupperna kustfisk, demersal fisk och pelagisk fisk. D1C2 Populations of birds, mammals and fish is not adversely affected due to anthropogenic pressures, and their long-term viability is ensured GES: Birds:When at least 75 % of the species within a species group achieve their species specific threshold values. Seals: GES defined as: When the threshold values for all indicators of each species under relevant criteria are achieved in the assessment area. Each species is assessed on the basis of the criterion of D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 which show the worst status. Fish:Coastal fish species achieve GES when at least 90 % of the assessment areas reach the species specific threshold values. Demersal and pelagic species achieve GES when at least 90 % of the species in each species group achieve their threshold values. Status is assessed separately for the three species groups coasta fish, demersal fish and pelagic fish. |
||
| GES description | D1C3 Population demographic characteristics (1.3, 1.3.1) | The population demographic characteristics (e.g. body size or age class structure, sex ratio, fecundity, and survival rates) of the species are indicative of a healthy population which is not adversely affected due to anthropogenic pressures. Threshold values established on regional level (HELCOM). |
|||||||
| GES description | D1C4 Population distributional range and pattern (1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3) |
In relation to the population distribution of bird species, the criterion is assessed in good environmental condition, corresponding to a positive assessment of breeding area for breeding birds under the Article 12 report of the Birds Directive from 2013. The criterion is not assessed in relation to overwintering birds.
|
|||||||
| GES description | D1C5 Habitat for the species | ||||||||
| Determination date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Update type |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Justification for non-use of criterion | D1C1: Criteria D1C1 is not used for determining GES because there is not enough reliable data about mortality rate per bird, seal and fish species from incidental by-catch. Criteria not applicable for pelagic habitats. D1C2: Not mandatory for fish and not applicable for pelagic habitats. |
D1C1: Information on by-catches of seabirds and mammals in gillnets is not comprehensive in order to properly assess by-catches in Lithuania. There are no known mortality rates for individual species due to incidental by-catches and threshold values that would endanger these species.
|
D1C1: The criterion is not used since there are is a lack of data and appropriate monitoring programs to address the criterion. D1C5: The criterion is not used since there are is a lack of data and appropriate monitoring programs to address the criterion. |
D1.1: Based on current knowledge, bycatch (criterion D1C1) is not relevant for wading and grazing birds.
|
|||||
| Justification for delay in setting EU/regional requirements |
D1C1: The criterion is described by the indicator “By-catches of seabirds in commercial fishing gear”, the GES value is determined - by-catches of wintering seabirds in fishing gear during the observation period are less than 1% of the natural mortality of each adult bird (assessed separately for each species). The status of the indicator was not assessed due to lack of data.
D1C2: The criterion applies to coastal areas, with the exception of two indicators for assessing the abundance of sea trout and salmon. For the high seas, the criterion is hardly used and its values are not determined due to a lack of data. Stocking on the high seas was planned for winter 2019-2020, but due to bad weather and delays in the procurement procedure studies were postponed to winter 2020-2021. The indicator “Breeding seabird abundance” is currently not applicable for national assessment: out of 26 species included in the HELCOM indicator assessment, 16 breed in Lithuania, but their habitats in Lithuania are not related to the marine environment. The latter indicator would be suitable for assessing the abundance of the large cormorant population, but due to the measures taken to regulate the population (grandfathering from interceptions) the assessment would not be accurate. The mammal indicator (Population abundance) has not been assessed as there are no seal colonies in Lithuanian marine waters which need to be monitored according to the HELCOM methodology. |
D1.1: The regional cooperation during the reporting period focused on the development of methodological standards for the assessment of the various pollution and condition aspects based on Commission Decision 2010/477/EU. Some of the indicators require further development or are still in the test phase. Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 for the first time implies an explicit commitment by EU Member States to agree on evaluation elements, thresholds and integration rules in the framework of the EU MSFD-CIS process and through regional or subregional cooperation. Germany is actively working with the countries bordering the Baltic Sea in the framework of the ongoing work programmes of the EU MSFD-CIS process and the HELCOM bodies in their establishment, where a concerted determination is still missing. So far only the criteria D1C2 could be evaluated for the seabirds via the corresponding HELCOM indicator and national supplements.
|
D1C1: No mortality threshold per species has yet been set as a result of incidental by-catch at regional level. Only for porpoises is the by-catch threshold used by Marine Strategy I.
D1C2: Thresholds are set for several of the HELCOM species groups and for certain OSPAR groups. However, for most species, the thresholds must be in accordance with favourable reference population values established by the Member State under Directive 92/43/EEC. As these values do not correspond to those determined regionally, the assessment carried out under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and Article 12 of the Birds Directive is used where possible. D1C4: There are no threshold values but only trends for birds. For marine mammals, the state assessment for Article 17 of the Habitats Directive is reproduced. |
D1C5: All Swedish determinations of GES are implemented in a regulation (HVMFS 2012:18) issued from the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. From the update made in 2018 only criteria supported with at least one indicator are included in the regulation. Furthermore, only indicators underpinned with a regular monitoring programme are included. The assessment of D1C5 is dependent on the relevant assessment under habitats directive but thresholds must be modified in order to fit the scope of MSFD, this could not be done so far due to lack of knowledge about the condition of relevant habitats. |