Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D1-P / Baltic
Report type | Member State report to Commission |
MSFD Article | Art. 8 Initial assessment (and Art. 17 updates) |
Report due | 2018-10-15 |
GES Descriptor | D1 Pelagic habitats |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Features | Habitats |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Element | Variable salinity |
|
|||||||
Element | Coastal |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Element | Shelf |
|
|
||||||
Element | Chlorophyll-a |
|
|||||||
Element | Cyanobacterial bloom index: Cyanobacterial biomass+cyanobacteria surface accumulations |
|
|||||||
Element | Diatoms/Dinofflagelates biomass ratio |
|
|||||||
Element | Phytoplankton |
|
|
||||||
Element | Zooplankton Mean Size and Total Stock |
|
|
||||||
Element | diatoms/dinofflagelates biomass ratio |
|
|||||||
Element2 | |||||||||
Element sources | No. of elements per level |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criteria and parameters used (number of parameters) | D1 Pelagic habitats | ||||||||
Criteria and parameters used (number of parameters) | D1C6 Pelagic habitat condition (1.5.2, 1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Threshold values | % of parameters with values (no. of parameters) | 31% (5) |
85% (12) |
96% (28) |
36% (11) |
0% (0) |
52% (10) |
||
Threshold value sources | D1 Pelagic habitats | ||||||||
Threshold value sources | D1C6 Pelagic habitat condition (1.5.2, 1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Value achieved upper | % of parameters with values (no. of parameters) | 31% (5) |
85% (12) |
100% (29) |
36% (11) |
0% (0) |
52% (10) |
||
Value achieved lower | % of parameters with values (no. of parameters) | 0% (0) |
0% (0) |
0% (0) |
0% (0) |
0% (0) |
0% (0) |
||
Value unit/Value unit other (count of use per criterion) | D1 Pelagic habitats | ||||||||
Value unit/Value unit other (count of use per criterion) | D1C6 Pelagic habitat condition (1.5.2, 1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Proportion threshold values | Range of % values (no. of parameters) | Range: 100-100% (29 of 29 parameters) |
Range: 100-100% (1 of 30 parameters) |
||||||
Proportion values achieved | Range of % values (no. of parameters) | Range: 100-100% (29 of 29 parameters) |
Range: 14-47% (3 of 30 parameters) |
||||||
Proportion threshold value units | % area of habitat achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
|||||||
Trends | No. of trends per category |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Parameters achieved | No. of parameters per category |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Related indicators |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Criteria status | No. of criteria per category |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Element status | No. of elements per category |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Integration rule type for parameters | OOAO (10 or 100.0%) |
NHIE_NWEI (6 or 42.9%) Not relevant (6 or 42.9%) OOAO (2 or 14.3%) |
Not relevant (1 or 100.0%) |
HIE_WEI (10 or 34.5%) Not relevant (19 or 65.5%) |
Not relevant (15 or 50.0%) OTH (15 or 50.0%) |
Not relevant (28 or 100.0%) |
|||
Integration rule description for parameters | Interim integration rule has been applied. No integration rule has been agreed, but all the indicators indicate poor state and hence an overall status can be assumed.. No integration rule has been agreed, but both the indicators indicate poor state and hence an overall status can be assumed. |
Achieved values of indices: HELCOM-Dia/Dino, HELCOM-CyaBI and HELCOM-Chl_a were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/ ). The weighted averaging was applied to normalized values with the following weight coefficients: 0.4 (HELCOM-Dia/Dino), 0.4 (HELCOM-Chl_a) and 0.2 (HELCOM-CyaBI) providing BQRs.The resulting BQRs (biological quality ratios) were compared with the threshold value of 0.6 indicating good environmental status. Achieved values of indices: HELCOM-Dia/Dino, HELCOM-CyaBI and HELCOM-Chl_a were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). The weighted averaging was applied to normalized values with the following weight coefficients: 0.4 (HELCOM-Dia/Dino), 0.4 (HELCOM-Chl_a) and 0.2 (HELCOM-CyaBI) providing BQRs.The resulting BQRs (biological quality ratios) were compared with the threshold value of 0.6 indicating good environmental status. Achieved values of indices: HELCOM-MSTS, HELCOM-Dia/Dino, HELCOM-CyaBI and HELCOM-Chl_a were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). The weighted averaging was applied to normalized values with the following weight coefficients: 0.3 (HELCOM-MSTS), 0.3 (HELCOM-Dia/Dino), 0.3 (HELCOM-Chl_a) and 0.1 (HELCOM-CyaBI) providing BQRs.The resulting BQRs (biological quality ratios) were compared with the threshold value of 0.6 indicating good environmental status. |
For each of the criteria used, other specific integration rules have been used for the parameters used.
|
No integration with other indicators could be done because of lack of quantitative thresholds for some indicators |
|||||
Integration rule type for criteria | OOAO (14 or 100.0%) |
Not relevant (1 or 100.0%) |
Not relevant (29 or 100.0%) |
Not relevant (15 or 50.0%) OOAO (15 or 50.0%) |
OTH (2 or 100.0%) |
Not relevant (28 or 100.0%) |
|||
Integration rule description for criteria | No integration rule has been agreed. |
Criteria D5C2 and D1C6 have been aggregated in accordance with the one-stop out principle.
Criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D1C6 have been aggregated in accordance with the one-stop out principle. For the assessment of the overall assessment of the German Baltic coastal waters of the 1 nm zone, the aggregated assessments of each coastal water body of water have been aggregated. For the overall assessment of the German Baltic Sea waters, the overall assessments of the individual open sea MRU (HELCOM basin) and the coastal waters (1 nautical mile zone) were aggregated. No integrated assessment is carried out at this level of aggregation of the aggregated coastal waters water body as the MSFD assessment of the German Baltic Sea waters (a) is carried out on an aggregated basis for all coastal waters on the basis of the WFD assessment of the individual bodies of water (body of water bodies, HELCOM level 4) and b) (see BALDEE_CW). |
No integration rule has been applied. |
No integration with other indicators could be done because of lack of quantitative thresholds for some indicators No method is available for quantitative assessment of good environmental status at criteria level. |
|||||
GES extent threshold |
|
||||||||
GES extent achieved |
|
||||||||
GES extent unit |
|
||||||||
GES achieved | Pelagic broad habitats |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assessment period | 2011-2016 (16 or 100.0%) |
2011-2016 (14 or 100.0%) |
2011-2016 (1 or 100.0%) |
2011-2016 (29 or 100.0%) |
2006-2014 (5 or 16.7%) 2007-2012 (10 or 33.3%) 2011-2016 (15 or 50.0%) |
1988-2016 (2 or 100.0%) |
2011-2016 (28 or 100.0%) |
||
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Related targets | 3 |
1 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
9 |